Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →IT'S HALLOWEEN!: forgot witch |
→IT'S HALLOWEEN!: Save yourselves! |
||
Line 790: | Line 790: | ||
I assume you're going as 'zilla or the evil twin. little stupid just isn't scary. -- [[user:aunva6|Aunva6]]<sup>[[user talk:aunva6|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Aunva6|contribs]]</sup> 02:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
I assume you're going as 'zilla or the evil twin. little stupid just isn't scary. -- [[user:aunva6|Aunva6]]<sup>[[user talk:aunva6|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Aunva6|contribs]]</sup> 02:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
:No, not very, but Bishonen is; I'm going as myself. Bishzilla, on the other hand, doesn't think she's scary enough, so she has sewn herself an enormous Darwinbish suit for trick-or-treating.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishzilla&diff=579636266&oldid=579631312] Imagine opening the door and seeing ''that''. Don't faint, that's the main thing. Here's a little snack you can throw at the creature before shutting the door fast. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC). |
|||
[[File:Fale - Barcellona - 194.jpg|400px|centre]] |
|||
{{-}} |
|||
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}} {{border-radius|0.5em}}">[[File:Mini pumpkins.jpg|102px]]<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0;">[[User talk:PumpkinSky|'tis]] [[User talk:Gerda Arendt|the]] [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent|season]]</p></div> |
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}} {{border-radius|0.5em}}">[[File:Mini pumpkins.jpg|102px]]<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0;">[[User talk:PumpkinSky|'tis]] [[User talk:Gerda Arendt|the]] [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent|season]]</p></div> |
Revision as of 10:57, 1 November 2013
Hello, well-coiffed 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.
Yet another request from ignorant admin
Oh dear. Kind talkpage stalkers, please, how can I get rid of the categories (hidden and visible) on this page? I understand where they come from, but not how to exterminate them. :-( Bishonen | talk 12:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
- If you look at a test page I created you'll find both the full series of spam warnings and {{uw-sblock}}, with no hidden categories. If you want me to I can test it on your page too, just to make sure it works there too. Thomas.W talk to me 12:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- What? Not this page, Thomas — this page! You're very welcome to fix it for me. If you give Bishonen a fish, she'll be happy; if you teach her to fish, she'll mess it up and starve to death. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
- Yes, I know. My solution is for your "useful warnings" page, removing the hidden spam warning categories there. Look at the test page to see what it displays, and then click on "edit source". No hidden categories. Thomas.W talk to me 13:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I should be a bit more specific. If you go to your "useful warnings" page and click "edit source", and then go to the very bottom of the page, you'll find a list of hidden categories for that page. Which on your "useful warnings" page are users with spam warnings 1, 2, 3 and 4 and users with a temporary block for spamming. Which I'm sure you don't want to be listed as. But if you look at my test page you'll see all of those warnings, and the block message, displayed in full on the page, but with no hidden categories. Which is what I assume you're looking for. The hidden categories are added by the templates, through code embedded in them, code that my solution disables. Meaning that the templates display the messages but don't add the hidden categories. Thomas.W talk to me 13:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- What? Not this page, Thomas — this page! You're very welcome to fix it for me. If you give Bishonen a fish, she'll be happy; if you teach her to fish, she'll mess it up and starve to death. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
- Done. All the hidden spam categories are now gone and your good reputation has been restored, yet all the messages are still there. The only hidden category that is left on the page is "Noindexed pages" which is standard for all user talk pages and simply tells "the system" not to look there when a user makes a search. Thomas.W talk to me 14:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC) (I'll leave my test page as it is in case someone else want's to use the text/code there...)
- [Checks out the edits.] Wow, complicated! Good job I didn't try to do that. Thank you! But… the hidden categories are gone, but how about the visible (=sock/puppeteer) categories? It was when those appeared at the foot of the page today that I realized the problem, belatedly you may say. They're still there. I'm a sock and a puppeteer. :-( (Well, I am, but I don't want to admit it on that page.) Bishonen | talk 16:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
- Done. All the hidden spam categories are now gone and your good reputation has been restored, yet all the messages are still there. The only hidden category that is left on the page is "Noindexed pages" which is standard for all user talk pages and simply tells "the system" not to look there when a user makes a search. Thomas.W talk to me 14:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC) (I'll leave my test page as it is in case someone else want's to use the text/code there...)
