User talk:Bishonen

• Hehehe. Thank you very much, MONGO. That's what I call full protection. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. See my comments on my talk page. I am too tired to discuss this at length - it has been going on too long. But thanks for your observations. Deb (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hedonic treadmill. Haba habba zut zut, eva hoba zat zat, aha hülepa hülepa hanam nam Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't there a version (like, the original version) with ants? Very military ants? Disney? Obviously, you don't find Disney on YouTube or much of anywhere on the internet, but… or am I confusing it with some other military ants? Bishonen | talk 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ants?? It is Caramba! Recordeli pour Studio Garage De Garbage. Hafspajen (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No Bishzilla, don't eat dog. Bishzilla skate with dog, graciously. Hafspajen (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm engaged in a discussion about a suggestion on Swedish Wikipedia to mark references in translated articles as being taken from somewhere else. The jist of it is that several Swedish users are arguing that if translators of articles haven't checked the refs for themselves, those refs should be marked as "translated". On suggestion is to add a comment to notes along the lines of "based on a source given at article 'Foo bar' on English/Chinese/whatever Wikipedia". I find the suggestion odd to say the least.

Would you (any passers-by are more than welcome to comment) like to share any thoughts on this? Is this a good idea or not?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like straining at gnats and swallowing camels. I mean, the quality of referencing in general on sv.wiki isn't so great.. not that I mean to boast of the referencing here on en, indeed (don't get me started), but at least we have a careful vetting process for Featured articles (leading to incredible referencing pedantry, but then similar pedantry is surely somewhat what the suggestion to mark translated references as special (as.. inferior?) is in aid of, isn't it?) There's nothing like that for Utmärkta artiklar, unless the process has changed a lot since I last looked. And also, as I saw you arguing at sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Källhänvisningar#Praxis vad gäller ursprungskällor vid översättningar från andra wikipedior, why would the references added by a furriner be any worse? Is this the Hederlig Svensk contempt of the morals of the rest of the world rearing its ugly head? Plus, the idea of referencing is that it's supposed to be transparent. That anybody can check. But I hope you don't want me to weigh in at the discussion, because I can't face it. I don't know why it is, but trying to discuss stuff on sv has always felt like I'm shouting into a high wind. It's like everybody else is more interested in winning than I am. Or it could be just that I'm (ridiculously, I know) not any too used to writing in my mother tongue. On the third hand, it's just struck me I hate contributing to discussions altogether.. I tend to put everything I've got into my first post, if any, because I can't stand the thought of making a second. Oh god, date linking..[1] Now I'm depressed. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ask you to weigh in? Lord no, Bish. They'd likely just accuse me of trying to call in the cavalry of unruly English-speaking tramsmobbare trying to likrikta all of Wikipeia to the tune of Amerika-dominated tyranny.

Just looked for some external input and/or sanity checks. :-)

Peter ^Isotalo 10:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's weird. If the article is a translation, of course the refs are translations as well. You might be interested in Human trafficking in Argentina, which I translated from the Spanish. I put the original quotations in Spanish, with my own translations next to them, to avoid any copyright issues. The format sacrifices some smoothness for comprehensibility, but all in all, I think it works out all right. There is a template on the talk page, that says simply, "This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Trata de personas en Argentina from the Spanish Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors." --which is the standard translation template for en.wp that I dug out of a policy somewhere, I don't have a separate Amerika-tyranny template. —Neotarf (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Bish, you care to say something inspiring and/or whimsical to inspire me to keep pushing for sanity?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to encourage those conscientious little Dutch boys such as yourself to keep plugging that dike. If it doesn't help it doesn't help; I would have given up much sooner. Remember it's a hobby, Peter, it's supposed to be fun, and you're not responsible for the place. Wikipedia is not your mother is usually spoken in the sense that the 'pedia doesn't love you and won't take care of you, but it's also true in the sense that it's not your ailing mother that you have to take care of. (It's just ailing, that's all.) Did you see my new edit notice? Step away from that dike and click on the link on the left and get your daily affirmation instead. Nobody deserves the compliments and flower bouquets better than you do! Bishonen | talk 16:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, that actually helped. You rule, Bish, as always.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this thread [2] would very much benefit from prompt attention by an admin. Accordingly, I am posting this message on here - I shall do the same for other admins who appear to be currently online. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bishonen, it's been awhile. I guess I'll need an ICBM.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)sarcasm of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Responded on ANI. Andy, in my honest opinion, you'd better go for a walk. It's a delightful spring afternoon here, and hopefully there, too. Have an icecream in the park. (I'm not even sure we do have a policy against the use of firearms in dispute resolution.) Bishonen | talk 17:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I am not sure I understand this. [3] Hafspajen (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this to be a far better analysis. Jimbo came close to getting it right, but hasn't quite grasped that we have WP:MEDRS, which requires secondary sources for medical claims. Demanding good-quality sources (not just anything published in a "scientific journal") is a big help in keeping the POV-pushers away. P.S. If you're interested in the issue, you can come and help me tidy the worst bits out of Acupuncture. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool link, Rex. I'm saving a couple of fine words that were new to me (being a non-native speaker and all) in Bishzilla's pocket for future use: quackademic, woo-ful (or should it be woo-woo-ful?). And just a couple of clicks away was the great zombie Hitler, also a new acquaintance. I'm thinking of releasing the creature on ANI for April 1. And thank you very much for the fixie dust at the Blondin Award template! Bishonen | talk 22:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Where is your difficulty: in the headline, Wales’s comment, or elsewhere in the story? (All contain idiomatic expressions, colloquial or journalistic, that I can imagine seeming opaque to a non-native speaker.) The gist of the piece is that Jimbo made dismissive remarks off-wiki about a petition that sought to make WP more inclusive of “alternative” or “holistic” theories & therapies that are regarded as unproven or “fringe” by the mainstream scientific & medical literature.—Odysseus1479 21:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Hafspajen (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting the last PROD in Proposed deletion as of 22 March 2014 JMHamo (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A true pleasure. Though I enjoy deleting advertising even more. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've nominated many this year... See you around JMHamo (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a revert limitation per the discretionary sanctions atWikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups would be useful now, especially as he simply ignored my notification of sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, god, really? Every time I try to read up on the conditions for issuing discretionary sanctions, I decide that it's simply too bureaucratic. Yes, I realise DS are supposed to make it easier to prevent disruption.. yeah. The day I get into them will have to be a day I feel madly energetic. Sorry, Doug. Don't you think an ordinary revert warring block like I just gave him will tell him something? If he hits the ground running when he returns, there will be longer blocks pretty quickly. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Actually I think you are right at the oment. But I think next time DS should apply given a block for edit-warring. It's bureaucratic but sometimes it's about the only thing that will work. What I like is the ability to place sanctions on articles to limit reverts, but I don't think that is often possible. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/29/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know I had done it, really. (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, but really? I hope that doesn't mean somebody else has access to your password. If you were merely editing in your sleep, don't worry too much, it happens. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Is it OK for another user, in this case user Klopsikon to remove a legitimate comment of mine like he has done at Donetsk People's Republic talk page?--BabbaQ (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about this comment which was immediately reverted. The "immediate" is a bit strange—perhaps there is some innocent explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John makes a good point. If two people edit simultaneously, clicking "save" in the same second, the edit conflict feature sometimes won't work. (Happened to me yesterday.) That said, it's a little unexpected that Klopsikon didn't add anything in their edit. But I'm assuming good faith, and have commented on their page. Any reason you haven't restored your comment, Babba? Bishonen | talk 09:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

A cake for the winner Hafspajen (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• [/Me staggers off, bloated, deploying her insulin pump.] Appreciate it. Burp. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Naghmehetaati, who you blocked because they were posting comments in Persian and not answering inquiries on their talk page, is back as User:Naghmehetaati 13. Someone opened an SPI, but I don't think it's really necessary. BMK (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell no. Blocked, and I've commented at the SPI. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. BMK (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would request your immediate attention to this diff and the user making it. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NBSB. Sorry I wasn't around, but it seems it did get immediate attention, by FreeRangeFrog. It took me a little time to read up, but I have now, as a completely uninvolved admin, declined the unblock request. Looking forward to having somebody tell me they know where my children go to school! Bishonen | talk 20:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bish, as proven by this diff, where he/she accidentally posted as an IP because of being being automatically logged out due to the Heartbleed bug, there's a clear and definite connection between Finnedi (Finnedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked for 24h the other day for edit-warring on both Kvenland and King of Kvenland and an IP who was blocked a couple of times last year for the exact same kind of edit-warring on King of Kvenland and Ancient kings of Finland. Which might be of some interest when metering out the length of the next block. Finnedi has filed a case at the Dispute Resolution Board BTW, a case that is a bit chaotic, but might never the less be interesting reading. The most interesting part of that discussion is IMHO that Finnedi brought up the name RasboKaren, a user who was blocked in 2012 for similar POV/fringe-pushing. A user name and user talk page that Finnedi couldn't possibly have found by chance since it happened about a year and a half ago, a full year before user Finnedi was created, and about 10,000 edits ago for me. But then Finnedi and RasboKaren seem to have both the same interests, the same edit-warring habits and the same style when writing edit summaries, so maybe they know each other (or whatever...). I enjoy looking at the pictures of cakes you add BTW, with the picture of 27 "småbakelser" being pure porn. Greetings, Tom Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Dear talkpage stalkers, here's an explanation of the heartbleed bug that even I can understand: [4].) Good catch, Thomas. But RasboKaren edited Rurik dynasty and similar; not quite the same interest, is it? Or is it? I realize they're in the same ballpark, but Finnedi's editing interests seem quite narrow. (Addition: No, I see he has just branched out into Talk: Rus' people. Noted.) Anyway, it's very interesting about the IP, I'll certainly keep it in mind, even though the disruptive IP editing was too long ago to specifically affect block lengths now IMO. OK, you leave my 27 småbakelser alone, no nibbling! It was the highly cake-conscious Hafspajen that added them, but now they're mine! Mine! Bishonen | talk 14:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, they are yours, Bishy. Is Tom stealing your cookies? (there are nowadays 98 pics as far as I have counted them - left out fruits and coffee) Hafspajen (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Obsessively:] But are there still 27 stücke on the Bunter Teller? They're all mine! My preciousss! Bishonen | talk 15:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Oh geez, I just looked at that image. It took everything I had not to drool all over my keyboard. Risker (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::Wuooah, stop this preciuos thing. It reminds me of that terrible guy in the movie whispering around. Only Germans may use that, because they never watch English movies, and don't get it. Well, they do but they are dubbed. Dubbing (filmmaking) Darling. Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has now also branched out to Talk:Vikings, testing the ground for claiming that the Vikings weren't Swedes or other Scandinavians. Which reminds me of yet another Finnish fringe-pusher that I have encountered here on WP. Unfortunately I can't recall the user name of that one... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Thomas, this is probably what you're thinking of ... Finnedi took it to dispute resolution, and I have a lot of respect for the volunteers there, so I've been trying to follow the rules. However, there's some additional background. The IP that Finnedi edited from was one of those that last autumn were pushing a POV derived from Kalevi Wiik at Runes and Sitones, as well as at Ancient kings of Finland. (I believe I came in based on the Runes and Talk:Runes edits, but I wound up rewriting Sitones and apparently I should rewrite Kvenland too.) You can see characteristic edit summaries in those articles in that IP's contributions. That conflict escalated into open bigotry at Talk:Runes and at my user talk page, where 117 IPs signing "amanbir" got quite rude. I wound up starting a ban discussion, and Amanbir is banned. (And that episode is why I have King of Kvenland and St. Paul's School, Darjeeling on my watchlist.) Finnedi hasn't walked far along that path, and the 91 IP could well be shared - such as a university - but there is some overlap in the content of their edits and those of the 117 IPs, as well as in some of the edit summaries. I also feel really sorry for Thomas.W; some terrible things said to him and about him. However. It's at Dispute Resolution, and I hope that works. And I don't think Finnedi is Amanbir; I think this is really "about" Kalevi Wiik's theory and that we have multiple adherents pushing it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finnedi has now brought the matter to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, but since he failed to notify any of the people he named in his complaint, as he should have, I'm doing it for him. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thomas. I'll be there. Mentioning me as an opponent (and a Swedish opponent! The nerve!) on pages I haven't even read, let alone fucking edited, is beyond the pale, even for that user, so I'll have to rein myself in to sound like a proper butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth admin. I saw he did it at the dispute resolution too (collapsed by Guy Macon before I had time to respond). Excuse me while I just open the fridge and ring the bell for the Saturday class, and have my own cake breakfast. This one and one of these, I think, with a pot of apple and cinnamon tea. Bishonen | talk 09:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ahem. The drinks? The pot of apple and cinnamon tea+ Didn't got any tea... Hafspajen (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 16:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticed this....hold me back Bishzilla...MONGO about to go bonkers.--MONGO 17:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishzilla pat bonkers little MONGO soothingly on the head.] Oops… seemingly pat too swiftly? Lorenz contraction reduce little MONGO to disk? [Zilla stuff squashed-flat little user in pocket for rest and recuperation, and re-expansion.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to apologize for this review and the possible redundancy for applying more sources to the articles. From reading the comments in the FAR, I'm now questioning the issues I've brought up. I'm not fully sure what to do with it at this point. GamerPro64 03:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Naghmehetaati 14 — a new one today, with the same edits. Their stuff is sure getting old now If you're unable to, would a kind admin-tps of yours, please block?—MelbourneStar☆^talk 17:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Already blocked by Dougweller. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, another one: Naghmehetaati 15 —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You see how they get dealt with when you post here, without me having to do any work.:-) (Not that it takes more than two seconds, admittedly.) But I'm thinking of posting a query on WP:ANI or somewhere about preemptively blocking any and all coming siblings. There are clever filters, I understand. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

