User talk:Bishonen

Hello, well-dressed reader. There's no need to post "Talkback" or "You've got mail" templates here. I watch my e-mail, and also your talkpage if I've posted on it.

Dear Bishonen,

Thank you ever so much for your kind message. My servant tells me that you are a respectable and classy gal, and I am so far inclined to believe him (though in other matters lately, such as the recent food preparations, bed clothes, and litter box accommodations, his judgement leaves much to be desired).

Regarding the gallery to which you alluded, it might interest you to know that the kittens therein are from Parken Zoo, Eskilstuna (though surely they are no longer kittens today). (Incidentally I have found that my zoo-bound kin speak in the most unintelligible dialects and lack certain graces, but I shall not digress on the matter.)

Though I care naught for him in any true sense (apart from his adequately performed functions), my servant wishes to relay that he has been dealing with what he calls "trolls" (I can only relate to the term insofar as imagining it references something comparable to the ghastly mores of bobcats, who have ever been the embarrassment of Felidae) and would prefer not to invite more of their company through references to "usernames". (This is most likely a cover, however, for he is but a flighty and fussy creature who is yet unkeen to accept that I am in control, as is my privilege.)

With warmest regards,

Manul 17:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're so great-looking! Parken Zoo must be better than I thought; I've never visited it. (Eskilstuna? Where's that? No, I'm kidding, of course I know the town. Know of it.) I'd truly never even heard of manuls before, so please forgive a perhaps stupid question: what's the image of the eagle owl doing in amongst them on your page? Do the two species perhaps share a special bond? (I like owls — I'm a YOLO (You Obviously Like Owls), compare the image on my userpage.) I'll remember about the username. My god, some of them are scary — I would not like to meet this guy in the dark! The trolls would run a mile, I'm sure. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Did this [1] -- kind of leaves your comment dangling. Feel free to revert. NE Ent 00:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine, you'd better remove mine as well. Carol should see it, but let's assume she has. I tried to scare up a clerk on IRC, but no luck. Interesting to see Salvio ignore it, wasn't it? Probably genuine tunnel vision there. Bishonen | talk 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It looks like the issue is resolved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, HiB. Maybe leave mine, Ent, since User:Voceditenore has now improved the context. Whichever you prefer. Bishonen | talk 00:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, duh. I didn't read carefully because fed up with nonsense and thought he meant GGTF. I was wondering why my saying something at Arbitration would get me banned from GGTF but obviously didn't care enough to read carefully. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gayen is currently subject to vandalism by a particular IP, who refuses to understand our policies. This community/surname does not belong to Kayastha caste, and the IP contributor naturally has no source or reference to support his/her claim. In order to show affiliation to a higher caste like Kayastha, the contributor is just providing some references (copy-paste) from the article Kayastha, which by no means show that 'Gayen' belongs to that particular community. Also, the contributor is indulging in copyright violation by inserting image, as pointed out and removed once by User:Filedelinkerbot. Requesting appropriate action, so that the article can be edited by autoconfirmed users only. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Caste puffery, how familiar. And reverts the anti-vandal bot and the image removal bot. Thanks for the alert, Ekdalian. The article has never been protected before, so I don't think I should give it more than a month to begin with; please let me know if the problems resume after that. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Yes absolutely; I will watch the article, and inform you in case it resumes later. Best Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article Gayen is protected from IP edits, it seems that the user behind the IP VishwajeetGain, has become active, and removed the 'refimprove' tag as well as incorporated the same image. I have issued a warning on his talk page, User talk:VishwajeetGain. I have already reverted thrice, and will refrain from further editing within 24 hours. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting you to warn or block the user VishwajeetGain (whatever seems appropriate to you), engaged in edit war and violation of policies in spite of repeated warnings. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made made the necessary changes, and corrected what needed to be corrected. Being new to Wikipedia, some help would be appreciated, instead of the constant reversion of all my edits made to the page. I request you to kindly look into the matter, and ensure that only the inaccurate parts of the article are removed. Removal of the added categories, surname tag, images, and links in the 'see also' section, is unnecessary and unjust. Sources have been added where necessary. I will accept any edits made, provided valid reasons for their removal are stated. Thank you. VishwajeetGain

VishwajeetGain is repeatedly removing content from the article's talk page, even after being informed that this is a gross violation of our policies. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ekdalian, I think VishwajeetGain had a right to remove your talkpage post here, as it's not appropriate to make accusations about users' motives etc on that page. Please discuss only edits, not editors. That said, VishwajeetGain, I don't understand your editing at all. You apologize and say you won't edit the article again, and then you simply carry on doing it, without engaging with objections on the talkpage (other than simply removing those objections). What do you mean by it? I will block you if you continue. Also, please state whether it was you who made the edits from the 110.224.214.xx IPs. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• I've just seen this, Bish. I'll try to take a look at the article content later today and see if something can be straightened out. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until yesterday, I had no idea what a talk page was. As for the editing of the article, I have a right to do so, as long as I comply by the rules, which I have done. I believe the present condition of the articles is fine, and any additions made for improvement of its comprehensiveness will be appreciated. What I found rather unsettling, was the constant reversion of all my edits made by Ekdalian, even when they were legitimate edits. I still don't understand why the images had to be removed, as they are published under the public domain. I have thanked the user for his/her constructive edits, but I believe it wasn't right to undo all the edits at a single go. I look forward to further co-operation between contributors to the article. Thank you. VishwajeetGain — Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VishwajeetGain:, can we please leave Bish alone now? I'm pretty good on caste/history stuff and can probably help both "sides" here. I'm a bit busy today but I will look into the problems later and we can discuss at Talk:Gayen, which is the proper venue. The reason why that is the correct place is because it is likely to be watched by more people who are actually interested in the article subject than this (Bishonen's) user talk page. The article is a mess as it stands and does not comply with our policies; then again, it didn't comply before the two of you began edit warring. I think that we'll need to start from somewhere way back in time or even completely rewrite it but Talk:Gayen is the place to be right now. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that won't work, will it :/ Well, if I scratch your back ... ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zilla hire! Little user willing scratch back and bring verbs? Work for delicious board (see cake fridge) and comfy lodging in pocket? Welcome take up residence! bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't pay her a cent -- she'll work for free if your writing is bad enough [2]. NE Ent 15:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the historic accounts by renowned authors mentioning bhumihar Brahmin / babhan community are mentioned as follows

(1)Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British By C. A. Bayly [3]

(2)The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang [4]

(3)Man in India, Volumes 54-55 by Sarat Chandra Roy (Ral Bahadur) [5]

(4)Bazaar India: Markets, Society, and the Colonial State in Gangetic Bihar By Anand A. Yang [6]

(5)Caste: The Colonial Theories by Braja Bihārī Kumāra [7] Martial races of undivided India By Vidya Prakash Tyagi [8]

(6)Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements: A Case Study By Saiyad Hasan Ansar [9]

(7)Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. [10]

(8)Hindu caste and sect by yogendra nath bhattacharya [11]

(9)Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt [12]

(10)Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the ... By Susan Bayly [13]

(11)The State at War in South Asia By Pradeep Barua [14]

(12)Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS [15] page no 83 and 84

(13) Rajesthan by RK gupta and s r bhakshi. [16]

(14)Medieval India: From Sultanate To The Mughals: Part I: Delhi Sultanate By Satish Chandra

senari massacre [17]

Note : Bhumihar Brahmin/ Babhan/ Bhumihars (short name of bhumihar Brahmin) are names to same community.