I think I can fix that too, if you want me to. Thomas.W talk to me 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I sure do. It's embarrassing! What do you think users Bishzilla and Darwinbish will say? Bishonen | talk 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
- It might be a bit more complicated than the other templates since the sockpuppeteer/sockpuppet templates aren't substed, meaning that there's no "raw text" to manipulate. But I'll see what I can do. Thomas.W talk to me 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please do subst 'em if that makes it simpler. I only left them unsubsted because I had a kind of feeling they may change from time to time, possibly more radically than ordinary block messages. But that's no big deal, as I always check the result when I leave a message anyway (said the AfD'er of WP:ANI virtuously). Bishonen | talk 16:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
- It might be a bit more complicated than the other templates since the sockpuppeteer/sockpuppet templates aren't substed, meaning that there's no "raw text" to manipulate. But I'll see what I can do. Thomas.W talk to me 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- It seems like you can't subst them, but I found a workaround, so take a look at this. It's a simple fix for both the sockpuppet template and the sockpuppeteer template, and doesn't add your page to either of those categories, and I think I can do that for the other SP templates on your page too. Would that be useful? Thomas.W talk to me 16:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- \o/ You went and dug out the actual text? Cool. Useful, absolutely. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
- The only template that is problematic is the {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}, because you can't get that text without actually using the template, which adds the category (which means that even the template documentation page has been added to the sockpuppeteer category...). Thomas.W talk to me 17:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- \o/ You went and dug out the actual text? Cool. Useful, absolutely. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC).
- It seems like you can't subst them, but I found a workaround, so take a look at this. It's a simple fix for both the sockpuppet template and the sockpuppeteer template, and doesn't add your page to either of those categories, and I think I can do that for the other SP templates on your page too. Would that be useful? Thomas.W talk to me 16:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I did this edit to remove the categories. I went to the sock template page and saw how they put the examples on the documentation page. They used |category=
which is available if you use the template where the redirects end up. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- ((edit conflict), because I was just about to say) *Ha. Thank you, Johnuniq! Bishonen | talk 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC).
Hi
Using the subject/headline of "hi" ... pretty unoriginal, and rather pathetic, I know.
In any event, I was just replying to your question, of which I'm unduly late as I seemed to have overlooked it on my talkpage. For reference before reading futher, see here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:87.232.1.48
That user is not me (block that fucker) but I wouldnt trust the "geolocate to the same country" rhetoric as these days you can never be too sure. As even users who seems to edit with the same IP as me ARE NOT ME. Comprendè? I'm responsible for say 70% of the edits and so will be singing off in future with....
BFD (big fucking deal)
87.232.1.48 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. Yes, that was a while ago… (looking). Right, as I said at the time, I thought it highly unlikely that 94.234.170.86 was telling the truth about being you, and I did block the fucker. See block log here. Being indistinguishable from others is one of the occupational hazards of editing from an IP. Why don't you create an account? The name BFD seems to be taken (though with no contributions nor userpages), but I'm sure you can think of something. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC).
Hi, Just started this and wanted you let you know. LGA talkedits 08:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wonder what he'll make of the SPI report, or your template for that matter. Did you see he thought you — or rather somebody unknown, or perhaps me — anyway, someone who ought to apologize — were accusing him of being you? (That would have been a real stroke of genius from a more experienced editor pretending to be new, and I AGF that he's not a genius.) When I explained that was not the case and introduced him to the use of signatures, in my jumped-up bullying way, he blanked the page. Bishonen | talk 09:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
- Yep I did see it; I just find the whole jumping in with two feet into an area (which until yesterday I did not know existed) with existing arbcom sanctions a little suspect; I might be wrong but it has the whiff of topic ban evasion. LGA talkedits 09:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- For example he manages to sign his fourth edit but then seems to forget to sign others; I can understand not signing; but he did sign and then forgot all about it and had to have it pointed out by you that I was signing my post. LGA talkedits 09:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's certainly interesting that he signed that, I missed it. And he knew how to make an edit request, good heavens! Looks like I've been taken for a ride, doesn't it? Btw, have you seen his credentials "as an English historian myself" according to Google? Check it out, it's interesting. I got the search terms from here. A vanity publisher. (Have you considered "writing" your family history?). And here's the other distinguished historian (and philosopher), PDM! Bishonen | talk 09:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
- P.S. I've pinged Tom Reedy, a longtime editor of the Shakespeare Authorship Question, about the SPI. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
- I really must unwatch Bishonen's talk page because it offers far too many distractions. Anyway, I noticed this discussion and popped over to the SPI. As I have stated there, checkuser evidence suggests it is very Likely the two accounts are related. Hope this helps! AGK [•] 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, this page is full of the unlikely and the weird, I like it. :-) Thanks for taking care of it, Anthony. Did you happen to notice also if George134 is himself a sock used to evade a block or topic ban at Shakespeare Authorship Question, per LGA's argument above? I was hoping Tom Reedy would have a suggestion as to likely sockmaster/s, but he's being lapidary.[1] I don't know whether the log of SAQ blocks and bans here would be of any help? Quite a number of those blocks/bans have expired, and I presume the live ones are of the most interest. Yay, more Checkuser distractions for you! Bishonen | talk 19:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
Sorry
I'm sorry I lashed out at you. You can put your comment back if you want.