And done. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Haha thanks for that. The fact that they have the time of day to write those wall of texts, in conjunction with making new accounts (with not so new names) certainly says a lot. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since neither you nor me was notified by Finnedi I'm notifying you. Finnedi has now taken his case to ANI, calling for a block on me. Before doing that he repeatedly copy-pasted totally unwarranted/frivolous user warnings on my talk page, copied from his own talk page, which I first saw as mere vandalism out of frustration, but when I saw that he had opened a case on ANI I realised that he wanted to make me look bad, by having warnings all over my talk page...

Please don't respond to him any more on ANI, Thomas, the admins can read. You've done well so far, and no more is needed. Do the dignified silence, like "your errand boy Bishonen." (I did think of posting a haughty "I'm an errand girl, if you don't mind", but nah, never mind.) Sit back and watch the show. Ah... now he's disdaining Black Kite. "You are not an admin". Good one. :-) Bishonen | talk 20:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have no plans to post in that thread again, 'cos I've said all that needs to be said. All I'm going to do now is sit back, sip some Laphroaig, and enjoy the show. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw, after I checked his contributions. Quite a display he puts on. I have really tried to appreciate his point of view :-( I wonder why he doesn't name me this time? Anyway, I got my taxes filed and I hope I helped save the article on the Icelandic professor, so ... maybe this week I can get to the Finnish train crash as well as rewriting Kvenland? That would be nice ... Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like falling out of a 100 foot clue tree, and missing every branch. Literally everything he said was uniquely wrong. Almost comical, in a sad kind of way. And I always pegged Bish as a woman, not a girl. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I find myself wondering how many branches a 100 foot clue tree has, but, as usual, this so-called "encyclopedia" is useless: Clue tree. Lame. I always pegged Bish as a Wikipedian. Whether that is a compliment or insult I leave as an exercise for the reader ... NE Ent 02:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have to know where to look Ent: The Clue tree (lignum filo) is a deciduous tree that is said to impart wisdom upon those that fall out of the top and strike the many clue branches on the way down. A person that falls the entire distance without striking a single branch is said to be clueless or incapable of clue. The individual branches are often harvested to create clue sticks, which can be used to beat some clue into a person without the need of climbing the entire tree." Need to start WP:Clue tree with that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would MFD it and want to redirect it to WP:AGF. NE Ent 14:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia used to have a sense of humor. I miss that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, one is gone, you find an other soon enough. Dennis found a new one already. Hafspajen (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, yeah, but wouldn't there's be something faintly improper-sounding about "ThomasW's errand woman"? Hafspajen , I think I know what you mean, but it's not exactly a similar case. On that, why did you post a Welcome template to a user who's been editing since 2011? That's unlikely to be well received. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I'm sure Her Ladyship knows best. —Neotarf (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, because I'm an idiot perhaps. The jury is still out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to know 'is been editing since 2011? And the guy acts like has no idea how things work... and said he didn't knew? And now starts cursing to people. Fuck of to Dennis and piss of to Drmies and .. What since since 2011? Hafspajen (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it Hafspajen. It's all good. It's a beautiful day today. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Being told to "fuck off" really doesn't phase me, like water off a duck's back. I usually just ignore stuff like that as if it didn't happen and stick to the merits of the discussion. My ego may be large, but it isn't fed at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You two are admirably untouched, for some reason, and I am glad, for your emotional balance sake, but sincerely it is extremely bad manners. Are we on our way to became Swedish? No pillar 5, no nothing? This is not going to stop here, and the next person might not take that easy as you. Hafspajen (talk)

• If it is just once or twice, it usually easier to just ignore it. Often they will get the point and stay on topic, which is the goal. Or if they continue, someone will walk up and block them, as they obviously were not provoked. Either way, there is closure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they obviously were not provoked. But nobody seems to tell then WP:POLITE;..., or? Hafspajen (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes you have to warn someone to dial it back, but generally, if you have to tell someone to be polite, you are casting pearls before swine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re clue and cluelessness: if you think the user who fell out of the clue tree at ANI is exceptionally clueless, I suppose you don't follow caste articles much. Check out this guy, a gem for the Sitush complaint generator.[5] Bishonen | talk 08:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • I want to be an anthropologer when I grow up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to be one of Sitush's pack of dogs. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      • MONGO's overkill and never heeded advice is to assume that some people can't be fixed with a cluebat...best thing is to hit them fast and loud with something like a MOAB or similar.--MONGO the Sociopath Monster 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here feel like blocking a very loudly quacking sock that Finnedi just created? Compare this edit repeatedly made by indeffed user Finnedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see above) to this edit just made, as their very first edit, by Finnhaithen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thomas.W ^talk 18:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as obvious block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much for my assumption of good faith. I'll bop hir when I get home from work if no one else has. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New very loudly quacking Finnedi sock to block: Nuutinpoika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See user's contributions. An SPI was opened by Bishonen this morning (European time), but they're backlogged so someone needs to step in. Thomas.W ^talk 14:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect took care of it. Thomas.W ^talk 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I have so noted at the SPI I opened. It wasn't really obvious IMO after the first edit, but now it sure is. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It didn't take Finnedi long to start again, this time as NuuttisSon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same name as Nuutinpoika but with the Finnish word "poika" changed to the Swedish equivalent "son", with the same meaning as "son" in English). Thomas.W ^talk 16:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history of this page, Thomas. :-) Deny attention. I've just blocked the IP for six months, let's hope that puts a crimp in their activities. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

During his most active phase almost a year ago he used at least one open proxy (in Moldova), which was then given a long block. So it wouldn't surprise me if we'll see him doing that again. He has also used mobile phone networks... Thomas.W ^talk 16:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's stop feeding. Editing my own page doesn't look like they're motivated by any interest in the subject, but purely in it for the attention. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please block [6]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just blocked another at ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finnedi's latest sock: Thommi.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thomas.W ^talk 16:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Neil above, Thomas. Yngvadottir got it. I hate it when that happens. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm getting slow. Probably because I've been using a small laptop these last few days, with a tiny little keyboard instead of the big desktop keyboard I'm used to. So I have to look at the tiny little keyes on the tiny little keyboard the whole time when typing... Thomas.W ^talk 16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on new user account Bishoska (talk · contribs), even though it hasn't edited yet. According to the user creation log it was created a few minutes after Thommi.W was blocked, just like Thommi.W was created just a few minutes after NuuttisSon was blocked. Thomas.W ^talk 17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishoska has edited now, and my intuition was right, it was a Finnedi sock. And got what it deserved, an indefinite block... Thomas.W ^talk 17:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. So these are some kind of pseudo-impersonation usernames; I didn't think a username like that would be coincidence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I now have 2, after he got the patronymic wrong the first time. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: You've actually got three, but the latest one, BryngdisYngvabay (talk · contribs), was blocked before he had time to use it. Thomas.W ^talk 19:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha, Bishoska's probably just Darwinbish's sock. :-D Poor little Bishoska. Yes, I see I've been visited by yours, Yngvadottir. I appreciate Ponyo's semi, though I'm concerned it may give the person a false sense of importance. Pity my IP block didn't do any good, though. You're probably right about the open proxies and mobile phones, Thomas. Yngvababy would be a nice sock for you yourself, Yngvadottir! Bishonen | talk 19:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Finnedi has probably realised that he was too predictable, because the latest sock was named Hán-Nôm (talk · contribs). Thomas.W ^talk 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if I should take that personally. The Hán-Nôm article and associated topics is the stomping ground for my "favorite" banned user, one Mr. Kauffner. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The latest sock is ThomasFavonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Who's gonna whack him? Thomas.W ^talk 19:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. But let me know if you'd like your page semi'd, Thomas. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Favonian is fast :-) I stopped updating the sockpuppet investigation a while back; it should probably be caught up, although the number of updates is already starting to look a bit silly. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, Bish, but Favonian took care of it before I had a chance to read your talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Starting to look a bit silly": yes, Yngvadottir, it is. Maybe we can update them in batches once a day or so. Or simply post some general statement that they are as the sands of the sea and the grasses of the prairie. Does anybody really care about having a record of obvious and instantly blocked socks? I think I'll just go say so at the SPI. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

He's at it again today, including once more at AN/I. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the second batch of socks today. A handful of socks were blocked around noon today CET, probably during his lunch hour, and then a few more now in the evening. And another handful were blocked just before I went to bed last night. Thomas.W ^talk 21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sail ho, matey!

You're invited to comment on the FAC of the article on Kronan.

And that goes for anyone else skulking around this talkpage. Go on. Do your worst!

Peter ^Isotalo 15:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep away, you hear? Apparently it was "one of the poorest FAC candidates ... for years". Ouch. :(

Peter ^Isotalo 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably some back story to this little battle about Alison. You probably know about it, but I'm in the dark, as usual. I'm also about to go off-wiki, so if you want to act ... Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. See [7] and [8]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've also blocked 117.200.29.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Do you think 117.213.165.111 is the same, too? Bishonen | talk 09:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Guess what, he retired again. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I guess 117.213.165.111 is the same. I've undome a long series of edits at Telugu caste. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. I suspect the user doesn't have enough clue to be deliberately using IPs to evade his topic ban, since he violated the ban concurrently, and just as cheerfully, from his account. He hasn't used IPs while blocked as far as I've seen. But probably he'll learn. The sad fact is that we educate them to disrupt more efficiently. Have some beans, little caste warriors. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There is also 117.200.20.68. A bit of semi might be needed before too long. That one is still pushing the Raju kshatriya agenda at Dharmadhyaksha's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'll try to keep an eye on Raju and Telugu castes, but please drop me a line if they should go nuclear without me noticing. I love Dharmadhyaksha's comment to the IP, "Am sure you have met User:Sitush, which could be one of the many reasons why you are not a registered user anymore". Hehehehe. How unpleasant to meet Mr Eliot! Bishonen | talk 19:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, Dharmadhyaksha's comment will be right, however one chooses to read it. It is sufficiently ambiguous that it might be seen as complimentary or deprecatory of me, and I guess that I have both driven off some people and encouraged others. Nice one, Animesh! - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was complimentary. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your message on my talk page. I will defer to your judgement, and I apologise if I have misconstrued our policies. In answer to your question, the second part of this edit summary was a reference to redaction criteria 3 of the revision deletion policy. I am sorry if I have misunderstood the scope of that policy. James500 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding graciously. I knew I'd seen (part of) your edit summary somewhere, but you did misunderstand the scope of WP:REVDEL. It's an instruction page for administrators, and not really very relevant for your purposes. Revision deletion is something else than ordinary "redaction", and the criteria are also phrased in a rather abbreviated way without as much hedging and instruction creep as most policies. "Purely disruptive content" is meant as a very strong phrase; it doesn't refer to a mere bit of heated/rude back-and-forth on a discussion page. If I gave you an example of the kinds of things it does refer to, I'd have to wash my mouth out with soap afterwards. :-) Bishonen | talk 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) Nah - he indicated WP:NPA #Removal of text (i.e. section 4.3). The criterion is "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."