Hi sir, whatever books I have mentioned earlier are the books from renowned Historians or social activists. None of these books have mentioned any relation of bhumihar with rajput. Bhumihar (i.e. Babhan) is a distinct community different from rajput, but having Brahmin origin. It is a total biased to write a fictitious and fabricated tale or legend meant to insult a community which has been given in ashwani kumar's book (i.e. Bhumihar made up of union of rajput and Brahmin). You can find a lot about the plight of dalit ( i.e. so called downtrodden section of society who are not at all downtrodden in present time and politically awaken today) in his (aswani kumar) book, but hardly about the plight of Bhumihar Brahmin/Babhan. He has not mentioned Senari massacre and other massacre (available on ranvir sena Wikipedia ) in which mcc, Maoist (i.e. naxalite) and dalit led army beheaded bhumihar/babhan cruelly like Islamic state terrorist organisation of present time. This book is a totally biases against upper caste (i.e. Class) and trying to emphasize only on false tales and fabricated stories which has come out of sheer jealousy (refer 7 and 8 citation mentioned above). There are some bad persons in all community which have been over hyped in ashwani kumar's book. Entire babhan community has been made culprit in his book. If anyone is writing anything in Wikipedia he should write all the issues, and not merely some defamatory and derogatory tales, which is not at all true historically. Ashwani kumar has written many fictitious stories about babhan/bhumihar which cannot be simultaneously true. Rajput is a community which come into existence only after fall of Harshavardhan kingdom (ref 13 & 14). Initially they (Rajputs) were centred around north-west India and some part of central India. They came to eastern India only at the time of emergence of Islamic force in India (i.e. around 1200 AD or Muhammad ghori period). Bhumihar brahmin is a new name to babhan community which gained popularity in late 19th century and popularized by babhan landlords. In british raj they were enumerated as Babhans under aristocratic and military community till 1891 British census.(ref 9 &12) So I request wikipedians to remove this fairy tale which has been fabricated by some jealousy community out of sheer jealousy. Please put up historic fact about babhan community rather than some fabricated story. Swami shahjanand saraswati was a peasant leader and social reformer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahajanand_Saraswati) who advocated mere priesthood for babhans rather than landlord ship and wanted inclusion of Babhan in mere donation taking Brahmins list. Bhumihar brahmin or bhumihar name for this entire babhan community was popularized during the same period. sahjanand also attempted to abolish zamindari (landlord ship) from bihar( 7, 10 & 12). Babhans were already included in aristocratic class till 1891 british census. There is hardly any book or early historical evidence giving relation of bhumihar/Babhan with rajput(6). It is a pure myth to associate bhumihar with rajput which are two distinct community. So please put down the myth and include the materials from reliable and credible citation regarding bhumihar/ babhan community. Bhumihar is a Sanskrit word for zamindar or jagirdar which means landlord or landholder(ref 8). Swami shahjanand saraswati books (Brahamharshi Bamsha Bistar by swami shahjanand saraswati. https://archive.org/details/BrahamharshiBamshaBistar) are cited by most of the Brahmin community for reference like kanyakubj Brahmin, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakubja_Brahmins) Saryupareen Brahmins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saryupareen_Brahmins) Jujhautiya Brahmin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jujhautiya_Brahmin).

One more point I want to mention is that new fictitious and imaginary theory which has evolved quite recently and has not been mentioned by any historians in past and in British colonial era. Babhan (i.e. Bhumihar) has been categorised as shudra along with kayastha in british colonial period. (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sQcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) this book mentions this claim but it has not mentioned which year census report did so. I am including one of the census report and abstract of book to unveil this false statement. (Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up)and (http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1) (i.e. ref 9, 12)These books clearly denote that babhans were considered as military community similar to rajputs, nairs and marathas , they fought to get included in mere priestly Brahmin list since they have brahmanic (i.e. of brahmin) origin. Please do not let some editor write some spurious and false facts which do not have historical evidences or account to back the fact.

It is quite disappointing that Some of the wikipedians are persistently showing might is right kind of policy. I have mentioned enough history books to support my point but some are showing biased view. I am persistently telling that please write the historical document. What ever book i have mentioned above are the credible historic account(document). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes belong on article talk pages. All the stuff you mention above has already been discussed at Talk:Bhumihar and has been found wanting by several experienced contributors. You need to drop this stick, Bpandey98, because you've already been blocked previously and also have had the WP:GS/Caste notice. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so quick off the mark. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP, I enjoy that stuff. Favonian has semi'd Jimbo's page for a few hours, and blocked the IPs. Mind you, I'm completely over the notion of blocking these open proxies; there are thousands, if not millions, and there are easy-to-find lists of them and simple instructions for how to use them, all over the WWW. So, you know. Once probably an individual needed to be somewhat internet savvy to go via an open proxy; now its anybody's game. Heck, I could probably do it myself — I can't put it any more strongly that that. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, blocking open proxies does seem a rather outdated bit of policy. One of those was a static IP, though, which confuses me slightly.

I think I shall ever remain astonished that a group that purports to be fighting corruption engages in so many lies etc. They're not even sensible fibs in many cases, such as the stuff that was just revdel'd: it is no great secret that I cannot and never have been able to use a phone. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I misread the original edit and missed the broader context. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have a cookie! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Till any Svensk-speakers, jag have been transkriberat and editerat Swedish kokböcker at Swedish Wikisource.

Cajsa Wargs Hjelpreda i Hushållningen för Unga Fruentimber är helt klar men behöver korrläsning. Anna Maria Rückerschölds En Liten Hushålls-Bok är korrläst, men behöver fortfarande valideras.

Ytterligare två böcker, Handbok wid den nu brukliga Finare Matlagningen och Handbok för Dryckers Beredning är under arbete. Om ni är intresserade, hjälp gärna till.

Det här titlarna är en rätt viktig del av svensk kulturhistoria som tidigare inte funnit tillgänglig på nätet på allvar. Haka gärna på om ni känner för't.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty here likes munching on trolls, and is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to do so again.