I am very stressed and embarrassed because I'm not allowed to appeal the ban I've been given, which is essentially a gag rule so I can be blocked for mentioning the rules Admins have broken to give it. So basically I'm technically blocked for at least six months and there's nothing I can do about it and Floq is refusing to do anything himself about it. Bbb23 is abusing his powers as owner of my ban to make it so I can be blocked for anything.
If you're not my enemy, will you help me where he won't? Will you be the new owner of my ban? TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid I can't and won't. ArbCom owns your ban, insofar as anybody does. I suggest you appeal to them by e-mail. I notice (on your page) that Floquenbeam has adviced you against such an appeal, though. He knows much more about it than me — I haven't followed your case — so I'm pretty sure you'd be wise to listen to him. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC).
Pls watchlist
From the recent exchange at this page I'm getting the scent of evasion. Hope I'm wrong. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're wrong. (I don't really know everything; I asked a checkuser on IRC.) Thanks for keeping an eye out. Note also that the edit warring block of the user you have in mind expired a few minutes ago. Hope it was a learning experience. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC).
- Oh goody! Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent message
Many thanks for your recent message, the point of which I've noted. However, you didn't address the edit summaries used by the IP where he consistently described User:The Vintage Feminist as a known spammer - thus giving rise to the reversion of his edits. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Denisarona. I noticed, yes; I should probably have mentioned it in my comment. Rude edit summaries. A little oddly, though, you complained on the IP's page that they had "removed some content from Seann Walsh without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary." But there was an edit summary. It would have been more informative for the user if you'd specified that the edit summary was not acceptable because it assumed bad faith, which we're not supposed to do here. The IP is presumably not a practised Wikipedia user (such as you and Vintage Feminist); we should assume they need stuff explained nicely. And "giving rise to"... well, I can understand the edit summaries rubbed you the wrong way and made your finger itch for the rollback button, but it doesn't seem to me that they were a real good reason to re-insert the content that the IP had quite reasonably removed. While we're on edit summaries, also, please don't use the bald rollback summary for reverting non-vandalism. Something explanatory is more likely to be helpful, and more polite. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC).
Accusations re policy on inline comments vs. top- or bottom- posting.