The thing is, James, what you might think are "clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack" are often seen by others as part of the rough-and-tumble of lively debate. So for the avoidance of doubt, it's best to let somebody else be the judge - if it really is a sufficiently unpleasant personal attack, somebody else will remove it for you. On the other hand, if you prefer the debating style of an Edwardian drawing room, I can recommend hanging out at User talk:The Lady Catherine de Burgh. HTH --T-RexxS (rawr)

@RexxS: "The debating style of an Edwardian drawing-room" is, I suspect, what the civility police desire. But all it not what it seems: some of the choicest insults I've ever read came from frequenters of such places and, of course, a stylised insult is often euphemised (is that a word?) as "wit". I was once good at that but now, alas, tend more towards the cantankerous. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... which for some reason probably not unconnected with having just consumed three pints of mild, leads me to a piece of doggerel who author remains unknown to me: "In my dotage, I've become inert, defunct, inane/Oh, to be last yesteryear! Ert, funct, and ane again." Beer obviously doesn't affect my memory, just my sense ;) - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, I am not a member of the civility police, if that is what you are suggesting. James500 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. Mine was a generalised comment and no offence was intended. Believe me, if I want to offend someone then I'd name them - I'm not backward about coming forward! - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TParis would like outside admin to review. Barek is apparently out. No point in rehashing. Here is discussion [9]. Input or action would be helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bish. Could you please take a look at the contributions of Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs)? A user who seems to have totally lost it, issuing totally unwarranted warnings to both User:Guy Macon and me, obviously without knowing what "inappropriate edit summaries", "vandalism" or anything else is... Thomas.W ^talk 10:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thomas.W, you seem to be unaware of WP:HARRASS, among other things. You're this close to being reported yourself, just so you know. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogmaticeclectic: Get real, dude. And read WP:BOOMERANG before even thinking about reporting anyone anywhere. Thomas.W ^talk 10:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I sleep long enough, all the hard work gets done by somebody else. That's my idea of a collaborative project. Would somebody else like to review DHeyward's problem above, too, while I have breakfast in bed for a few hours? Bishonen | talk 10:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Howdy Bish, I have a small gift for you: it's here. It's still a draft and I'm sure it can be improved; so, feel free to tweak it, if you wish. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this to Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Not sure if these can be edited on the fly--perhaps in the edit window? If there is some way they can be adapted for other topic areas, perhaps that information should be added to the page as well. —Neotarf (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Bishonen. I didn't realize I was making a baseless accusation. That's how I felt, so I'm sorry if it was seen as disruptive. If you want to punish me, then I'll accept it. I'm at your mercy now. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to punish you. Just please remember the three choices I gave you, and happy editing. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for keeping an eye on this. --IIIraute (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naghme etaaty — a change of username; but not a change of edits. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, star, thanks for the alert. I've blocked the sock and told Mr. Stradivarius about it. Mr. S has created a filter for blocking the same-name socks, and has already once tweaked it to filter almost-same-name socks, compare this. If you should see further socks, please take it straight to him. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Srinivasan107 (talk · contribs). I'm off out but they are being reverted by multiple people across multiple articles and talk pages and it has been going on for days now. The warnings on their talk page are the tip of the iceberg. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did I tell you, my job gets done if only I'm lazy enough and don't log on. Thank you, Ed. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, thank you for that, Ed. you admins are like buses: none for ages and then several turn up at once. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Metaphor of the week, very apt. You should have sen three of the big blue double-length concertina-articulated Number 4 buses come trundling into Hornstull today after half an hour's wait. Like circus elephants walking in tight formation through the streets. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"Bendy buses" is the colloquial term for those things in the UK. I travel almost daily through a section of road where they are nothing but a nuisance, adding many minutes of time and countless grams of nasty fuel emissions from the other vehicles waiting behind them while carrying far less passengers than the vehicles that they impede. All of this because the road simply isn't wide enough to accommodate the things and keep other traffic moving. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a "bendy admin" but it is an intriguing thought!

As for the photo, I'd need to zoom in but I'm pretty sure that my many detractors would say that I'm the heap of dung behind one of those animals ;) And it is an odd thing that I cannot explain but I always feel sad when I see an elephant - bizarre or what? I can remember crying my eyes out as a kid when I saw them at Belle Vue in the 1960s but even film of them in their natural habitat often gives me the willies now. Some sort of anthropomorphic issue, I guess, but I'm off to have a good old weep. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today is Friday. Hafspajen (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The summer holidays have started early this year, see [10]. The Saturday class in cake appreciation will shortly be replaced by Bishonen's Fat Camp. But I'll put out the tea and coffe selection, you can have some of that every day. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

AAaaaah. Hafspajen (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Fat Camp? It brings these images to mind: #1 and #2. Thomas.W ^talk 19:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, why did you do this to us? GR. AWWW, how terrible. You are a naughty boy. I have to start thinking about nice things like roses, asap. And I need the decor to feel home and get distracted, Bishy. Otherwise it doesn't fell like a home. Hafspajen (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little user miss décor! [Bishzilla is pleased and flattered. Immediately undoes Bishonen's busybody collapse.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

at these posts [11][12], and give an opinion as to whether making such posts to someone who has already voted in an RfC, with the apparent objective of getting them to alter their !vote, might be considered canvassing? Given the circumstances, I'd appreciate an uninvolved viewpoint on this, as I'm obviously not in the best position to make an objective judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to take a better look at the RfC before I form a definite opinion, Andy. (Woe is me, I thought I was going to get away with not reading anything about that case.) I'll get back to you, but my instinct is to ignore it. Does it in your opinion do actual harm? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

'Actual harm'? Hard to say. It would depend for a start on whether it actually affected the outcome of the RfC - though that was presumably the objective behind it. It just seems to me that if evidence is being presented in relation to the RfC, it should be done in the open, where everyone can see it, and respond. More so when the evidence is being presented by someone facing a topic ban for "placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles". [13], and the evidence consists in part of said person's own analysis of sources. Still, maybe I'm making too much of this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you're looking at the RfC, make sure it is the right one. There are confusingly two on the same subject - the relevant one is the second: [14]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be something, but I would reserve "canvassing" for notifying people who weren't aware of a discussion. And you see how Balaenoptera musculus had already stated at the RfC that he would welcome somebody telling him about sources.[15] Maybe that was Gaijin42's inspiration for posting, at least for posting to BM. Personally I don't really think it's much of "something", either. It's not exactly stealthy; e-mail is stealthy. And making some kind of a complaint about it would be pretty moot, since G is undoubtedly going to be topic banned anyway. In a word, yes, IMO you're making too much of it. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I note you aren't complaining about the ACTUAL canvassing, where LB pinged scores of people twice each. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen. I am not sure about this, but it appears that User:Greengrounds may have come out of retirement. Are you able to check if this IP address and "new editor" is him: here somebody leaves abuse on my talk page; and here, a series of suspicious allegations are being made by a user calling himself TheGfish: here and in the edit summaries of Greengrounds' favourite article Religious views of Adolf Hitler Ozhistory (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't; only checkusers can do that, so you might consider filing at WP:SPI for a checkuser to look at it. Meanwhile, I'll take a look to see if WP:DUCK applies, but I don't remember the Greengrounds history that well. Was there an ANI at the time? Where did I engage with it? Bishonen | talk 12:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I was reading through The ExpeBishon and was struck by a thought: how on Earth did they expect to live for a full month in that basket? It would be really interesting to know a little something the actual accommodations of that ridiculous contraption. Like, where were they supposed to sleep? Is there anything on this in the sources?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, indeed, I'm sure I've seen a full description of sleeping arrangements etc. somewhere in Med Örnen mot polen. Though I can't seem to find it now — perhaps you will. There's a diagram of the basket here, and a description of the cooking here. (The "Oh how wonderful, I'm so impressed, fancy how clever!" tone for every last triviality is amusing at first, then gets a little trying.) Bishonen | talk 12:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Oooh. Good reading for a Saturday at home with an icky cold. I can add something so you can focus on, I dunno, pastries and bus/elephant-jokes.

The Kronan-FAC seems like it might be wrapping up successfully soon, btw. I'm no longer sulking, at least...

Peter ^Isotalo 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get involved there. I just hate FAC and FAR, sorry. (I'm sulking.) Pastries… ? Pastries! More pastries!! Bishonen | talk 13:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Very interesting book. I tried adding a minor paragraph.[16] The descriptions of the living quarters were brief to say the least. There's twice the information about that ridiculous cooking apparatus than the construction of the entire basket. It's literally just "covered, single chamber cylinder with a slightly domed roof; access hatch on the side of the roof [huh?]". That appears to be it. The rest is mostly about the overly clever crap that never worked properly.

No worries about Kronan. It's all smiles and clever new diagrams now. And some fuss about converting the weight of shot. But who cares? I'll get my sixth star anyways. Bwahahahaha!

Btw, I was stalking RfC last night and saw this: "which Parteiadler should we use?" Even the Sphinx would be stumped.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine addition. Svedenborg seems mesmerised by everything to do with pissing, did you notice? But I'm pretty sure there's more than that about the living quarters. Maybe in Andrée's own diary, pp. 399 — 457. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Uhm, pissing? The guy who wrote about the balloon construction? I'm sure I'm missing something. Though I am intensely curious as to how they expected to perform their morgontoalett 40 m above the ground. Maybe they had some hanging apparatus for that too. Hopefully without mirrors.

(talk page stalker) Quote: "Maybe they had some hanging apparatus for that too". Don't all men have that? Thomas.W ^talk 16:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touché.^ⓘ

Peter ^Isotalo 16:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been reading some of the diary (depressing to say the least), but I doubt there's anything in there. Something tells me they weren't interested in describing how they'd actually do something as mundane as sleep. Doesn't seem like an activity that is either manly or patriotic.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the nödiga behov is a both manly and humorous subject. See here and here. Presumably Svedenborg gets it from somebody's diary, either Strindberg's or, more likely, Andrée's. The young Strindberg probably wouldn't write it for his fiancée's eyes. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Manly indeed!