John Carter (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I saw you hid a revision on the Village Pump, but you (or a TPS) might want to also hide the revert that followed that rev, as it also includes the insulting username. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I tried, but it's impossible to revdel the last edit in the history. I'll take care of it tomorrow if somebody else hasn't. [/me goes back to sleep] Bishonen | talk 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Should have guessed you wouldn't miss it. I need to post a note there so that will soon no longer be the last edit; perhaps someone will spot it and fix it then if you're asleep. 'Night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can too revdel the last version. Probably not the content (I haven't tried, but that would make sense), but the username or edit summary you can revdel just like any other version. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as to who is behind the proxies attacking Nishidani, me, you, etc? They've been busy for almost 2 days now. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YGM. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, from me too. I hope John's is more useful than mine. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I see ANI and my talk page have been semi-protected. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ANI is a good idea, at least. You know, briefly. Johnuniq, you want one? I've got a discount today, only five bucks for a semi. I'll do you user (take a look at it) and usertalk two for one. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yow! If a semi is $5, what does a vote cost? I'll leave you to decide on the semi (thanks!), but I'm a very small player in that nonsense so perhaps wait to see if there is another burst? Speaking of the elections, I don't see much discussion this year. I think we used to get pages of rants under "discuss this candidate"—perhaps this year's candidates are boringly sane? Or, the gossip hasn't been discovered yet? Talking of the latter, there are two very odd user pages here and here—one of those is not unexpected, but the other...yikes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't verify this at at this moment, but the talk page of the user Alexclarkerfff says that you blocked the user, but this user's block log has nothing in it, and the message was sent by an IP editor. In the same edit, the IP editor also gave out a vandalism message to the same page, signed if it's from Widr. Unless if I'm wrong, I strongly doubt that Alexclarkerfff did severe vandalism in November. TheGGoose (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me too. I reverted their edit and gave a warning. Widr (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. TheGGoose (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That IP knew where to find a block notice; they've copied it from their own talkpage under a slightly different IP, 24.222.82.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), here. I did indeed block that IP for three months on 30 November. Now I've blocked the current one, 24.222.80.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for 3 months as well. (The related name account was blocked indefinitely earlier, in October.) Bishonen | talk 19:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. Please, everybody, let me know if you should see disruption from other similar IPs, because I'll block the range if necessary. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

24.222.239.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be same user. Widr (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately that one extends the range hugely, so I'll merely block it individually. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Whenever you wake up, please could you take a look at BPandey's latest tl;dr effort? It like deja vu, all over again ;) My patience is being tested to the limit here, and they've been given the same sort of response from other people also. - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to? It's got to be the longest "minor edit" I've ever seen. Well, OK, tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 23:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

In fairness, my diff is three-in-one and the major change was not tagged as minor. But horses, sticks and even deafness come to mind. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you receive my recent (this week) email? The issue is moot, and I am not looking for any opinion or action. But I am curious if I have an account problem, since all my emails come back to my yahoo address as undelivered. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do they? I got a message from you a couple of days ago all right. Sorry I didn't get round to responding. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 127#email. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do use yahoo, and according to the archived thread the solution is not to use yahoo. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bish, what do you think about this? It's up for WP:G13 at present. I've read the sv:Knut Stjerna article, and it seems to indicate some significance at the very least. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of the subject, but then I'm ignorant. Gigs is right that the article needs to answer the question "Why is Stjerna worth writing about?" and I'm not sure what the answer is. I've taken a look at this, a full, even indiscriminate, bio which suggests (well, to me) that Stjerna's considerable importance for making archaeology a major academic discipline at Uppsala was somewhat marred by a crazed conservative Swedish nationalism. His mentor Oscar Montelius, Strindberg's father of buttonology (haha, good old Strindberg), seems rather more important. So I dunno. Also, whatever is the "Knot (Knut) Martin Stjerna" thing? I don't see the unfamiliar name form Knot used for Knut Stjerna anywhere else, so I suspect the author Artis.silinsh may have simply translated the word knut, as unlikely as it seems. (Knut as a common noun does mean knot, but so what?) Bishonen | talk 11:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. A locally well-known scenic walkway in Stockholm, Monteliusvägen, was named after Montelius in 1998, so I suppose he's reckoned sort of eminent. I have a hard time imagining anything being named after Stjerna. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It looked like there might be some valid claim to notability from my quick search for sources when I reviewed it, but the current article didn't do a good job of presenting it. In its present state it doesn't make a good enough case for notability to survive AfD IMO. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Swedish scholars in the business of judging the notability of people like Stjerna consider him important enough to include in a national dictionary of biography (and there are other sources beside that), then he is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. On the other hand, too much of this draft looks like it is machine-translated text from a Swedish source or two. --Hegvald (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A nice addition to the Clueless complaints about Sitush noticeboard, don't you think? - NQ (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not abusive so it would be a little out of place there, even though clueless is clearly right. I wish I could motivate myself to post a discretionary sanctions alert on the IP, but, yawn. Let 'em create an account and call Sitush a few names and I'll consider it. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• That post was from an actual account though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, that post? Sorry. (NQ gave a revision link above, not a diff.) Yeah, that's a canary of a whole different colour. I was looking at this, the last post on the page in that revision, sorry. Vdhillon tricked me by top-posting. Thanks for catching my error, Luke! I've regrouped: removed the diatribe and warned the user (warned 'em again; NQ and Sitush had already done so), and, oh, all right, I suppose he can have the DS alert template, as a special favour. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• NQ did indeed give a revision link, but it was referring to the same user who top-posted. "Account/IP used just to troll Sitush" may as well be a discretionary sanction all of its own, these days... No problem for helping out; that's what we're here for, after all. :) (good job I was feeling nosy after I saw the section heading pop up in my watch list!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can probably count on one hand the number of people who have trolled me, assuming that those connected to IAC are a single account. In fact, though my memory is not great, I can recall only Mr Urge. It is common for me to receive comments from those connected to the many Indian castes, who are often trying to promote a sanskritised view of things. They can sometimes be unpleasant in their language but rarely well over the top. It really all boils down to the fundamentals of how WP works and, in particular, oral history and caste bias. Although certainly intended ironically, I'll put it on record that no specific discretionary sanction is needed and that, generally, I just don't bother responding to such things. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A messy diff is surely not something that a celestial being like you should be looking at. No, for you special revision link that pointed to the right section for easier reading :) - NQ (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen,

Thanks for your message. I apologize for having proceeded incorrectly and for causing you unnecessary trouble. I have no idea what I'm doing and was unable to reach you directly although I tried to.

I won't beat this dead horse any longer, but I do want to leave you with this thought. The comment below by Huon (?) describes exactly the point of my essay, "Rethinking Conspiracy." He says:

The kinds of "conspiracies" you write about are not the subject of "conspiracy theories"; alleging that criminals smuggle drugs won't get someone called a "conspiracy nut". Huon (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The distinction he makes is false, you know. I guess he hasn't heard of Gary Webb and Freeway Ricky Ross. That is the point of my article--conspiracies are common and are nothing more than crimes coordinated and perpetrated by more than one person. I'm not disparaging Huon; it's simply that the distinction he makes precisely represents the illogical attitude and misperception of the term 'conspiracy': what my article addresses:

"Rethinking Conspiracy" http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/10/27/rethinking-conspiracy/

Anyway, I'm used to these attitudes as I have been dealing with them for many years. This experience with Wikipedia has given me a great idea for a story though--continuing on the theme of people's distorted view of conspiracies.

Anyway, it was humane of you to respond. I didn't mean to cause you any trouble personally and only proceeded as I did because I couldn't find out how to contact you. As I said, I'm new to this and every step presents problems.