Bishonen, I find your accusations (diff) rather hostile, and lack foundation, and seem to do the opposite of assume good faith. Specifically, you said a) I "made it sound"…? and b) I "alter this page to give"? Really? Re. a): You make it sound like I did something deceptive or improper. Can you back up your accusation that I should have made the revert some other way, by showing me what guidance tells me I should have done it differently? Re. b):It sounds like you are telling me what I think, and I assure you, you are mistaken. You don't know what I think, so don't presume to. And the accusation isn't even plausible, because (if I'm not mistaken) policy changes aren't retroactive. Carol merely said the text was unclear in her discussion page section title*, but instead of clarifying it, radically changed it. Her edit summary was, "Others' comments: since no one replied in talk I put in what is usually done regarding interruptions, in my experience". I didn't "make it sound like this was just added" any more than you made it sound like the change was proposed and discussed on talk before it was made. The pros and cons of inline comments vs. top- or bottom-posting have been debated for decades. Are you ignorant of such debates? Did you mean to attack me for a revert of one person's changing of policy on such an (in my view) obviously contentious issue with no feedback or discussion in a major forum? It's not like it was brought to the Village Pump. Just to make indisputable that I don't seek an advantage in a dispute with my edit, I'll wait till said dispute is over. In the meantime, if you have a basis for your revert that isn't related to editors, but rather relates to the merits of the change to policy, please provide it. If you don't, then consider that it might be appropriate for you to undo your revert. --Elvey (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
For reference:
- I follow WP:TPG and noticed Elvey's edit to the guideline (diff) and Bishonen's revert (diff). It is best to focus on what might help the encyclopedia, and working out whether there was some flaw in Bishonen's edit summary of a week ago is unlikely to provide any benefit. Instead, if a proposal to change the TPG guideline was reverted, the proposal should be discussed at WT:Talk page guidelines in a section created by whoever wants to justify the change. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted you, right, Elvey. That's how the word "revert" is used in this place. It's absurd, on the other hand, to talk of you "reverting" Carolmooredc's edit from nine months ago: an edit which clarified "what is usually done regarding interruptions", apparently very uncontroversially, since nobody objected to it at the time, and nobody has objected to it since. Not until you removed Carol's sentence last week, at a time when you were being criticized for interrupting other people's comments on talkpages. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. And no, I'm not aware that the "pros and cons" of interrupting others' posts "have been debated for decades". Have they really? Now I'm depressed. It doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable matter for "debate" whether or not we should avoid needlessly annoying other editors. Even though it can sometimes, under circumstances which are outlined in the guideline, be convenient to post inside another's comment, it's the merest, barest courtesy to refrain from breaking up other people's posts when they object to it — and that's what Carol's sentence addressed. But feel free to take this important "debate" to WT:Talk page guidelines. Start an RfC about it. Take it to the Village Pump. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC).
- I see my comment, without response, at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_9 plus an editor's earlier discussion which I evidently missed here. If people didn't like what I wrote they should have worked on better language on the talk page. I'm not thinking about the topic much currently so don't have any real input right now. You might move the substantive part of the general discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines and get input there. User:Carolmooredc 15:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Interleaving was the predominant reply style in the Usenet discussion lists, years before the existence of the WWW and the spread of e-mail and the Internet outside the academic community." -Wikipedia It is also the predominant style on IETF mailing lists. So what you term "interrupting others' posts" has been and remains not just acceptable behavior, but best practice in many important arenas. "Interleaving continues to be used on technical mailing lists where clarity within complex threads is important" - ibid. On Wikipedia, clarity within complex threads is important, and interleaving, properly done, is an effective means to that end and is best practice. As noted here, within many years of discussion history,
Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >> Top-posting. >>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
- I wrote, "You make it sound like I did something deceptive or improper. Can you back up your accusation that I should have made the revert some other way, by showing me what guidance tells me I should have done it differently?" You did not do so - were unable to, I conclude, as instead, you simply insist that you're right because, well, no reason, but assert that to think otherwise is 'absurd'. All the folks who don't think bottom posting is best are absurd to think so? Johnuniq was right - if a proposal to change the TPG guideline was reverted, the proposal should be discussed at WT:Talk page guidelines in a section created by whoever wants to justify the change. --Elvey (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not explain, but why my name is mentioned is a complete mystery. Talk pages are pretty simple, and why there is this much fuss is beyond me. If an editor wants a change, make a proposal on the relevant talk page (not here)! How hard is that? Lots of people, including me, notice edits at WP:TPG. If edits are not reverted for an extended period, it is very likely that the edits are supported by consensus—changes from that consensus require discussion if reverted. I suppose Bishonen has to tolerate silliness on her talk, but "back up your accusation" is absurd and any discussion following that degree of misthinking is sure to be unproductive, so my recommendation would be to delete and/or archive this whole section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Accusations. That is the topic of this section. (Not talk pages. Not you.) There was no need for 'em, true or false. Bishonen could have simply been civil and asserted something like what you said - "Lots of people, including me, notice edits at WP:TPG. If edits are not reverted for an extended period, it is very likely that the edits are supported by consensus—changes from that consensus require discussion if reverted." and reverted my revert. Had she been civil, this section wouldn't exist. --Elvey (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please do not explain, but why my name is mentioned is a complete mystery. Talk pages are pretty simple, and why there is this much fuss is beyond me. If an editor wants a change, make a proposal on the relevant talk page (not here)! How hard is that? Lots of people, including me, notice edits at WP:TPG. If edits are not reverted for an extended period, it is very likely that the edits are supported by consensus—changes from that consensus require discussion if reverted. I suppose Bishonen has to tolerate silliness on her talk, but "back up your accusation" is absurd and any discussion following that degree of misthinking is sure to be unproductive, so my recommendation would be to delete and/or archive this whole section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I wrote, "You make it sound like I did something deceptive or improper. Can you back up your accusation that I should have made the revert some other way, by showing me what guidance tells me I should have done it differently?" You did not do so - were unable to, I conclude, as instead, you simply insist that you're right because, well, no reason, but assert that to think otherwise is 'absurd'. All the folks who don't think bottom posting is best are absurd to think so? Johnuniq was right - if a proposal to change the TPG guideline was reverted, the proposal should be discussed at WT:Talk page guidelines in a section created by whoever wants to justify the change. --Elvey (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist!