Peter ^Isotalo 16:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you! File:Baklava shop, Damascus, Syria - 1.jpg Hafspajen (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should go back and clarify my ANI remark? I meant "new to the page," not "new to the project," as I assume Gandy meant. I could go back and put in a little addendum in small type. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I'm not sure. Me, I did get the wrong impression from your ANI remark (which didn't mention who the new editor was, but only provided a diff). Nurturing new editors and not scaring them off is an important part of the site ethos, and I read you as appealing to that ethos by saying Wondering55 was being particularly harmful for retention of the sensitive newbies. (And even though I'm well aware of Gandy's work, I read their remark like that too. Sorry, Gandy, just a combination of the trickiness of the text medium + my stupidity.) But there are so many good reasons for the editor being blocked now that there's not much call for hand-polishing the ANI thread — I probably wouldn't bother if it was me. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, and I see that the ANI thread has been hatted. Oh well. Since I provided a diff, I guess people can see that I was quoting an established editor. I know Gandy, and was aware she was no newbie. Actually I'm not aware of newbies per se being scared off that page, but many established editors fleeing or declining to help, which in my view is a lot worse. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my first time sending you a message so I hope I'm doing this right(if not, then I apologise in advance). As for the subject matter, I think that Christopher Corey Smith should be added to the Funimation voice actors category as he has appeared in at least 3 of their titles. The following Funimation shows in which he has voiced characters:

Appleseed XIII

Eureka Seven: AO

Fafner In The Azure(although it was previously licenced by Geneon)

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood

Fullmetal Alchemist: The Sacred Star Of Milos

Future Diary

High School DxD

Jormungand

Michiko And Hatchin

One Piece

Sankarea

Sengoku Basara: The Last Party

Tenchi Muyo! GXP(as Chris Kent)

Toriko

If there is a reason as to why he shouldn't be added, then please let me know.

SK071 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)SK071[reply]

Hi, SKO71. You contacted me just fine. I notice the category description states that it's only for in-house Funimation actors; would that fit Christopher Corey Smith? I can't really tell from his page, nor from the Funimation page. The fact is I'm pretty ignorant on the subject. If you want advice as to who qualifies as an in-house actor, from an administrator/experienced user, Discospinster might be a better person to contact. I can tell from the history that she watches the Funimation page. Good luck! Bishonen | talk 17:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Don't suppose you are interested looking a little bit at the Rasputin talk page? I am not asking you to be on expert on the question, but about the situation we have with this editor. He after given to him loads of references and discussing things still keeps removing this debated part, declaring it as a nonsense. Like for the 4th time by now? He just simply declares that he is not beliving what is in those references and that's it. The other editor is Bladesmulti's mentor. Also quite an expert on religion, mysticism and philosophy. I myself are not that bad on it either. Actually the whole thing is quite elementary for someone who is trained a little bit in religion history and such, but there is no way convincing this editor. And we discussed this now several moth. He also removed several other editors additions, [17] (referenced ones). I am not happy about going to ANI, but if no one can't tell him he can't do this and he will go on going this all the time, I might as a last solution. He doesn't care much for any of Wikipedias policies, he is unpolite, sarcastic and absolutely inconvincible. This is why I don't put much fait in a Dispute resolution. Hafspajen (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen, the article talkpage is hard to get one's head round, and one reason for that is frankly that you write so much on it. Please avoid copypasting whole swathes of policy, for example. Are you sure you should be editing subjects that you feel so strongly about? I'm sorry, but I'm not getting involved. I agree with you that ANI would be useless or even harmful, it would immediately turn into a content argument and that's not what the page is for. If it goes to ANI, I wouldn't have much trouble imagining you both ending up sanctioned for obduracy. To me, the whole thing looks just right for dispute resolution, perfect in fact. Please try that. (Er, Hafspajen? Holy fools and homeless people would typiclly be dressed in rags, not rugs. :-)) Bishonen | talk 11:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hm, I've got to agree with Bishonen about the large amount of text. Though I understand; I've got a habit of doing this too. Sensitive guys, aren't we? Easily touched, making it up with our brains & words. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bishonen, are you sure that this guy should be editing subjects that he feels so strongly about? Can you please put it that way? I am sorry about pasting policy, but frankly I think this guy never heard about it. And if I say please read Wp.Civility to a guy like this he will not read it. It is obvious he never ever heard about consensus, civility and neutrality. So I took the trouble to paste. Right, it looks like it looks like, but hey, he is not easy to discuss with.

He will not listen. He got references but he doesn't care. A second Finnedi? I can remove policy and hope he read it by now, just to make the page more readable, I can do that. But doesn't this strike you like odd when having skitloads of references he still removes this part and restore everything to a version he has in his sandbox? And about my English, it is unfortunate but I have learned from the begining by hearing, not writing. A lot my relatives speak English, but it was on vacations and so. Corrected rugs to rags. Filling in for a Dispute resolution. Hafspajen (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad to hear it. Your English is fine. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Bish. I noticed (in my watch list) that you gave the IP a stern warning, so I thought I'd fill you in. It's an IP-hopper from Toronto, Canada, (using multiple IPs belonging to University of Toronto) who regularly shows up and adds tons of promotional fancruft to scores of articles about car models, causing a lot of work for the clean-up department, so it's not a one-off incident with a new editor who doesn't know the rules around here. But you can't block the entire University of Toronto because of a single editor adding promotional fancruft... Thomas.W ^talk 21:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose you can't. Pity. I never thought it was a new user, the way they were wikilawyering on your page. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! I notice that you have removed notification comments from another user (JzG) talk page that had been restored due to nonvalid reasons of removal (incivility shown by removal). I ask you the question why are acting on his behalf? Are you his spokesperson?--188.27.144.144 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not his spokesperson nor acting on his behalf. I re-removed your comment (not sure why you call it a "notification comment") because you shouldn't have restored it. Your "nonvalid reasons of removal (incivility shown by removal)" is rampant nonsense, as User:JzG and everybody else are perfectly entitled to remove comments from their page. Aren't you clear on that after Dougweller's patient explanation on your page? ("What you shouldn't remove from your own talk page is at WP:REMOVED - also read the next section "Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages".) See the link in there. JzG removed your comment, making it clear he wanted it gone, so anybody who noticed that you restored it could, I'll even say should, have done what I did. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Removing such comments pointing out misconduct are bad example of incivility especially from admins who remove inconvenient notifications to them by thinking if they are admins they are entitled to remove and not be accountable for their actions. If you are not his spokesperson you should not have intervened to be an accessory in incivility by removing inconvenient notifications.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. I hardly think JzG removed your "notification" because it was inconvenient, more because it was rude and uncalled for. BTW I've just noticed you quoting this from Wikipedia:User pages on Dougweller's page: "User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users". That's irrelevant; it's about deletion, which is something different from blanking or removing text. I would have thought the context… oh, never mind. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You know, there's a word for picking fragments from policies or guidelines without understanding them. It would be better to listen to what experienced users are telling you. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

--BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information about several sentences of the involved parties. Take a look and edit if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have a chance of successfully engaging with Ihardlythinkso (on or off wiki) after you've had a look at the unfortunate recent events surrounding his recent behaviour. Here are some links to discussions (though you will find diffs within the discussions which will lead you elsewhere and references to user talk page discussions too): [18][19].

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the user or the events I refer to. Similarly, I am not sure about the extent of how constructive this user's editing can be. I mean, if you can get through to him and his editing will be constructive after he drops the grievances, then good. On the flip side, if the general conduct/editing is more problematic than not anyway, I don't think there is much which can stop the inevitable, but at least it would not be diluted with possible issues with his reaction to possible issues being raised about admin conduct/actions.

I'd appreciate any time you can spend on it and your thoughts, but am conscious that this can be a very time-consuming and uninteresting exercise so would not hold it against you either way. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)diffs added at 15:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't, no. The issues are too complicated for me to dip even a toe in at this juncture in my RL; I might drown. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for that, I've spent the last couple of hours reverting his vandalism. Zarcadia (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, Zarcadia. The IP had only been editing for a couple of hours, and already left quite a wake, so I didn't want to dawdle once I'd seen it. From the nature of the edits, it may well be an open proxy, and if so they'll no doubt turn up from somewhere else soon. Sigh.. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Gosh, I must be psychic. I've semi'd Denis' page. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Update: And Zygmunt Szendzielarz. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen! I didn't mean to sound as if I were correcting your post on her/his talk page. Rather, I was trying to elaborate on it: to tell W. to feel free to ask for an unblock, yet think about how she/he got into this situation. And I have some sympathy for W., since I know I tend to ramble in my comments & am amazed that I haven't been dinged for writing walls-O'-text. Anyway, apologies for making it sound as if I were trying to make you say something you didn't say.

And for for something completely different.

I've been working on articles in a nice, quiet corner of Wikipedia. (Former countries which few people have heard of are often nice, quiet corners.) The Empire of Trebizond had the intriguing reputation of being a wealthy, although small, Christian monarchy at the edge of European civilization that survived by an artful practice of its rulers marrying his beautiful daughters to the neighboring Muslim rulers. One could describe this as evidence of women being treated as chattel, although there is evidence that these women were anything but passive pawns in the practice of political marriage. I've discovered that there is enough information about some of these women to justify writing articles about them: an example would be Eudokia of Trebizond, although the best subject would be a woman whose article has yet to be written: Theodora Megale Komnene, also known as Despina Hatun. So after writing that wall-O-text, my question is this: would you know any women Wikipedians interested in offering critiques (or even edits) to these articles as I work on them? Getting useful feedback can be very difficult, especially about articles in these quiet corners of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you understood me well. (Not everybody did, but nm.)

Cool chicks. SlimVirgin perhaps? Or Roscelese, if any of them were socialist or HBTQ chicks. ;P

I'm reading Eudokia of Trebizond here. The problem for myself wrt helping would be all those print sources. Being as I reside more or less in Murmansk, our national library isn't strong on English translations of chronicles, unless indeed they have Murmansk connections. I'm also too lazy these days to frequent research libraries in their physical form. Oh, look, I found a digital extract about Panaretos in a German anthology… [20] …

Hmm… hmmm… I like the way Panaretos' own article describes his chronicle as drab, meagre, and sketchy. Most encouraging. (Though I notice his Wikipedia fanclub protests — very valuable work!). Is your Eudokia the same as the lady Eudokia Palaiologina here?

Did you know the "source" for Eudokia of Trebizond, the Bryer pdf, is a dead link? :-( At least, so it tells me when I click on it. Hmm… aha, it creates an URL with spaces in it, so it wouldn't work, would it. I'm an idiot with cite templates, I detest 'em, but all I did this time was click on the link, so I don't think it was me. Is that something you can fix?

I'd be glad to be an extra pair of eyes and do some copyediting if/when desired. Even though I feel a little, well, exposed, doing stuff like that as little 'shonen. But that can't be helped, since my comfortable copyediting persona has regrettably passed on (=been indefblocked). Bishonen | talk 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I hadn't thought of SV. Been a while since I said hi to her. Never encountered Roscelese before, but there's a lot of long-term contributors to Wikipedia I've never encountered. Some entertaining exchanges on her talk page & archives; she is definitely a thoughtful & intelligent person.

Hmm. About sources: that's always been a challenge when researching & writing articles. An amazing selection of materials are available online -- www.persee.fr has quite the selection of French academic journals, a lot of pre-1920 books are available in PDF format online (although not always usefully labeled), & databases like JSTOR allow access to a wide selection of periodicals -- but it's a lot like sifting thru an attic or storage locker. (Sometimes one strikes gold, sometimes nothing, but it's going to be a long search in any case.) But a lot more materials are in print, most of which are not easily accessible; I've been using my Inter-Library Loan system a lot to get much of what I use.

Anyway, so how should one approach the problem of providing citations? Should one prefer sources easily accessible? Or ones that are useful or high quality, yet are not accessible? My preference is to favor the latter -- but I may be wrong.

But what I'm looking for is that people with backgrounds different than mine -- a middle-aged, somewhat nerdy, white guy with a college education & a middle-class background -- to see if the articles I write answer the questions they look for when they read the articles. I'm often surprised to find some Wikipedia articles go into great detail about some aspects while completely overlooking other aspects. I'm not so much looking to see if I'm using the sources correctly -- although if it's obvious I'm misusing them, I want to know that. What I'm looking for is if I'm making the same mistake: overlooking anything.

About Michael Panaretos: the copy of his Chronicle I'm using I found online -- I expect if I gave you the URL, you could download a copy & read it. It's a German translation of a Medieval Greek original, which I took the time to translate into English to use. (I can communicate in German, but I'm not fluent. I envy people who are fluent in more than one language.) Anyway, I assume from your response that you couldn't find a copy of his Chronicle in case you wanted to verify a statement; is it important to add that URL to the citations?