Sincerely, (どうもありがとう) Shawn Hamilton Sacramento, CA Lesseroftwoevils (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

75.5.248.174 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesseroftwoevils (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shawn, thanks for posting. I think you must have studied these issues far more profoundly than I have. Maybe you'd like to direct your points to Huon, who made the argument you take issue with? You can either post on his page, User talk:Huon, or your own, while "pinging" him the way I just did, by linking his name. (Check out my comment here in edit mode to see exactly how to link a username so as to achieve the ping.) It's probably more convenient for you both to keep the discussion on your page, rather than spread it over several. And, I don't want to confuse you with further alternatives, but, but… if it's a question of improving the article, the article discussion page is really the best place for it. (It's Talk:Intelligent design, and create a new section at the bottom of the page just like you did here.) That'll be read by more people — all who're watching the page.

And don't think I don't sympathize with the difficulty of navigating the site when you're new to its conventions — I really do — while I'm at home here, I find myself utterly helpless if I try to post on some other message board or similar. Like a newborn baby. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help with anything you'd like to do here. (A story about Wikipedia? I'd love to read it. :-) ) Bishonen | talk 19:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

For your latest admin activity on my Talk, and Chopra pages. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Bishonen | talk 09:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

(Thanks to the talkpage watchers.) Well, that was a little disappointing! The "sticker" looked like a tiny grey square with "gif" (or "oif"? – hard to say) in it, and some few figures or whatever. Is it me? I'd like to see a whale sticker! (I don't like to boast of the conglomerate, but darwinbish knows how to use marine life for harassment — she whacks 'em with a rack of dried lutefisk.[18]) Bishonen | talk 13:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Mmmm, tasty. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was this sassy whale that made an appearance. - NQ (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very handsome, looks a lot like me! But why couldn't I see it? Is it a… character that my browser doesn't have access to? Bishonen | talk 15:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Depends on the browser. Can I Emoji? tells you more. - NQ (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Chrome you're out of luck. The above website won't render properly either. There was this chromoji extension that added emoji support, but that got pulled from the store a couple of days back. - NQ (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm old school. I use Firefox, and Opera or SeaMonkey on occasion, but it don't make no difference, because Mac OSX 10.6 doesn't support Emoji for any browsers. (10.7 does.) It's true that I've been seeing a lot of the dull little squares. Upgrade… hmmm… Maybe. When I can be bothered. On the plus side, nice Snow Leopard (10.6) rather stuck a pin in the trolling of the IP, didn't it? Clever leopard! Bishonen | talk 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

A Safari in the Yosemite National Park is pure bliss, it doesn't get any better. No mountain lions or snow leopards. - NQ (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm considering that very thing — I'm consulting with my domestic IT director. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Hey, I thought of something. Checking the Android tablet (Opera)... OK… that's different. It doesn't show the whale sticker and doesn't symbolise it either. In lieu of the dull little square, there's nothing. Perhaps comparatively an advantage… not sure. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Both Chrome and Opera use the same engine. If the android version is above 4.3, emojis should render fine. - NQ (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So since they don't render, I guess that shows it isn't? It's, well, 4... point something, no doubt. Anyway, that's more theoretical, I hate the touchscreen, I don't use it much. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

As a technologically adept old-hand, can you (or any of your talk-page watchers) history-merge this draft in my userspace and the Pashupati seal article (which was "copy-moved" to mainspace, during a period when I was on an unscheduled hiatus) ? That way, I can delete the userspace draft and resume work on completing the mainspace article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that's been a long time. Well, I'll try. [/me manages to remove both versions from the database. Oops.] Jk, done. I deleted the userspace redirect, was that OK? If there are links to it, I guess they should be changed. Bishonen | talk 14:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, can you take another look?

• The history of the User:Abecedare/Pashupati_seal draft doesn't show up in the new location.
• The new location is in userspace: User:Pashupati seal instead of in article space Pashupati seal :-)

Abecedare (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC the process would be to

• Undelete and move User:Abecedare/Pashupati_seal to Pashupati seal
• Then move User:Pashupati seal to Pashupati seal (thus deleting the existing version there)
• Then going into the history of Pashupati seal and restoring the deleted article versions.

Been a long time since I tried this (and the process may have changed in the meantime), so perhaps some tps'ers can weigh in. Or, trial and error always works. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it may be simpler, given your previous moves: can you just take a look at the "deleted history" of User:Pashupati seal and see if there versions to be restored? Then the page can be moved to Pashupati seal which even I can do) and the userspace redirects deleted. Abecedare (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, god. I've just been trying to do a similar histmerge for a page of mine that someone ripped out of the userspace a century ago, and kept getting tripped up by the busybody software that kept supplying double "space" names, so it doesn't surprise me. I'll try again, sorry. That'll teach you to call me technologically adept. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Got it, I think. You'd better check. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you! GFDL compliance and, ahem, my personal vanity have been restored. :-) Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final clean-up: Once this and this are deleted the crime-scene will be perfectly spotless. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, moreover, the credit for the Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide, that Moreschi ripped out of my userspace in the dawn of time without a by-your-leave, is finally where it belongs, after your request made me realise it could be done. It's my one technical page, ever (isn't that surprising?) so I have a quite unwikipedian owner's vanity about it. With that one, I've probably not deleted the entire broad wake of malformed redirects — don't have time right now — don't care enough, either — I'll get back to it some time. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, I have certainly pointed users to WP:D&L. Didn't know of its creator (and surprised Moreschi didn't give credit is his edit-summary).

Just for clarity: I can't blame User:R9tgokunks for the copy-move. The draft was lying dormant in my userspace; the subject is certainly notable; and I was on an extended hiatus. So it certainly made sense to copy the text to mainspace instead of starting an article from scratch and R9tgokunks gave me due credit in his edit-summary. The substantive concern is that my draft only covered the scholarship on the subjects till the 1960s, and the more recent scholarship (which has considerably changed the views on the subject) was yet-to-be-added. So the current article, in which the more recent views are covered only perfunctorily, has been presenting a somewhat outdated picture to the readers! Need to remedy that sometime soon. Abecedare (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide is on my watchlist, so I saw the difficulties you were having earlier today. Dare I mention the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Simple diff and link guide? It seems to have gone missing. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I didn't bother with it because there was nothing there — discussion has mainly been in edit summaries. There may have been a template or so. I really can't face excavating it — I just tried, and got a goddam runaround (again) — and I'm still exhausted by my own idiocies re the main page. Do you remember the talkpage as containing anything of use, John..? Because I don't. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