'Doh! Yeah, I posted my note for an evaluation in the wrong place. Thanks for the assist in moving it to the right area. In my defense I blame the lack of sleep and way too much coffee.
I see that the OP that has been ignoring the RFC decision has been notified, which means that even editors that utilize IP addresses rather than user names must be notified, something I had expected was not needed since, well, dynamically-assigned IP addresses don't point too well to specific editors. Guess I'll be sure to notify IP accounts from now on. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the Roger Kibbe article, a user is re-adding a image which is not of the subject again and again even after being warned. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think my warning of notifying you helped him realise his mistake. Hopefully.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hope so. The publication of a picture of somebody random in a serial killer's article is obviously a BLP vio against the actual person in the picture. "I think it's Roger"... hmm. A little difficult to assume good faith there. If it really is "own work" (and the quality suggests it is), then the user presumably knows who they snapped. Someone they don't like, or want to joke with? I'll keep an eye out, but feel free to remove the image on BLP grounds (put that in the edit summary) if it should turn up again. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC).
- P.S. I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons, something I've never done before; hope I did it right... Anyway, here's the deletion discussion. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC).
- Thank you for taking care of this Bish. Could you also take a look at user Something20130828 who has made edits on Simona Williams, the user seems to admit sockpuppeting or similar at his talk page. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just want to ask you to have a eye on user Something20130828 the user is definitly POV pushing and I have seen that kind of behaviour before and when challenged they always go on personal attacks. I hope the user will not go out of control. I just find it kind of weird that he invest so much time on Simona Willims he seem to almost have a personal relationship of some kind with her.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking care of this Bish. Could you also take a look at user Something20130828 who has made edits on Simona Williams, the user seems to admit sockpuppeting or similar at his talk page. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons, something I've never done before; hope I did it right... Anyway, here's the deletion discussion. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC).
- Hope so. The publication of a picture of somebody random in a serial killer's article is obviously a BLP vio against the actual person in the picture. "I think it's Roger"... hmm. A little difficult to assume good faith there. If it really is "own work" (and the quality suggests it is), then the user presumably knows who they snapped. Someone they don't like, or want to joke with? I'll keep an eye out, but feel free to remove the image on BLP grounds (put that in the edit summary) if it should turn up again. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC).
Hej, Bish. You might find this SPI (which is related to this discussion on my talk page) interesting. Thomas.W talk to me 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, that is interesting. I don't think I need to weigh in, as far as I've seen. It's good that I'm mentioned (by both you and Spalagdama, LOL), and it was also a good idea to link to the convo on your talk. Please don't let yourself get baited into any more back-and-forth on the SPI page, unless you think something S says is actually likely to mislead clerks/checkusers. They're not dumb, and attacking you isn't going to make S look any better. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC).
- I know, that's why I disengaged, pointed S to WP:ANI (plus a link to WP:Boomerang) and then just added a few more diffs. Thomas.W talk to me 18:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add an update; a decision was reached (in the above) after Thomas.W's report was unearthed as having been erroneous. So I agree the moderators/clerks/checkusers certainly aren't dumb.Spalagdama (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is a blatant lie. No decision has been made (which can be clearly seen on the SPI), and my report is not erroneous. Do you really think people around here are stupid enough to be fooled by your lies? Thomas.W talk to me 19:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I think there must be some misunderstanding, Spalagdama. There hasn't been any decision on this SPI report. It's still open and no CheckUser has looked at it yet. (Adding on the hoof: Thomas, please look and learn, seriously. Spalagdama was mistaken. Clearly, they're not stupid enough to lie about it and think I wouldn't check.) Bishonen | talk 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC).