About Anthony Bryer's article. Hmm. That link's not mine, but the person who started the article, & I assumed it was still good. (I thought I had downloaded the pdf from that link.) I can replace it with a link to a JSTOR URL -- would that help? (Or if you are seriously interested in the subject, I can you a copy of the pdf. I enjoy infringing on copyright when it helps people write better articles.;-)

And about Eudokia: this Eudokia's not the same as the one on Ancientworlds.com. That one is, I would calculate, the great-great-grandmother of this Eudokia. Despite the fact they have the same name, I never considered one could be confused with the other.

Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is behind a paywall, isn't it? Meaning in practice that only university employees can get at it. I don't approve of that. I'd love a bootleg copy of the .pdf, please. And also the URL to the German translation of the Chronicle, please, I can read German if I have to. As long as it's not in fucking fraktur. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I recently reverted (diff) an IP who posted at Talk:Jimmy Wales. My edit summary was "remove: wrong page, you want User talk:Jimbo Wales although WP:AN/S is more appropriate".

Sure enough, the IP has now posted at AN/S! diff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At last! :-D Not sure how one should respond. Merely archive after 24 hours as "No violation", as promised? Or reply "I'm afraid where Indian articles are concerned, Sitush is the 'Wiki team'"? Sitush thinks it's X evading his block (which will expire in a day or two) and topic ban (which never will). He should know, but I'm not 100% sure. Could be a meatpuppet. Bishonen | talk 06:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The use of wanted(ly) for wanton(ly) seems telling.—Odysseus1479 07:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, was that him? I did look for it, I knew of course that I'd seen it somewhere, but couldn't find it. If you can find me a diff, Odysseus, I'll block without bothering a checkuser. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, it was in others’ contributions to Talk:Raju: before the current IP used it, the expression appears in postings from 117.207.251.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 178.250.118.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the latter on a couple of user-talk pages as well, including Sitush’s). The named account expressed agreement here, which may have created the association in my mind, but didn’t actually write it.—Odysseus1479 19:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I was just figuring that had to be it, after Yngvadottir reminded me of the 178.250.118.227 chap on Drmies. No block. Never mind, the practical difference is nil, as the named account in question is indefinitely topic banned from caste articles. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

He's back at it again, making his signature POV edits, with a deliberately misleading edit summary ("Corrected grammar. Added links to Wiki's page for the River Indus") to avoid scrutiny. Thomas.W ^talk 09:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks for the heads up. Some blatant stuff in those contribs. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

And good riddance to him. Editors like him have no place here.Thomas.W ^talk 11:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for protecting my talk page - I really appreciate it. Enjoy! Denisarona (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skol [glug-glug-glug-glug]! I protected for one week; it should be more than enough, really, but please let me know if the problems resume later. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:AN/S. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:AN/S redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting the page was too much. You may undelete it, it has other users' contribs. Tito☸Dutta 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If other people post their valuable text in my userspace, I'm afraid they'll just have to lump it. The page was a joke, it's had a good run (three months). I don't like to let these ephemeral items sit around for ever. If you're attached to the posts you made on the talkpage, I'll be glad to send you copies, or post them on some page in your own space. Or you can have a copy of the whole page + talkpage, no problem. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• I suggest to follow the way others do it "kept for historical purpose", or "this page is now closed" Tito☸Dutta 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Montgomery Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) besides other reverts he removed the mention of it being founded as a segregation academy 4 times, how is that not a breach of 3RR? What have I misunderstood? Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I took this one as the version reverted to (you didn't list one of those, as such). No? I looked at the history, and the segregation academy thing had been there since at least February. I don't think removing stuff, per se, counts as a revert. Well, I know there are different notions about what counts; notoriously, there's one admin who insists any change at all that isn't pure addition is a "revert". And of course any removal does revert a one-time addition, in a sense, but if it's been there since forever, then… not really, IMO.

The AN/3RR noticeboard seems to encourage my idea that there must be a (reasonably recent) version that is reverted to, by having a header for it.

Anyway. You may be right about the 3RR, I'm not wedded to my own interpretation, but the main thing is they were egregiously edit warring, and 24 hours is the normal sanction for both. I added the extra 7 hours for the tendentiousness. Looking at their contributions worries me rather, giving the impression that they're here to Right Great Wrongs. Especially putting up Segregation academies for deletion, adducing WP:NEO… Google, anyone? And you know what they say about account names with "Truth" in them. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. In this specific context (the AfD and Verdad's talk page comments which precede his last 4 edits) I'd argue for 4RR as it wasn't a minor change, but I see your point. Context is king (archaeology being my favorite subject and at one point hobby). I've been so tempted to comment on the name but kept shtum. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not tactful like you. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I try not to be but I keep slipping up and being polite. Sadly that really annoys some people. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the need, context and purpose of your message left on my talk page. Was it due to some mistake or was it intentional? Please clarify.Hrihr (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Not a mistake at all. India-related articles are highly prone to edit-conflicts. "Dharmic religions" has been used, contested & reverted before. See Talk:Indian religions#Dharmic religions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I see now that you've replied quite elaborately to Hrir on your page. Wouldn't it be a good idea to copy both posts to article talk? (Possibly leaving out your comments on good faith and nationality; they're certainly pertinent, but perhaps more so on your own page.) Sources etc are matters for all editors of the page. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'm glad you asked. Certainly it was intentional, I'm not some malfunctioning bot. The reason I wanted to alert you to the discretionary sanctions authorized for pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan was that I watch Joshua Jonathan's page and I noticed your post on it. I didn't like it much. You're not a new user; even though you haven't edited copiously, you've been here since 2011, and I'd hope you'd know better than to baselessly accuse people of "bias", and especially know better than to write "you better focus on Abrahimic religions and left these Indian topics to Indians as we Indians are more knowledgeable about our culture and faith. Don't use wikipedia as a platform to push your Abrahimic POV on others." No, you don't get to shut out other editors from articles on the basis of their ethnicity or religion. In fact you shouldn't even mention a fellow editor's ethnicity or religion. One of the most central civility principles on Wikipedia is that you're not supposed to make personal remarks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." That's a quote from the lead section to the important No personal attacks policy. Please review it if you're not already familiar with it.

Also, seeing your edits to Indian religions, where you added some text to the very first sentence, then had it reverted with an explanatory summary by JJ, and then re-reverted him, I'd like to draw your attention to the essay BRD. I don't really blame you for not being familiar with that essay, but the fact is it's widely accepted on Wikipedia. BRD stands for Bold-Revert-Discuss: meaning, feel free to edit boldly, but, if you're reverted do not re-revert; instead start a discussion on the talkpage, and attempt to gain consensus for your version. (Note, open discussions on the article talkpage, where other editors can see it and take part; not on the reverting editor's personal talkpage.)

So those are the reasons I thought you'd better be aware that Indian topics are hot topics on Wikipedia, and that admins tend to be proactive to keep the related articles from being disrupted. I'm an uninvolved admin, and I thought you should be aware that admins can sanction you if you should edit inappropriately in connection with India-related articles on any page (that includes user talkpages). If you click on the link (in my original message) to the Arbitration Committee's decision about India-related articles — this link — you'll get a bit of background with regard to the problems plaguing these articles.

(I'll move this question-and-answer to your own talkpage; it would be more convenient to keep any further conversation there.) Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Specific diff needs oversighting, sent you an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:C:156:0:0:0:8 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh..? There seem to be some problems with that.

1. You're an IP, so you wouldn't have access to the "e-mail this user" functionality.
2. If you also have an account, or had my addy since earlier, I still haven't received an e-mail from you. No e-mail about diffs or oversight today.
3. I'm not an oversighter. Here is a list of oversighters. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I don't mind if it's you. <3 Pattieden3 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. He's a blocked vandal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Left you a message on my talk page. Hrihr (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Hrihr's talkpage: "I'm Wikipedian for 8 years since 2006 and I am editing wiki entries since then using dozens of accounts". Interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys, but I'm watching User talk:Hrihr, so it's not necessary to alert me here to what happens there. If I seem to ignore important stuff, it's probably just because I'm at some wild round-the-clock party IRL. :-) If it's urgent and I'm not around, you'd better alert some other admin. Dougweller comes to mind. Bishonen | talk 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"Wild round-the-clock party"? No householding waiting to be done? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me (party or contacting me) but there are several hours when neither of us seems to edit. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You may recall some discussion of the behavior of Navajoindian at ANI last month. After the ANI report, the user went quiet for a while. Yesterday, the same pattern of editing resumed. Three articles were edited. All of these were reverted as unsourced (by three different users, including one revert by me). One of those reverts was later partly restored by the reverting user. It might be nice if you could take a look. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It's sad to have to block an obviously good-faith user, but I guess we've tried everything else. 72 hours, and I've tried to explain the problem on their page. I appreciate you keeping an eye on these articles, BarrelProof. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bish. Would you mind informing Suborat (talk · contribs) about the discretionary sanctions regarding edits on topics dealing with India, Pakistan and so on? He has now twice removed the name of Delhi in all languages except Hindi from that article, that is even after being reverted, which may seem like an unimportant minor edit, but my gut feeling is that this could escalate. So it's better to nip it in the bud. Thomas.W ^talk 17:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)You're noticed. I don't add that warning, but you're noticed. Keep smiling! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Just got back from a pretty wild party.) Done, but there's nothing to stop you from adding {{subst:Ds/alert|topic=ipa}} yourself if you like, Jonathan, nor you, Thomas. That recently updated alert (not warning) template isn't for admins only, and it's nice and polite and doesn't imply misconduct. You can also add {{subst:Uw-castewarning}} where relevant, but you have to be much more careful with that one: it is a warning, and does imply misconduct. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

And hitting myself over the head with a dead trout. I realised almost immediately I was wrong but hit an edit conflict with you when I tried to reverse myself. I seem to be having a bad day. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you mean after I mentioned grovelling, you thought somebody ought to do it? It's fine, currently I'm just wondering why I ever got involved. I bet you are too. I won't even post the piece I just typed to the guy that's been spamming his "full support as a fellow Wikipedian" all over the place. I was planning to helpfully remind him that he's actually missed the BLP noticeboard. Nm. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I see the unblock request was declined. I think I'll go review my US tax return, that sounds like more fun (I get an extension as I'm abroad). I never can figure these out and it's complicated by being abroad. Then I have to file something with the Treasury so they know I'm not money laundering. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Because of the outcome of the ANI discussion today, in which you participated, the person who criticized me on a policy talk page now apparently feels emboldened to continue engaging in such uncivil behavior. Please see User talk:In ictu oculi#Request per WP:NPA.

Suggestions/advice appreciated. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism is not the same thing as a personal attack. An atmosphere where one is only allowed to say things that are complimentary to others is not a truly collaborative atmosphere; collaboration requires the possibility of disagreement and criticism. I see neither personal attacks nor incivility in the thread you linked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, after the way the discussion on WT:NPA eventuated, I guess we don't have to go round and round the policy passage in question any more (it's been removed). My suggestions are: don't feel bad, have a frog cake, visit Bishzilla's pocket and decompress with some Victorian poetry! Bishonen | talk 05:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ms. Bish, I was wondering if you remember a little squabble over at Copernican principle about juicy things like the Cosmic Microwave Background and oh-so-pleasant things like dark energy, cosmology, and the competing Geocentric model? Well, specifically, how about a Mr. Mark J. Wyatt and User:Wyattmj being blocked for meat puppetry and edits to that page?

See also an article about the movie, The Principle. I wanted to inform you that there could be a renewed interest in those articles. See my edit at Talk:Copernican_principle#In_the_News... where I link to an article about this published at Popular Science. I was wondering if you might consider limiting the edit button on those pages? And to check in and see if there is any problems with User:Joe6Pack?? Joe seems to be less "Regular Joe" and more "single purpose account." He attempted once to edit the Copernican principle page in 2013, but was unsuccessful due to a speedy revert.