this? - NQ (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that quick closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_by_IP.That much incivility is against common sense and the editor obviously understands it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP was aware of the fact that he is not on facebook but he's on wikipedia and rules different..? He wasn't. See Wikipedia:BEFOREBLOCKING, at least 1 warning was required. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that policy. Thanks for pointing to it. It also leaves a room for "warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking" if it is clear that the editor is acting in bad faith. In my judgement, even on Facebook the attacked person would have used blocking in this case. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only violent attack pages are deleted in facebook. Full one goes like ".. users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking". If I or you are in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, then any admin will block without notice. Although this IP had never edited before. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand your point. Thanks for explaining. Btw, I was referring to one person blocking another person from posting on their wall on Facebook. I didn't know about page deletion on Facebook. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was referring to the things that are deleted or any action is taken without a warning on facebook, yes it is only an attack page. Otherwise they warn too. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, are you available for handling one more issue at this moment? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid not. In a few hours, if you haven't found anybody else by then. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• OK, I'm back. User:Bladesmulti, I don't really care if the IP thought Wikipedia was Facebook (?), and I'm not concerned with what Facebook would do. I have trouble understanding your statement that at least one warning was required per Wikipedia:BEFOREBLOCKING. As AmritasyaPutra pointed out, that policy section says among other things that "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking." The focus of the section is that admins are supposed to warn and educate "users who are acting in good faith" before blocking them. My italics. An illustrative example from my own experience would be newbie caste warriors who edit caste articles to make their own caste look better or more historically important. They're acting in good faith, in my opinion, trying to make Wikipedia reflect the truth as they see it, and they always get patient explanations and warnings, even if they do revert war and attack the people who thwart them (which they often do, as it's an emotional subject). Only if they persist beyond reason are they blocked. By contrast, do you really think this attack (I don't know or care why there's two of it) was made in good faith? Was in any sense made to improve the encyclopedia? I'm sorry, that just sounds ridiculous to me. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Milquetoast admin that I am, I only gave the IP a short block, 31 hours, and told them how to appeal it if they feel hard done by. But I'll be surprised if they do appeal, because they'd have to think the block unfair. I think most people including the perp would think it a mild sanction. Was there something else you wanted me to look at? Bishonen | talk 18:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, how dare you use common sense instead of bureaucracy when mashing buttons!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[/me hides head in shame.] The good admin always asks themselves: "What would Caspar Milquetoast do?" (I don't even want to think about what Milquetoast the Cockroach might do. "Disgusting and unsavory"? "Claims he has no control over his behavior"? Actually that might suit me better.) Bishonen | talk 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

A tiny bit off topic, but... I still miss Bloom County. Hard to believe it's been gone for over 25 years. I imagine a majority of our editors were born after it was discontinued. sigh... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. Your analysis, along with giving short block and usual blocking template was probably correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's dynamic, so I've given it 48 hours. I don't even remember what the original account was (because of our tender concern for the privacy of vandals, we don't get to mention that in the block log or anywhere else). Bishonen | talk 15:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I contacted HJ Mitchell about this, but I think the admin doesn't want to be involved: [19]. Editor Aharonium is using personally made website: http://opensiddur.org as a primary source for the article per WP:OR and is ignoring scholarly consensus per WP:RS. User is persistent on advertising the website via the discussion and is POV pushing statements, personal views, based on his/her opinion. The editor is also trying to build a public case against me at WikiProject Judaism: [20]. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JudeccaXIII|. I'm sorry, I don't want to be involved either; I'm too ignorant of the subject, I'd be fumbling in the dark. But I notice you haven't responded to the user at WikiProject Judaism; why not try that? It might be a good thing that they took it there; it'll get more eyes on the question. Don't worry about them "trying to build a public case against you", just respond in a matter-of-fact way. I won't speak as to which of you is in the right, as the discussion on the article talkpage between the two of you is far too deep for me; but if it's you, I'm sure the case built there won't be against you.

If nothing comes of that discussion — I don't know how active the project is — not all projects are even alive — you might appeal to an admin who's a member of the project. Here, I've looked them up for you:Jfdwolff, Malik Shabazz, and Neutrality. There are more admins on the project members list, but these three are the ones who have edited in December. I suggest you take a look at their pages/contributions, to see if they're active on similar pages, and pick one. Another thing you could do, of course, is take it to WP:ANI, but that wouldn't be my first recommendation. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thnx, ANI is the least thing I want be in. I hope the other admins can help resolve the matter much faster than what the average paste is for ANI. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen; Thanks for your assist last week on the Freud page, and yes there is an older backstory of 4 incidents this year with that same editor. At least five editors have had a recurrent difficulty with disruptive editing from User:Allmancer in the last 7 months from his disruptive edits on 4 separate sections on 4 separate occasions. You had previously helped us on the last time around on the Freud page with that same editor. Now there is a fourth incident with Allmancer from the last seven months on seemingly trivial matters which show his difficulty with even very rudimentary Freud material. In the first instance he caused the article to be locked by Admin on this edit [21] because he was misreading/misrepresenting material in Peter Gay's book on Freud. In a second instance, Allmancer began edit warring with User:MartinEvans on the Freud Talk page regarding Allmanacer's lack of understanding of Freud's book on Moses (Freud claims Moses is an Egyptian) which caused much lost editor time to multiple editors. Then there was his disruptive edit warring even when you posted your RfC to assist the Freud page. Now he is trying to force his version of the glacier back into the article by edit warring against 3 editors & without any support of Talk page consensus, even though Freud himself never used this odd diagram. Please advise and if needed I can provide further diffs for his disruptive edits for the last 7 (seven) months. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, FelixRosch, I've been averting my eyes from this because it's so depressing — I do see it's the same for you guys. Almanacer certainly doesn't have the benefit of consensus, but it's a problem that so few people have weighed in on talk at all. (I can't blame the absentees for getting worn out by the stubbornness of your opponent, but still.) ImprovingWiki spoke a little vaguely, so basically you have a consensus against the diagram which only consists of two people. I can't intervene on such a basis. You don't know how much I hate to say this, but I think you'd better start yet another RfC. If it's listed on WP:AN, maybe you'll get a little more input. Bishonen | talk 01:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen; Thanks for getting back to me, this is the 4th time around with that same user during this calendar year warring against User:ImprovingWiki and User:MartinEvans. Separately, User:Callannec has left me a back-to-back message with your own on this same topic which perhaps you could glance at on my Talk page. Its like being pulled in two directions, and the iceberg graph is spurious to the degree that I could prepare a vandalism report against its inclusion if requested. In either event, my appreciation for your getting back to me. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think a nice refreshing ice cream cone makes a nice change to all those dic-tatorial Havanna cigars. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Full-protection: There has been some editwaring over the past few months despite ongoing talks. Need to send a message to those involved that editwaring is simply not how things are done here. They are talking ...but editwar after editwar after editwar...lets keep them talking (no blocks) just a pagelock. -- Moxy (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If they keep going after that, and it's still the same group I'll be blocking people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why these two editors are discussing a possible block of @Martinevans123? (Reposted by) FelixRosch (TALK) 16:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't. Although a block can be quite entertaining. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took the note, I am not as often on such pages, sorry for any inconvenience. Serten II (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, the rules for noticeboards are all different, it's a jungle. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"WC's action" might be a little flushed, so suggest reconsidering the initials. Feel free to delete this daft comment, dave souza, talk 03:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather inspiring ;) Serten II (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, er, in good humor, "not unreasonable" ... is that like "reasonable"? NE Ent 10:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bishonen,