- Judging by what I've seen so far, yes, they are. Thomas.W talk to me 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (<sigh> Ibland undrar jag varför jag lägger/ödslar tid på WP när det finns så mycket annat jag kan göra, som försöka lära mig använda min nya alldeles för avancerade mobiltelefon...)
- Just wanted to add an update; a decision was reached (in the above) after Thomas.W's report was unearthed as having been erroneous. So I agree the moderators/clerks/checkusers certainly aren't dumb.Spalagdama (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thomas. W, I suppose according to you, everyone (including moderators) is either spewing "lies", and/or 'stupid enough to be fooled by lies', only you with your erroneous reporting, obsessive compulsive stalking, and infantile vendettas are the only 'truth-sayer', yes? Seriously with 'logic' like this, who can even argue.Spalagdama (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spalagdama#Dispute_between_you_and_Thomas_W. <--link with Daniel Case's reference to Thomas.W's erroneous report
- (Could everybody stop edit conflicting me, please?) Spalagdama, I've no idea what that convo on your page, where you're also atrociously rude by the way, has to do with this thread, which concerns the SPI report; a report which has been repeatedly linked above for your convenience. You made a mistake and said something that wasn't so; and you think that's the appropriate comment for you to make about it? I've had about enough of your bile and lousy manners on my page. Don't post here again. And if you talk to Thomas.W (or anybody else) like that again on any page, I'll block you for personal attacks. [Crossposted to your page to make sure you see it..] Bishonen | talk 20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC).
- @Bishonen I think everybody can see that your chum Thomas. W is being atrociously rude in the comments above, referring to others as liars. I don't see you chastising him for his behavior, but if someone retaliates (i.e. refers to his erroneous reports as lies, they're "atrociously rude"). Come on. There is absolutely nothing "atrociously rude" in telling someone to stop stalking you, to stop filing erroneous reports against you and to stop sending you 1001 comment alerts every single day. I've about had enough of it. Now he's getting you to do his work, but the discerning amongst readers will be able to see exactly who was/is making "personal attacks", stalking and misrepresenting others. Like I said above, before disengaging, that with logic such as this, who can even argue. If you don't want me posting on your page, kindly do not post on mine either. And if that didn't register let me put it this way, you and your buddy especially, need to leave me alone. [Crossposted to my page to make sure I am not misrepresented..]Spalagdama (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That's history, a small incident on the way to the SPI, and does not in any way clear you or prove anything. It's also a very temporary reprieve. What matters is the SPI, that's what decides your fate, and the SPI hasn't even been looked at yet. Thomas.W talk to me 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Help needed!!
Hi Bishonen!! - being a an Admin and short of idea where to refer to my problem - I am asking you for advice and help as previously I had interaction with you on other matters.
I just went to my User page User:Jethwarp and found it has a CSD notice going to its history page [2] I am not able to find who has done this mischief as there are no edit records. Also I am not able to remove tag as while I do not find any CSD tag in page. Very strange and puzzled. Please, can you help me in this matter to remove tag !! and how it has appeared ? Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just removed all content of my page to remove CSD notice (which was invisble to me) ?? Jethwarp (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- How very strange. Checking through the history, I could pinpoint that this edit was where it happened. As you can see, it was just you adding the bouncing wikiball. Doesn't make any sense, but I removed the wikiball, and that fixed it. A bug? Or did somebody screw with the wikiball template? If that was it, it must have happened on many pages. I don't have time to check out the template — gotta run — you might ask at WP:Village Pump/Technical. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 08:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC).
- You're very welcome, Jethwarp. Kind talkpage stalkers, could somebody check out the template [[User:EWikist/Templates/BouncingWiki]] and see if some malicious code has been added? Bishonen | talk 08:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC).
- It's just that the CSD template was not no-transcluded. Should be easy to fix. Don't see any malicious code. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Bishonen. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Me? No, I'm not. I think the bot must be contacting every admin who ever protected a page. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC).
- nah, I think that it's every registered user that used the feedback tool... I got it too. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was trying to make the point that I never did use the feedback tool. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC).
- Yes you did, otherwise you would not have received this note. If you continue to deny obvious truths in the face of undeniable evidence, you will be blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please, Sir! I apologize, admit my mistake, will learn to avoid previous pitfalls and work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, and face the music! I understand exactly why I was warned and how right it was that I should be, and feel deep remorse! Bishonen | talk 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC).