As an aside, shouldn't The Principle be styled The Principle (2014)? Please notice also that this article was just recently made specific to the movie by an edit on April 9, 2014. It looks a little like hijacking of a completely unrelated term of the same name. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Woof, I remember Wyattmj from his related edits to Planck (spacecraft). Bish will do Bish things, I'm sure, but in the meantime, no, The Principle can stay where it is, title-wise; we only need the (2014) type things when there are multiple articles that have a claim to the same title, where we give each one different text in the parentheses to tell them apart, like Mercury (planet) vs. Mercury (element). Since there's only one article on Wikipedia that would lay claim to the title "The Principle", further disambiguation via parenthesis-notes isn't necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Uruiamme, I'll try to keep an eye out and feel free to alert me again in case I miss some rising wave of meatpuppets. I can't protect pre-emptively, though. Joe seems to have had an agenda, but was apparently discouraged by being reverted all over the place (I just reverted a surviving snippet on The Principle). Bishonen | talk 11:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Bishonen, I would like to request you to please review the article on Bengali Kayastha, as suggested on talk page discussions by User:Titodutta. In spite of being reliably sourced, the content has been a matter of dispute for quite some time. It would be great if you can spare some time and review the article. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekdalian. Titodutta may have the impression that I'm knowledgeable about Indian subjects, but sadly he would be wrong. It's true that I have performed admin actions in relation to caste articles — warnings, discretionary sanctions alerts, blocks, etc — but that has been purely in relation to conduct problems and disruption. Where content is concerned, I rely on knowledgeable editors such as Sitush and Joshua Jonathan. It's not adminship that makes an editor capable of reviewing an article, it's subject expertise and knowledge of the principles of wikipedia editing. I have the second but not the first; Sitush and Jonathan have both, as you can see if you review their long-time contributions. For instance, Joshua is the writer of this informative page, which is an attempt to straighten out the sourcing problems that afflict Raju. (An attempt which not all editors of that page have profited from, unfortunately, since Raju continues to be plagued by caste warriors who care nothing for reliable sources.)

Looking at Sitush's contributions just now, I was very relieved to see that he has started editing again. I hesitate to draw the continued problems at Bengali Kayastha to his attention, though, since I believe he's pretty well burned out from the attrition of dealing with caste article problems. Frankly, the discussion at Talk:Bengali Kayastha can't have helped there, since you've been very resistant to his input and the discussion has gone nowhere. It's obvious that the article needs help, though, and you did quite right to ask for review; you just didn't ask the best people for the purpose. Drmies will probably be able to do a bit more than I could, but I wouldn't exactly call him a subject expert either. My advice to you would be to ask Joshua Jonathan.

By the way, were you aware that discretionary sanctions have been enabled for India-related pages and specifically for caste-related pages? I've put some information about it on your page, with links that will take you to the background and the reasons for these general sanctions. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This is a double-edged reputation I've burned build up... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can I tell you. Bishonen | talk 08:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen. I shall request Joshua Jonathan to review the same, if possible. Ekdalian (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I don't know much, but I do know...OK, I found out a couple of things and will leave a note on the talk page so as to not clutter up Bish's beautiful locus amoenus. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Am I to assume you're only a poor caveman lawyer?) Amoenus, hmm? Did you see my last post, below? Here be dragons. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

So, I did review the article, after all; it was interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I see, and apparently there are major copyvio concerns. Good job neither you nor Drmies are lazy like me. [/me returns to her chaise longue with a French novel and a box of Belgian chocolates.] Bishonen | talk 15:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. And if that novel is Nana it will be particularly appropriate. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Madame Bovary. And I like to read my French novels on the Kindle, though it may clash a little, stylistically, with the schäslong and the diaphanous negligée and so on. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I dunno perhaps it has been compromised. I am trying to say sorry to another user for a comment which I am not sure I ever made and won't repeat the comment, it is something about adolf hitler or something I don't know. I am one of the few who have actually read Mein Kampf and very boring it is too. So I have no idea what this is about. I have asked and apologised but I have no idea. Si Trew (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I think I just cocked up somehow and the user was offended. I apologised sincerely and I do mean sincerely, it takes a big man to say sorry and if I am in the wrong I say sorry. I don't know what article or page or what I wrote but if I offended another editor – accidentally of course – you stand up and say sorry. The editor has accepted my apology. So all is good. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what you said, why don't you check your contributions instead of going on about what a big man you are? Here they are. And this is the edit in question, made from your account. There are a lot of typos, so if you did post it yourself and now can't remember it, I guess you may have been under the influence of some substance at the time. It was nice of Yunshui to accept such a poor apology, where you didn't even acknowledge doing anything wrong. But he did, so that's over, and is not my business. Now then, what about your attacks on Rich Farmbrough here, all about how he was abusing his admin tools to oppress people? Pretty clever of him, considering he's not even an admin. I look forward to seeing the ANI report you said you're going to post about him. Did you see my comment there, right in the same thread? Bishonen | talk 14:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Rich is probably a member of the Secret Admin Cabal, formerly known as the Beyond All Legal Limits Secret Admin Cabal Brotherhood. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Bishonen | talk

Computer says no.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that Darwinbish has subdued HAL. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for volunteering, I have activated your account.--v/r - TP 17:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll get on it.. uh... later, quite a bit later. It sounds like an interesting job, but maybe that's my crazed optimism. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Re: WP:ANI#Really pissed off IP ... I have no problem with extending the block; but I am suspecting that in this case, the IPv6 being used is likely dynamic. If you look at the contribution history of both the article and the AfD, there are several IPv6 edits over the past several days where the first four number blocks are the same (tracing back to Time Warner Cable Internet). Given behavioural evidence and talk page comments, they all appear to be the same user. The most recent IP did stay the same over at least two editing sessions, but overall they seem to change roughly once every day or two for this user. I had also semi-protected the article and the AfD, so that should help reduce disruption as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. Thanks for telling me. Yes, I do see they're the same, and hardly worth blocking. Good idea to semi. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) I wish I knew more about how ISPs allocate IPv6 addresses, but everything that I have seen suggests that if one user has been moving around a group of addresses all of which have the first four blocks staying the same, then the chances are very good that nobody else will be using that range, so a range block will be suitable. Unfortunately, until we get a tool for checking IPv6 range contributions (as far as I know, there isn't one yet) there is enough uncertainty there to deter me from putting such range blocks for more than a short time, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, come on ... Darwinbish, Bishapod, Darwinfish, Gooch, Bishzilla, ... how many of these fuckers ARE there? (And you've got less than 48 hours to answer, or you get beer poured over your head.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Defensively:] The Bishonen conglomerate is really not very big as sockfarms go. Gooch is merely a friend! A sock indeed, but not a bishsock. And Frutti di Mare, who did good work, has been indefblocked! As for the others… [starts to stammer slightly], uh they're not very active, such as young Bish and chips. Sleepers, really. There was a baby of sorts, a messy eater… [Roots around in her jumble of a password file. Nothing.] Where did that go? And wasn't there some more fish? MONGO, do you remember a young pallid sturgeon bish, that looked a lot like Bishapod? As I remember it, that business was all your fault. Anyway, both I and Bishzilla deeply regret Bishapod's foolish creation of the Darwintwins, what can I say. They're smarter and worse behaved than the lot of us and may take over the whole shop in the end. Darwinbish has been angling for adminship for years. :-( Never mind, now, are there any more, mmmm, pseudonyms used by your sockmaster? Eh? Eh? Bishonen | talk 20:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Forgot all about Cassandra at the peak of her insanity. Yeah, she's related. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Little User:Pallabish was the freshwater critter that loved to be cuddled...even when full grown and 1.5 metres in length, make fine house pet and loves to nibble on crunchy little yellow snacks.--MONGO 23:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. No, 'zilla locate baby user: User: Baby Stupid. Useless house pet! bishzilla _ROARR!! 05:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, I always wondered how it was kosher to have all of those alternate accounts, without linking to them on your user page. You seem to be the exception to the rule because the accounts are so amusing. Don't forget about The Lady Catherine de Burgh, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had been wondering about Lady Catherine, but I couldn't see anything detailing her pedigree anywhere. Is she a lady in her own right, or just some Lord's chick? Bish and chips I think I had seen once, but forgotten. It's good to see that Frutti di Mare is blocked, because it means that if ever I catch you doing anything I don't like, I can indef-block you for block evasion, so watch it! (evil laugh...) Oh yes, I've got my eye on Arctic Balloon, too. Pseudonyms used by my sockmaster? I'm afraid my family is really boring compared to yours. My parents have really sober children, who don't do anything very exciting or amusing, and have mundane names such as JamesAWatson, JamesBWatson, JamesCWatson, JBW, JBW test account, and JBW0. However, the family has become so successful and celebrated that many other people, totally unrelated, have tried to emulate us, like JamesDWatson, JamesBWaston, JamesBWatsan, JamesBeeWatson, JamesBWatsen, JamesBWatson1, JamesBWatsonSucks, JamesBWatsonSucksShit, JamesBWatsonisgay, and at least one more that I don't remember the name of. Nice to be subjected to the sincerest form of flattery. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time the Lady has been ascribed to me. In a way I'm flattered, because she's very witty… but mostly I feel the assumption is the sign of a person who doesn't understand Lady C's aristocratic nature, nor my own clog-shod lack of such. How many times has she not very justly implied to me that her ancestors were already la crème de la crème at the time my own (the inspiration for prehistoric creatures such as Bishzilla and Bishapod) were performing primitive war dances in ice-age northern Europe wearing nothing but blue woad? I'm proud, and a little incredulous, to be able to call her a friend nevertheless. An illustration of the fact that those truly secure in their own superiority are never snobs. @JamesBWatson: it strikes me as psychologically likely that I was impelled to create the Bishonen conglomerate because I never (that I know of) had any such enviable imitators as you. Good, because I've always wondered why, and so have many many others. Mystery solved. Oh yes, Arctic Balloon... yes, that is in fact another indeffed relative, but it was such a long time ago! Bishonenisgay, 20:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Emulators? Certainly Bishonensuksc0k, pretty certainly BishonenSwe, and perhaps also at least some of Bishonen on wheels!, Bishonen-Griffishonen, Bishonen1, Bishonenism, Bishonens. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er... cough. Bishonenism is my own, I think. OK, so the conglomerate is a little bigger than I immediately recollected. :-) Good! Powerful family! Bishonen | talk 21:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