Fmelikov is back editing again and has resumed his edit-warring over Lavash. This time what is even more concerning is that he is editing material that is directly copied and pasted from this website [22]. He even admits that he copied and pasted in this edit-summary [23] and still reinsterts the passage. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm on it. Discretionary sanctions are so complicated! But I'm typing up a topic ban for him. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Well, actually just a page ban, for Lavash itself. God, discretionary sanctions are a bureaucrat's paradise. Thanks for alerting me, Étienne, and feel free to let me know if he should disrupt the talkpage, which I have left him free to edit. But we'll hope not. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bishonen, you've been very helpful. I'll keep an eye out and let you know if there are further problems. Thanks once again, Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He just edited lavash again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. You know, I somehow felt he wouldn't get it, though I tried to make it as clear as possible, and to avoid the usual jargon. 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Though English may be his second language, I don't think it can be more clear than "You have been banned from editing Lavash" and "If you do, you will be blocked." So, I think you did a fine job. He did resort to the talk page at first which was encouraging. But couldn't help but reinsert that copyvio stuff again. Thanks again. I hope not to bother you again in 48 hours. Ciao! Étienne Dolet (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a language problem. Bishonen | talk 11:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Bishonen, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, JudeccaXIII! That's a great image of an exploding Wikipediaglobe! Bishonen | talk 22:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Remember last week's discussion User:Onlylove18 not heeding warnings? Please see User talk:Onlylove18#Problems with upload of File:Kele - Trick.jpg. (The user also doesn't seem very familiar with the concept of edit summaries, as well as Talk pages.) —BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thank you, BarrelProof. Since the imagebot gave the user some friendly instructions for how to add the required info, I'd better give them 24 hours to comply. But my hopes aren't high. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Uh, didn't know you were around so I blocked them for the promised two weeks. Saw your comment when I went to warn them. If you feel that was too harsh feel free to unblock and undo as needed. I just think the number of warnings they've received for the same thing is just too much. But I'll leave it up to your discretion. @BarrelProof: Thanks for the heads up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. Croak, croak. Are the free-range frogs more delicious than the factory-farmed? Bishonen | talk 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

They are, but you wouldn't know that because consuming frog is bad. VERY BAD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, only the legs, of course, don't worry! Bishonen | talk 01:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

§FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, quite; this is a free, happy frog, roaming the wild. Bishonen | talk 04:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Glad we cleared that up! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The block has expired, and the friendly messages from the imagebot have resumed. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much BarrelProof, I'd totally forgotten about that user. Looks like a sad case of WP:CIR. I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Too bad it ended up this way. BarrelProof thanks for the heads up on my talk page as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Intrigued, Bishonen grapples with the unfamiliar concept of the pandoro, then with the unfamiliar concept of the frustum, then looks for images of the snowy Mount Frustum.] Can you believe this was the best I found? [Goes off to join WikiProject Antarctica Highways.] Anyway. It looks delicious. Thank you! [Bishonen has a slice of the edible little Mount Frustum.] Very nice. I could just do with that. Somebody has eaten all the cakes in Bishzilla's fridge! Bishonen | talk 22:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I love you, Sluzzelin! I'll send the li'l helpas over with a little something for you. Bishonen | talk 12:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Some time quite recently I requested semi-protection of Negi (caste) at RFPP. It was refused on the grounds that the repeatedly added material might be unsourced but so too is the (tiny) remainder of the article. I had already opened a discussion on the article talk page and my reason for requesting semi was to drive the IPs etc to that discussion rather than continuing repeatedly to add WP:PUFFERY. I'm fairly sure that the various accounts will turn out all to be the same person but, regardless, we can't go on like this.

Since that request, I just find myself reverting the puffery time and time again. Would you consider semi-protecting the thing for a short period or am I being really stupid here? The two books listed in the further reading section are unavailable to me and the Negi name itself is extremely common, which makes searching for stuff a bit of a nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you can't find a reliable source for the original tiny stub? Can it actually not be credibly shown that the Negi are a caste? (Is the concept of caste too vague?) If the claim that they're a caste can't be sourced, shouldn't the article be deleted rather than protected? In other words, please try to source the short version. If you do that, I can then semi it. In the meanwhile, you'd better stop reverting. It's not the end of the world if the article is fluff and peacockery for a few hours. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Negi is a caste[24] as well as surname, there are many citations, I will write later. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I'd been able to find were passing mentions etc but I was thinking that the puffed-up claims might have sources if only the anons etc would apply them. Plus there is the stuff in Further reading that I can't see. That's why I didn't PROD the thing.

No worries: Bbb23 has now semi'd the thing. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bishonen, Its great that you have arrived as a refree for the article Ashutosh (spiritual leader). I have talked to people who have created and contributed in developing the article and I find few things wrongly described in that article in order to defame a person known as Ashutosh Maharaj. The viewpoint shown by some contributors clearly show that they are convinced by few articles over internet rather than finding what other articles have said. Few points I would like to share :
1- I have provided a good and very reliable source for finding truth - www.lobis.nic.in/phhc. This is official website where judgements of Punjab and Haryana High courts are given. But after this too, the previous contributors Vigyani and Maproom have not listened me.
2- There is a major conflict as High court says that something is false, few newspapers say it true and few newspapers says that it might be true. Due to this, I first asked other editors to write the judgement of honorable High Court, but due to their resistance I wanted them to modify it by using words like "might be true" or "Claiming to be true". But for this request too, they are just not convinced and blaming me for not being neutral.
3- A major fact is being modified with wrong intentions. The name of the person by which he is known as is "Ashutosh Maharaj" where "Maharaj" is his surname (might be given by followers or might be taken by himself), and this full name has been used everywhere from courts to people to various articles.
4- For being normal, you must put all views and see from all angles. Therefore just making someone controversial without looking at his viewpoint is not neutral. This is what few contributors to this article have done. They have heavily used languages with intention of maligning the person "Ashutosh Maharaj" and never used the viewpoint of "Ashutosh Maharaj" or his organisation "Divya Jyoti Jagriti Sansthan". I have always given references to prove my point but it seems that other contributors like Vigyani and Maproom do not pay respect to my editings and references.
Please look at all the discussions on this topic. I am always ready to correct myself if proper reasoning is given. Please forgive me if something wrong is said from my side and I expect you to make this article as neutral as possible.
Thank You --Priyeshndixit (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that user Раціональне анархіст redirects articles who are in the mids of AfD discussions. I am not sure of course but that seems to be very unproductive. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you! :) If you could, please take a look at the article Carolina Neurath that I created today. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Babba. I'll take a look at your new article in a bit. As for redirecting during an AfD, I've done that on occasion. Why not? It doesn't mean the AfD discussion is dead, as it's not hard for users to see the original article. (Well, it might be a bit baffling for newbies, but still.) As long as there's a good reason, and here, at least, the user explains why he redirected The Forex Heatmap to Heatmap, and acknowledges that the action was bold. And it's not hard to revert it if desired. I don't think there's a problem with such actions generally. Anyway, please discuss with the user on their page first, if you think they're overdoing it. Bishonen | talk 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have redirected several pending AfDs, including at least one of which the submitter of the AfD admitted he was OK with.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me, Раціональне анархіст. I think I'll go and do the same thing here — like a coward, I merely suggested redirecting it, and the "discussion" has been nil, even after it was relisted. Nice article, BabbaQ! Bishonen | talk 23:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

For me it is no problem that someone redirects an article. I have just not seen that been done before, so I asked you as you are "all knowing" Lol ;) But just a kind of strange way to handle an AfD if you ask me personally. It kind off points to the nominating user or a user for "deletion" being insecure about the AfDs result. But what do I know, go for it :) I merely asked to confirm that it was an OK action. :) Thank you for your feedback on the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Wikipedia has been suffering a shortage of active administrators for some time, resulting in a "Wild West" situation of too many unaddressed problem articles and a huge backlog in the various resolution lists (such as AfDs). Given the situation, experienced users ofter undertake solutions that they assume would be the logical result if an admin were on the scene. The Forex heatmap article, for instance, is the epitome of innocuous. (The Ashmar article, otoh, is probably me pissing upwind into a hurricane like a damn fool. But we'll see.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping :). I really appreciate having someone who's a little more knowledgeable (well, more than a little :D) than I am come and fill me in on what's good and what's not. I'm not sure I can contribute much in the way of new content but I want to try and help with getting new content into shape - I hope I'm not going about this the wrong way. Happy holidays. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing fine, Louise. You probably had no way of seeing Harry's page had already been deleted once; that's obvious to admins because they have night goggles, lol. Thanks for pointing the new user to useful pages via the page curation tools. The trouble is, though, that if the sources are all basically Harry, the article isn't going to be kept; I could see he had tried to improve it after the first deletion, with more sources, but one, two or twenty sources aren't going to help as long as they're all self-sources. Please don't be discouraged, you're doing good work. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it and completely understand what you're saying. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...for these edits. Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have just become somewhat alarmed by these. Not all are bad but something is definitely fishy here, including how quickly they came to an article that I'd been working on. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser-blocked. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's Greetings!
	Best and Brightest of the Season to you and yours Bish and a Happy New Year! Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you blocked 84.106.11.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for edit warring at Blacklight Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have no quarrel with that whatsoever, and it seemed richly deserved based on the article's history.

In case you hadn't noticed this in the editor's talk page history, he has already been formally alerted to discretionary sanctions as they apply to pseudoscience and related topics. (I only noticed because I was about to issue such an alert myself.) Should this editor continue to behave disruptively in this area, I thought you might like to know that the tools of AC/DS are available to you.

Happy holidays, merry Festivus, joyous new year! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll bear it in mind. I guess I only use the DS tools when absolutely necessary though; it ain't simple. And it's an IP, so I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. The next thing may be semi. I like to avoid that, but this guy seems intent on forcing our hand. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah; I take your point about the administrative overhead associated with DS. Normally I wouldn't worry about DS tools with an IP either; it's only that this guy seems to be pretty static, so DS might be useful. Totally up to you—just figured I'd let you know you had another arrow in the quiver. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you had a great Christmas! Could you please take a look at the article Karolina Olsson. Appreciate it. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bish, about your re-indef of Sr 76 (talk · contribs), you may have missed that the IP that was vandalising on his talkpage and elsewhere pretty certainly wasn't the user in question, but merely User:Wikinger with his usual shenanigans. I don't think Sr 76 has done anything doing their block so far. Reset block to original? Best wishes for the new year – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Yes, of course, do reset, I'm sure you have deeper knowledge of this case. I'd never heard of the user till today; I merely saw vandalism at Kappa and followed it, as I thought, back to Sr 76. Bishonen | talk 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, will do then. It's an easy mistake to make, as Wikinger has that habit of meddling with other blocked users' cases, pretending they are him and other such stupidities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So... how is that character not blocked? Anyway, take a look at Sr 76's block log now... he's good and unblocked. Apparently the block log doesn't do edit conflicts. :-) Bishonen | talk 13:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Nm, Wikinger is blocked, of course. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, one of the most annoying long-term critters. If you happen to come across some IP that just goes about randomly reverting me and leaving bizarre edit summaries in the process, just remember it's always that little rat. Always hardblock for a year, because his IPs are always open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is so great to see you about Ms. Shonen. Yes, without a doubt you are right (although I didn't know that Mastcell had been an Arb). My very VERY best to you and your family as we head to a new year. — Ched :  ?  13:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, MastCell hasn't been an arb, he's too lazy to run. I thought you might draft him forcibly. :-D And the same to you! Bishonen | talk 13:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

So good to see you about too, Bish. From one Dutch woman in her 50's living in Uppsala to another, I just want to say thank you for what you do on Wikipedia. Gaan met die banaan. Totsiens. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Dutch ? Uppsala ? In my fifties ? Well, why not, if you like, cool. (Virginia..?) Oh, I think I've got it, are you User:Little Doctorbody? Good to meet you! Have a banana yourself, Tootsie! Bishonen | talk 22:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

LOL. Oh sorry, my Queen Sister. I forgot, you're now British. Thank you for the banana. Giano would appreciate it more. Happy New Year, but never deny your Dutch origin. So unpatriotic. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of forgetting Dutchnes, and the littledoctorbody/soul, We Have Been Found Out--I wonder how that's possible. Also, happy new year, and this little notification for you:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you two would stoop so low...oh wait, yes I can. Happy New Years! :D — Huntster (t @ c) 05:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bzuk, same to you! Very nice fireworks! Bishonen | talk 21:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Provinces of ISIL. Having trouble keeping this template deleted that was build out several times by the Pakistan ISIL IP you blocked. Can you kill it again? Thanks.

I'm afraid I can't, as that would mean wheel warring with Nyttend, who restored it. But I've voted Delete in strong terms, and have also blocked AbuMarwanHadid (talk · contribs), technically the creator of the template, but presumably the same person as the IP. Or a mate of his, I don't care which. It'll surely end up deleted pretty soon. Bishonen | talk 01:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A new ANI thread involving you is up: please see here. —Soap— 20:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alkready been reverted but I want to make sure you saw it anyway. —Soap— 20:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Soap, I wouldn't have missed that for the world. Are you curious, little talkpage stalkers? Here it is. As good as a barnstar, I reckon. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well that happened. :/ ... — Ched :  ?  02:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who'd you piss off? [25] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I dunno, thousands. It may be the Dutchness, nobody likes that. But I was pleased to see the emphasis on people being afraid of me, I always thought that was more Bishzilla. Anyway, I thought you were going to request adminship, Neil, how's that going? I'd support you. You want to get your very own hatemail from the open proxies, don't you? I know you've been annoying the POV-pushers already. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Drmies Dougweller, who was going to nominate me, ran for a little thing called Arbcom so that got pushed off. No big deal. I also pointed out that I haven't created any articles (one now!) so that could be a concern for some RFA participants. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Not original, my daughter found it):

""I hope that in this year to come, you make mistakes.

Because if you are making mistakes, then you are making new things, trying new things, learning, living, pushing yourself, changing yourself, changing your world. You're doing things you've never done before, and more importantly, you're Doing Something.

So that's my wish for you, and all of us, and my wish for myself. Make New Mistakes. Make glorious, amazing mistakes. Make mistakes nobody's ever made before. Don't freeze, don't stop, don't worry that it isn't good enough, or it isn't perfect, whatever it is: art, or love, or work or family or life.

Whatever it is you're scared of doing, Do it.