		The Society Barnstar
		A conglomerate of stars — one for each member of the Ganze Bishpocha ---Sluzzelin talk 10:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I will point out, JamesBWatson, that there is no male Christian name, in the civilized world, with the initial 'B', so one can only speculate what that stands for. Brian, I suppose, is a possibility, but that's rather reserved for snails, and Bertie, of course, is a spaniel's name. Furthermore, permit me to inform you that my pedigree is perfection and completely Burked and Almanached, and is well documented here. For the record, though I cant think what business it is of yours, I am in no way related to poor little Mrs Bishonen (charming though I'm sure she may be); my blood is altogether of a different hue. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think you were related: I just said that I had wondered, but I had rejected the notion. As for what business your pedigree is of mine, who said it was my business? Aren't I allowed to stick my nose into other people's business? Oh yes, and what makes you think the B stands for a Christian name? Or even for any sort of name? Or for anything? Did you imagine for some reason I meant James B. Watson, and that I was too stupid to be able to type spaces and full stops? The editor whose real name is "JamesBWatson", and not "James B. Watson", or "James Benedict Watson", or "James Boris Watson" , or anything else (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brabantio: What profane wretch art thou?--MONGO 23:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, why askest thou not Boris? Didst see his user page? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This above all: to thine own self be true....similarly, many assume my real name is MONGO...either due to deed or wit or lack thereof.--MONGO 14:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mention Gooch? Me no longer active. Sock party moved to Bishzilla pocket. Gooch happy there. Goochy ^{Oooh, pretty!} 15:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Me no longer active" one of those paradoxes, like the Liar paradox? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was right. Someone or other created a page about it, at Wikipedia:Gooch paradox, so it must be true. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Some sock hurt Gooch's head!!!!! Goochy ^{Oooh, pretty!} 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to butt in here, but Bish, didn't you get your first (and best) sock from an "enviable imitator"? I thought I remembered when looking up Bishzilla's history that someone created that account to harass you and through the wonders of all your Bureaucrat friends you were able to take over the sock. Am I not remembering that right? Tex (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've perhaps got that from Bishzilla's block log, Tex, it's almost as colourful as mine. You're perfectly right as far as Bishzilla's on-wiki history goes, but what you're missing is the pre-history, her birth in the murky primeval swamps of IRC. A sort of spontaneous generation, like crocodiles from the slime of the Nile, you know? I think there's a hint of it in her RFA… ah yes, under "Questions for the candidate": "Bishzilla unjustly accused of being merely popular #wikipedia IRC personality. Clearly untrue, active on wiki also, kindly and helpful." Sounds like at that time (2007), she was mainly an IRC thing. And then somebody thought it would be amusing to create a User:Bishzilla on Wikipedia, which made me so mad that I suborned a bureaucrat (who she's kept in her pocket ever since) and liberated the account, and she stept proudly into the encyclopedia and requested adminship. (You remember she actually was an admin for quite a while? Are any of your socks admins, JamesBWatson?) And hello there, little Gooch! The pocket has a well-stocked cake fridge, but not balloons and funny hats like your sock party. Perhaps you should add some to the Victorian parlour? Bishonen | talk 16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Wow! 'Zilla used to be an admin! I never knew that. I'm impressed. is she the only non-human admin, or are there lots of them, scurrying around, sneakily blocking us humans, and stuff? I see that she was desyssopped some time between 29 May 2008 and 25 January 2009. Was she very upset to lose the mop? Did she need a lot of comforting? And no, I don't let any of my socks become admins, in case they start deleting my toes, or blocking my shoes, or something like that. It would be rather inconvenient. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. Bishzilla seemed rather relieved to be… uh, to be relieved of the tools in January 2009. She was absolutely delighted the time she got the mop — I remember it well — how she basked in the congratulations of her fans, how she condescended to me. But when Monday morning broke, it became obvious she hadn't counted on it being quite so much work. I think she may have been one of those sad cases that want the tools chiefly for the status of it. Darwinbish, now, she'd probably never tire of having a banhammer added to her already impressive armory, and would really use it. Let's all join in trying to prevent her from laying her, hmm. [[Discombobulated for words again]. From laying her feet on it. As for other non-human admins, I had some hopes that User:Floquenstein's monster might request adminship, but now that his sockmaster is on arbcom... well, one of the many, many disadvantages of that job is probably that it hampers your socking. Hampers fun and ... impulsiveness altogether. Bleh. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Monster is monster, yes. But is human monster. Like friend Hulk. Calling "non-human" hurtful. Lizard owner Bishonen not check own non-monster human privilege. Not check privilege bad. (NB non-human monster lizard sex was experiment phase in college). --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishzilla, who has cherished the romantic memory of cybering with little Floquenstein's monster on their page some time back (among her many, many romantic memories, admittedly) is tremendously hurt at this betrayal. Had you forgotten what a sensitive womanish creature she is?] Experiment phase in college??? bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Monster maybe word that wrong... Was deep-rooted, emotionally charged, passionate, soulful, life-changing experiment. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Is true, part about "hampers fun" and "bleh". Master never happy anymore, suck fun right out of room. Sad. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

must add: 'ZILLA FOR ARBCOM. MONGO too. we need some rough types in arbcom, shake things up a little, maybe even get some things done, pass out some bans. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla already have greater influence than all arbcom...dread of incineration enough to keep miscreants inline. MONGO powers are puny, unless one stands downwind of the beast.--MONGO 19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or unless one share Victorian parlour in Bishzilla's pocket with beast. Getting a little worried some recent arrivals may be overcome by MONGO emissions![21] [Bishzilla throws another two hundred joss sticks onto the fire in the cosy fireplace.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

well, 'zilla should have steward or founder bit by now. maybe Jimbo still has grudge? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbob is jealous is all. He's actually the Ghost Founder on behalf of mighty Bishzilla who has more important matters than Wikipedia to attend to.--MONGO 11:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No no, little Jimbo adore 'Zilla, Jimbo fondest wish is he was still in pocket! But possibly Zilla forceful action of blocking little sitting arb still count against her. Unfortunately 'shonen conglomerate not well adjusted to wiki hierarchies. Blinded by low-class egalitarian Scandinavian background. Zilla naively blocked disruptive user without thought whether arb or IP. bishzilla _ROARR!! 12:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Anton^Talk 16:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

thanks for deleting the long term abuse page on IIIraute. Though your criteria for deleting it were not within the Wikipedia policies you cited. It was clearly not an attack page under any Wikipedia definition - it cited a long term pattern of abuse on Germany related pages, that has nothing to do with my content disputes with that user. It also does not personally attack IIIraute, it simply cites to a pattern of edits that goes back for years. You may be correct that the ANI was the appropriate venue, and that it should not have been a long term abuse page - I really don't know - because it is not a single recent incident I am highlighting rather a sustained patter of NPOV edits in the following pattern:

Living Person x is a German-American actor/doctor/whatever - German added by IIIraute

Living Person y is a polish/russian-whatever-German - other nationality deleted by IIIraute

It's pretty subtle but its a well documented and maintained pattern that goes well beyond 'good editing.'

When the subject is 'German' he adds it to the lead sentence, when the subject has another ethnic root he tries to keep German in the lead and argue that the other ethnicity is trivia or irrelevant and should not be in the lead.

The other pattern is deleting of cultures east of Germany from European related pages (cuisine, language, etc.)

Finally highlighting German war dead, war losses, Russian crimes, etc.

Not sure what the proper notice board for that is but I will say that my long term abuse page was

• not related to any content dispute I have with IIIraute - it deals with totally separate behaviour
• not related to my personal feelings about the topic - I am not East European, I am not German. But I think nationalistic editing or editing based on 'racial principles' should be banned.
• FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK - please let me know which of the g10 criteria for speedy deletion was present on that page?

The pattern of edits by IIIraute is long term abuse. I know that anything I say is tainted in your eyes in this matter, that you believe VolunteerMarek is also suspect - of which I can have no opinion. I still don't think you should ignore the message because you don't like the messenger. Look at his edit history in this topic area. It is clear what he is doing. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The Long Term Abuse page is a venue for keeping track of banned long-term vandals and sockpuppeteers, as you can see if you take a look at the actual listings on the page. I understand that the page can be misleading, and should have more information about its purpose, or at least more forceful information. (In fact I think the page should be marked "historical" per WP:DENY, but that's an issue for another day.) Even though it says at the top that "Names should only be added for the most egregious and well-attested cases" and "Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, such as sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, etc", the report form on the page seems likely enough to lure the inexperienced to create inappropriate attack pages against opponents. For the deletion criterion, I refer you to Wikipedia:Attack page. If you disagree, you can take it to WP:Requests for undeletion. But I say that more as a formality, as I don't get the impression that you really want the page undeleted (it's malformed, after all, if nothing else). I get rather the impression, even though you start as usual by thanking me, that what you want here is to complain about me being unfair — my "teaming up" with IIIRaute, my bias against anything you say, etc. If that's it, we probably won't get any further here on my page. To get fresh eyes on such an issue, you could file a report specifically about me on ANI or a request for comments (note that there's a special section for requesting comments on the use of admin privileges). I don't recommend these venues, mind you, I think you'd find using them quite frustrating, but you should be aware of the options you have.

More importantly, imo, you have now within a short space of time taken IIIRaute to WP:DRN, to WP:ANI and to WP:LTA (this after voluntarily undertaking, in response to my May 3 warning, to "not engage with that user any more."[22]) and posted essentially the same complaints in all three, including making trebly sure that it becomes known that IIIRaute is blocked on another Wikipedia, over an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with his editing on en.wiki and that happened in 2012. Even though the DRN was about a trifling issue which I can't really believe either of you cared much about, you strayed so far off topic as to make stunningly irrelevant remarks about IIIRaute's non-en block. Seriously, that is harassment, Mostlyoksorta. People are supposed to be able to put ancient history behind them here, and definitely not to have non-enwiki history raised against them over and over again. You need to stop. Read WP:forum shopping, too. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

To be honest I agree with most of what you say. I don't want the page undeleted, and I don't want to complain about you. I just wish you would let other administrators deal with me and IIIraute. And I want to clarify that I am aware that the ANI and LTA are for the same conduct, and I did not know which was the appropriate forum, because I believe the conduct is long term - editors on the ANI have said, that the conduct I am speaking of there is 'old'. Second clarification, The ANI/LTA is totally separate from the content issue at the DRN. DRN was seeking to put that content fight behind us. The volunteer decided 90% in favor of IIIraute, yet both you and he challenged the finality of the process, which doesn't really seem like 'peace keeping' or whatever - since the result was in his favor. That really confuses me. Third clarification, when a user is banned permanently from any wikipedia for supporting holocaust deniers, and then continues to edit pages focused on Germany with a bias towards 'the German nation' I think people SHOULD know about it. No matter how careful that editor is.(Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Mostlyoksorta, Wikipedia projects operate separately. You'll find many editors who've been indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia who are not only active on other Wikipedia projects (like the Commons) but they hold administrative roles. If IIIraute is a Holocaust denier, it will be evident in his edits. But editors are not preemptively blocked for what they might do, but on their conduct here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I see that you got the impression, from Mostlyoksorta's post that IIIRaute is or might be a you-know-what, or supportive of that position. It's not surprising, as Mostly's post seems slanted to put the matter in as dark a light as possible, but it's absolutely untrue. IIIRaute was blocked from German Wikipedia in 2012 for making personal attacks. He hasn't made any PAs here as far as I know. May I ask if you're being fed this line by somebody else, or reading German Wikipedia for yourself, Mostlyoksorta? How's your German? (Mine is workable for simple matters, and I've checked your links as well as some discussion pages.) If you can't restrain yourself, or alternatively if you don't understand what (false) impressions you're creating with remarks like that, I'm going to either block you, or ask for a one-way interaction ban for you with regard to IIIRaute, which would forbid you from either mentioning, hinting at, or interacting with, him in any way. I haven't decided which yet, but it'll be one or the other. You've used up all your special-tolerance-for-newbie-mistakes, and your character assassination campaign needs to stop right now. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Liz: and Bishonen, my German is pretty good too, not sure how you would describe the passage below, anyway here is the link - its all towards the bottom on the left side. [23] - I think if you banned me and IIIraute from editing asmallworld - that would be a great solution. I would never mention him again, because I would have nothing to interact with him about. The fact remains he is engaging in dubious editing of Germany related pages - the full conversation is below:

<not any more: I've removed the rather unattractive copypaste with all its broken links etc. Mostlyoksorta has pasted it to his own page as well, and I'd rather not give it houseroom. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC).>[reply]

Final note, IIIraute has not denied these claims in any forum yet. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The long term abuse pages record some users who have been banned by the enwiki community, and who have a long term pattern of abuse at enwiki such that an LTA report is warranted. The purpose of the report is to enable fast resolution of future problems if the banned user returns—an LTA page is not a memorial, and it most certainly does not record users who are not even blocked at enwiki. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Maybe this belongs on your talk page rather than over there, but as long as it's in some place, the point is the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a edit war on the talk page of User:Darkness_Shines, I would like to ask if Darkness Shines is allowed to remove active sanctions. I've read somewhere that a user is allowed to remove anything they want from their talk page, but I can be wrong here so I am writing you. OccultZone (Talk) 06:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REMOVED which clearly states that the removal is valid. Anyone attempting to restore the removed text is (a) misguided, and (b) a dick. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle, Johnuniq, but unfortunately, WP:REMOVED contains the wording "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: ... any other notice regarding an active sanction". As it happens, DS was hit by that back in January and took it to ANI [24] where it soon became clear that common decency says that editors should be allowed to remove notices that they have read - even those of active sanctions. DS then tried to update WP:REMOVE to reflect what actually happens [25], but was reverted by the inertia of some who think that guidelines require extensive discussion just to be descriptive of actual practice. So it's dismal that the argument he won in January (but was not allowed to document) now has to be re-litigated four months later because of the stupidity of having a guideline that doesn't reflect community practice, but is so much effort to change that nobody is able to do so. Then we wonder why we're losing editors. --RexxS (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, is that what those waffly words mean—I'll have to retire injured, or at least confused. I remember long discussions about that from a couple of years ago and I edited the guideline once to implement what I thought a discussion had concluded, namely that the wording implied that current block notices could not be removed, but the wording was not clear (that is, my clarification was to explicitly state that such notices could not be removed because that appeared to be the consensus at the time). Then it was overturned—my edit was removed after some further discussion. Perhaps it's done a couple of revolutions that I have not noticed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He left the Arb block notice, which is active, so the other is moot. Seems pedantic to force him to keep a notice about an action he can't possibly violate since he is blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hell has emptied...the devils are all here!--MONGO 13:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember when we used to edit articles? Good times....good times. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And all our yesterdays have lighted fools.--MONGO 14:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at Ann Heberleins article that I created a few days ago. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I added a sentence about her best-known book to the lead, see what you think. I remember she was all over the media after that one. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your assistance :)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question you asked at the end of this edit probably deserves an answer. The simple reason is that no one has ever offered to nominate me for adminship and I am reluctant to nominate myself, as doing so would be "prima facie evidence of power-hunger" :-). I'm not averse to helping out with admin stuff if anyone thinks I'd be useful, but in my old age I'm also perfectly content gnoming away in the background, where things tend to be much less stressful. Deor (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't? I'm surprised. I've actually never nominated anybody… I'm a little uncomfortable with the role of nominator, partly because I favour self-noms. Adminship isn't, or shouldn't be, some sort of exclusive country club that you need a sponsor for! I always support any self-nom I catch sight of, unless there's something seriously problematic about them. IMO, self-noms show a commendable spirit of independence, which is a good thing in admins.

I don't mean I'd exactly recommend you to self-nominate. You're quite right that stupid comments like the one you quote are all too common, and the negative attitude to self-noms seems to be getting regrettably more common. If I were the closing 'crat, I'd disregard opposes with nonsense rationales like "self-nomination shows power hunger" … but it's probably not what happens. (Or is it, Writ Keeper?)

On the third hand, it would be great to have you in the admin pool, so I'll think about abandoning my principled stand (and my reluctance to enter the cesspool that RFA easily turns into). I'll just ping Drmies first. I assume you saw his comment on ANI, too? Anyway, I hope you do decide to run! Þæs ofereode, þisses swa mæg. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Bish, please don't get all Old English on me. DYK that at one point I thought about getting those lines tattooed? I may have told Deor this at one time or another (probably another--way back when). Deor, I have never dug into your closet for skeletons, and I don't have your resume here at hand, but I would be happy to nominate you. If you like you can email me, so that we can set up secret appointments and agreements, cabal-style. Oh, my RfA wasn't a cesspool, though there was one little puddle of shit in the middle (and it's a funny story, which perhaps I'll share later); I see these complaints about RfA, but folks like Dennis Brown, Kelapstick, the aforementioned Writ Keeper, Bbb23, and many others just sailed through. I've never been able to find Bish's RfA--it's probably one of her socks who blackmailed some bureaucrat to check that little box but hey, I'm not complaining. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't find mine even though it's on my userpage (along with all my RFC's, that I'm somewhat more proud of)? Sterling display of admin knowing-your-way-around there, doctor. Never mind, here it is. Not that one..? OK, here's another. I've actually got the Deor lines on a T-shirt. No, not kidding, Geogre gave it to me, it's right here in my closet. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, yes, adminship is not a country club btw, we tee off at 3:30 bish. Open to all and whatnot. From the looks of it (and I did look), he appears to have adequate tenure and proper background. Besides, we need the dues. And I didn't sail through, it was in fact an ordeal. I had to bribe most people for votes, including Drmies, whom I still owe four lawn mowings. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I miss your RfA entirely? Through my own negligence? And don't worry, Mrs. Drmies does the lawn. I just repair the mower. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you even added a side comment at my RFA. We had socks, blocks, swapped votes and drama. Good times....good times. But then again, I'm a overly persistent, opinionated (but polite) type so I'm very confident Deor will fare much better than I did. I would be willing to ride shotgun for you here if he so chose. Maybe we should see if we can beat Pedro's record and get 6 or 7 noms. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encourage that co-nom nonsense, please. I really hate co-nominations. The entire old guard of the country club making themselves look too important to simply support like a normal person! Deor, don't accept no co-noms! I'm not saying they would make me oppose (how would you like "Too many nominations" for an oppose rationale, Writty?), but it would chill my enthusiasm. Of course, it's not my business, you must do as you like, Deor. (But it's still silly!) Bishonen | talk 16:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I can offer up a "neutral - too many nominators" if it helps [26]? Seriously though, the days of a boat load of nominators have, rightly, gone. I think it was my RFA that finally prooved the point too many wasn't a good thing (although I believe Phaedriel and Giggy possibly had more nominators at their RFA's). Anyway, Bish is right. One, maybe two nominators. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. You're no fun at all. I will say that I don't recommend self-noms. I think that having one or two nominating you speaks to the trust those people put in you. I don't think they need to be admin, and in fact, someone without the bit and who has a solid history of being a contributor is best. Drmies has the experience and the bit, an exception to the "admin don't do content" rule, and he's a pretty good guy when he's sober, thus a good choice. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you almost missed my RfA, and you were supposed to be my nominator. I didn't really become a 'crat for the closing RfA side of things (too exciting), but my general line is that there's very little that I would totally discount. "Hunger for power", in and of itself, is not a completely illegitimate concern in a candidate, and so I wouldn't be likely to disregard it outright. But the mere fact of a self-nom is not particularly compelling evidence of powerlust; if that was all they had to justify their concern--and I'm sure that people would jump all over that, if it were--I doubt that I would give such a comment much weight, if the vote were to fall into the discretion range and I was to be the 'crat to close the RfA. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WK, I was probably drunk--my apologies. Deor, I have a draft written up already. It's full of nice words and witticisms, but I'll need you to check for grammatical mistakes, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know deor well enough to comfortably nominate him/her, but after looking through edit history, I would/will for sure support an RfA. (this also caused me to ponder my own chances for RfA, decided I need more mainspace edits.) -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of multiple noms at RFA, the current one wasn't planned this way but it is how it worked out. In this case, it is 3 admin that work in very different areas of the 'pedia and have different styles, not just buddies piling up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you figured you didn't have enough enemies, well now you've just made one more... nice going... You'll never be able to keep me out, now you're going to have your hands full. Nice going. 71.127.135.231 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm an admin, I never have enough enemies. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

you have bishzilla. what being is crazy enough to stand up to her? aside from perhaps all of arbcom. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I regret your recent unfortunately completely justifiable actions regarding Til, but I also have to say I am not particularly surprised to see them. Just wondering whether you knew he says on his user page that he has alternate accounts and whether they have been blocked to, or whether they should be, I dunno. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. No, I'm sadly not really surprised either. I would have supposed he'd have some alternate accounts, but I don't think one can ask a checkuser without knowing what they might be, so... I just hope people who edit those pages will keep their eyes open for anything suspicious, and either tell me about it or open an SPI. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

According to a user box on TE's user page, one of the alt accounts is User:Codex Sinaiticus, which last edited in March. BMK (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that account claims to be that of a sysop and crat at the Amharic wikipedia, if that is at all relevant here. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh. Thanks, BMK, I didn't even go look, I simply assumed the socks wouldn't be named there. An acknowledged alternative account is unlikely to be used, I guess, as he probably wouldn't want the hassle of having that one indeffed as well, assuming that he calms down and asks for an unblock in a few months. So I won't block it at present. I don't want to send a "you are simply not wanted here" message by blocking a properly declared account. John, yes, I read the userpage. Blocking it here wouldn't interfere with its use on the Amharic wikipedia, but I'd simply rather not. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Can we be friends? :-)

--Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

… I can only quote another user in the same situation: "Wishing to be friends is quick work, but friendship is a slow ripening fruit" (Aristotle). I'm sure we can if you water this plant. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Here's one for you: on 9 May 2014 Funkyfresh1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fancypants53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 142.29.130.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were all blocked for tag-team vandalism on a number of articles, including Comox, British Columbia and Irving, Texas, with the two named accounts being indeffed and the IP blocked blocked for 72h. One of the things they did was adding the name "Liam Irving" in various places, so when I just saw Quack53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalise Comox, BC, and Irving, Texas, and add "Liam Irving" as prime minister of Uzbekistan it wasn't hard to figure out that the same vandal is back again. So may I suggest a block? Thomas.W ^talk 19:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Since you seemed to be offline for a while I reported it at WP:AIV, resulting in an indef block for the new user account too. Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • (edit conflict) That finger always does, but Vsmith got in between the cup and the lip! Not fair! [her bloodlust up, /me roams off looking for other opportunities to shoot from the hip. Creates User:Liam Irving in passing.] Bishonen | talk 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Heh - sorry I foiled your fun ... and I wasn't even aware of all that sock'n history. Roll on... Vsmith (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

spend about 5 minutes in RC, and you'll find someone needing a block. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:William Congreve.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Zill. Gotta love an early tetrapod whose name is cognate with ichthys. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cognate with ichthys, really? What is your evidence for that? The Tiktaalik#Discovery section of the article doesn't support it. Deor (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don’t think “cognate“ is the word you want: AFAICT the Inuktitut word is composed from two roots. The first, tik, I‘m not sure of, but it’s also the stem of the word for “index finger“; -taalik means “long”. I believe the most generic word for “fish“ is iqaluk. OTOH the origins of ichthys are unknown–at any rate the word doesn’t appear susceptible to analysis. (Sorry for the pedantry, but I was unpleasantly reminded of a certain prolific Usenet Hellenomane who claimed, among many other silly things, that iglu derives from oikos.)—Odysseus1479 21:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mosfetfaser&diff=prev&oldid=610245924 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nothing much from you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bishonen - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe busy? Just saying.--MONGO 20:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. I was busy typing up a block message for the user's page. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Just shaking my head. By the way, this won't (and didn't) trigger a notification. The way I understand it, you have to sign in the same edit you're adding the notification. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Interesting. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If you want to experiment, consider me your guinea pig (if Bishzilla watches where she puts her feet). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice I linked your talkpage in my original post, which I simultaneously signed? I suppose that didn't trigger a ping either? I think it would be clever if it did. Something for Bishzilla's old friend Bugzilla? Bishonen | talk 07:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

[Darwinbish, a skilled programmer, starts working on her own alert system, which will digitally bite the pinged person shrewdly on the ass.] darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 07:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

YEOWZERS!!!--MONGO 08:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no ping. Only works if you link the user page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do the gravure diacritical above the O, but I didn't mean to type the extra I. Just oddly enough by coincidence I was trying to compare examples with the RfD at wishes and tried dishes and bishes and so on: then you came in I am surely entirely coincidentallly so I mentioned bish, which leads this way to bishonen as {{R from title without diacritics}} (at least it should; not sure that it does). I just mistyped: please excuse me; I have never heard this forenam (or surname): please excuse my ignorance. Which language is it from? Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese. Anime, manga and bishounens are features of Japanese culture. Did I forget to link them in my message on your page? Bishonen | talk 21:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please take a look at Soraya Post, Kristina Winberg and Peter Lundgren (politician). Thank you :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]