Make your mistakes, next year and forever." — Neil Gaiman"

Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug. Believe me, I've made a good start on that. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have mentioned you on ANI on a complaint that has same title as this section. This incompetent user(Johnmylove) intentionally uses the term Hindoo, because it is derogatory. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of, I see. Good report, Blades. I don't know how that charmer flew under the radar so long — if an admin had seen for instance this edit summary, that Joshua linked to on ANI, he'd surely have been long gone. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Where did Joshua linked it? I had linked that one,(see [26]) and also this one(seemed as disturbing). Bladesmulti (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Yeah, I know you did, sorry; it's extra noticeable for the lazy reader when it comes with a quotation... I expect the user has done worse, I haven't researched it (Floq had already stepped in when I looked). I don't know much about the subjects he edits, but I can recognize a nasty personalized and flaringly idiotic edit summary from quite far off. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. This user had also created Wesley Degree College, can you suppress all revisions except the latest one? They are violating the copyrights. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So complicated… I don't think I can, now that so many people have edited it. It doesn't look like such a big deal, as long as it's blanked, and apparently Diannaa didn't think it worth revdel'ing either. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Obviously going to be deleted anyway as no one has opposed the AFD. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing wouldn't profit them any, Bladesmulti. Did you notice the remaining stub was a copyvio too, every word, from here? I've speedied it. Possibly thereby breaking the AfD rules, but WP:NOTBURO. Somebody else will perhaps kindly close the AfD. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Neil. My tp stalkers are the best. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I had mentioned on ANI that, "I would recommend a quick deletion because it is still violating copyrights" because for actual reasons, the plagiarism detector still located different URLs, but as I had nominated it for AFD first and older pages are usually un-proded by new page patrollers, I still needed someone who can investigate the remaining case. It was just right when things were handled, otherwise we would be seeing, "I removed copied content, now stick to AFD, don't forumshop". Thanks for writing NeilN. I have tagged Talk:Wesley Degree College for speedy deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a yachtsmen I have no problem understanding what the insinuation is here, even after you suggest that the birth be enlarged, "that user" has renamed a series of my photos on commons as well as here on Wiki. These are all fresh date stamps and, I guess he thinks Wide Birth means "go on commons and rename and re categorize every picture that WPP has contributed" as that is exactly what he has done. What do I need to do to get rid of "this user" as, if this is not absolute proof that he is simply stalking my contrib's, after being told to give me some space, what is the point of me contributing here at all? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Manhattan_Island_Ferry_Terminals_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg How do I request a permanent interaction ban on this user? talk→ WPPilot  13:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on ANI. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This probably takes some explaining. At the recent ArbCom case regarding Landmark Worldwide I suggested that maybe it might be possible to get together a group of editors with some broad experience of wikipedia and knowledge of the general topic area to get together and review the sources available on the topic with the intention of ultimately starting a broader discussion, probably through RfC, about the issues involved. It is more or less in line with a proposal I made for something like a "content" committee, which would probably be more reasonably called a "comment" committee, given the role I think RfC and the hopefully wide variety and number of editors might play in the real outcome of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content?. ArbCom itself requested some broader input in the topic area in its decision.

I was thinking of editors around here who might have some sort of broad experience in the social/religious issues involved and you and some of your, I guess we would have to call them "friends," were among the first names that came to mind for maybe taking part in reviewing information presented and evaluating sources and the like. Admittedly, in the case of one of your friends, because I think her presence might help both keep people in line, and maybe add a little or maybe a lot, he said, making really obvious size jokes here, of calm and humor and, yes, sex appeal, to some of the discussion. If you or they would have any interest in maybe taking part in this sort of test run for such a committee, I would obviously welcome it. I haven't actually started a separate section on the article talk page yet, because I wanted to see if there were any responses from the individuals I was considering, or, potentially, anyone else who might be interested. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god. Hello, John. Well, I saw this on Brad's page and reflected even then that there's no way I'd have time to involve myself in a bigass thing like that. So much real life, so little wikitime. Sorry. But thanks for thinking of me. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Btw John, I think you're the very person to ask. One of my largest friends took the atomic deathray to this article yesterday. She can get like that with social/religious issues. :-( Do you think she went too far? Or not far enough? Bishonen | talk 09:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen,

Is there any way I can discuss this with anyone? - you? It would be much appreciated. Is there a way of dropping an email somewhere? - to you?

Thanks. GregKaye 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Feel free to e-mail me via the "E-mail this user" feature. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I borrowed (or maybe pinched, stole) the mark up for Je suis Charlie from your user page. I hope you don't mind. And thank you for posting it. Its a sad time. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I filched it from Randykitty's page. Bishonen | talk 00:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about the section move, usually admins just thread comments instead of segregating them off in sections, thought you were a regular editor. My bad. --RAN1 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, RAN1. Now you mention it, I've seen that the admins do what you describe at that board, but I'd forgotten. I'm impressed that it only took you one minute to inform yourself of my exalted status! Bishonen | talk 14:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

We have another NOTHERE new acct setting up ISIL Provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spy12345 Legacypac (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I've deleted their crap, but am inclined to give them a little more rope. If you like, you might warn them not to create those kinds of articles. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

OK, time to block. I have also deleted their latest recreations of the previously deleted template. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, those goofy, sensitive Swedes! They establish Cultural Marxism as a serious stand-alone article and then fill it with blatant right-wing POV. Someone takes notes and gives it heavy doses of well-deserved criticism. The reaction? RFCs with block requests for "inappropriate template usage". No wonder one of those poor touch-me-nots they call admins are calling for long-term blocks to "preserve the peace".[27]

Peter ^Isotalo 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to soak in the hot tub and then have lunch (beef stew) for an hour or so. If you will be around, could you keep an eye on User talk:RGloucester. He may need to be unblocked. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jehochman, just going in for landing with a cauliflower au gratin, or actually a lot of delicious veggies and mushrooms au gratin. Won't be done with that in a hurry. Little stalkers ahoy? Bishonen | talk 16:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Stalker here. After reading his responses to Jehochman on his talk page, I would not be inclined to unblock him early. I don't actually agree with the original block, but I don't think I'd feel comfortable unblocking after reading all that. To me, it displays a staggering unwillingness to collaborate in a manner keeping with this site's standards. I understand he's angry, but still. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate blocking good faith contributors. After discussion I've unblocked once he agreed to a generic statement "Editors may not accuse others of correction without evidence". Hopefully the message is taken to heart by all concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to post this here, but Jehochman feels that people shouldn't be able to edit his talk page. Jehochman, you acted rashly and without any warnings or escalations you blocked RGloucester. That does not reflect an attitude of " I hate blocking good faith contributors", that reflects and attitude of "its only an editor and no one will do anything to me even if they disagree." There are a list of things that you could have done if you really hate blocking good faith editors but you chose the most extreme and because of your rash actions a good and dedicated editor has left the project. Hopefully they will return but if not, that is all your fault. No one but you agreed with that block, not even the other admins who should have, but lacked the courage too, tell you that you made a mistake to your face. Since your fellow admins won't tell you and editors won't for fear of a retalatory block for "personal attacks" or some other BS, I will tell you. It was a bad block and you need to think before you do that kind of knee jerk reaction and cause more damage to the project than you prevent. Now, if you want and it makes you feel better, feel free to block me. I will make that sacrifice. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]