- Not bad, although it could do with another "Sir" or two. Blocking postponed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker comment) I believe that's what's called sucking up. I think I'll copy Bish's post and save it somewhere in case I need it one day... :) Thomas.W talk to me 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please, Sir! I apologize, admit my mistake, will learn to avoid previous pitfalls and work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, and face the music! I understand exactly why I was warned and how right it was that I should be, and feel deep remorse! Bishonen | talk 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC).
- Yes you did, otherwise you would not have received this note. If you continue to deny obvious truths in the face of undeniable evidence, you will be blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was trying to make the point that I never did use the feedback tool. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC).
- nah, I think that it's every registered user that used the feedback tool... I got it too. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Chelsea/Bradley Manning RPP
Bishonen,
Could you look at the article history again please? I counted 4 reverts by NorthBySouthBaranof within the last 24-hours, [3], [4], [5], and [6]. He was warned twice ([7] & [8]). I don't see that my warning him again would accomplish anything and it is past 3RR. I did miscount on the other individual. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. Sorry, I didn't look back beyond where the category quarrel started, but you're quite right, there was another revert before then. I don't want to protect, though, since it's basically one user being disruptive. I've blocked them for 24 hours. (StAnselm made two reverts, if that's who else you were thinking of. These two edits are at most one revert, if you look at what they contain.) Thanks for alerting me about this. Bishonen | talk 06:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC).
Jimbo desysop discussion.
Somehow, I managed to miss the discussion at Jimbo's page while in progress, but I'm reading it with fascination.
However, I think you might have missed a crucial word. When you accused Jimbo of hairsplitting here, it looks like you thought Jimbo said "If he does not, then I propose that we[sic] be desysopped", but he actually said "If he does not, then I do not propose that we[sic] be desysopped". (emphasis added)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah I think I've got it.
Jimbo said "If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed"
I think you read this as Jimbo saying:
- Bbb23 should resign voluntarily. If not
- I recommend that the community remove his bit.
However, I read it as Jimbo saying "I recommend that Bbb123 submit a resignation or BBB123 should ask someone to remove the bit.
Then Jimbo clarified, but I think you missed the "not"
I definitely understand your use of the word hairsplitting, given what (I think) you thought he meant. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Uh..? It looks like that? I must have been very unclear, or possibly you must have read rather fast. I did see that Jimbo said he did not propose desysopping Bbb23. I was addressing the contradiction between that statement and what he had said in the post I green-quoted, that you also quote above: "If he doesn't apologize" etc. (Link to that post here for the fascinated talkpage stalker.) In any case, I don't think your either-or reading cuts any mustard, because resigning the bit and asking someone to remove it are one and the same. To resign the bit = asking a 'crat to remove the bit. Happens on the bureaucrat's noticeboard all the time. It's the only way to resign the bit.
- Then Jimbo clarified? Where was that? I admit it was more as a rhetorical device that I suggested he should take something back, because as far as I know he never does. I'm quite resigned to Jimbo not taking back what he said but instead "clarifying" that he really meant something completely different. I don't want to bore everybody by returning to the heady days of 2009, when he and I had a lengthy argument about his style of "clarification" — water under the bridge, though, my god, is he still making with the clarifications? — but I'll provide diffs on request. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC).
- I see a major difference between suggesting that someone should consider resigning versus support a desysopping process. I'm surprised you see that as hairsplitting, so surprised, I thought perhaps there was another explanation. I guess I was wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- All of which just makes me wonder about the Aarne–Thompson classification system, and whether it contains more cautionary tales about imperfect god-emperors or more exemplary tales of perfect kings, and which levels/flavours of civilization each type appears in most. I'd guess that an equal mix of the two types, would denote a self-aware culture, but that's probably just my inner Wikipedian's delusional OR rambling... –Quiddity (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- ? I see a major difference between those two things too, Sphilbrick. I posted on Jimbo's page because I saw that difference, and have tried to express my sense of it there, as well as here. I don't understand you. But there's little point in continuing this exercise in mutual incomprehension. I expect we have both tried to be as clear as we know how, and there's little left to say. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC).
Seeing this section heading on my watchlist, I thought for a moment that someone had started a discussion about desysopping Jimbo; something I would support (preparatory to the de-foundering). We really don't need an unempathic, unreflective, "infallible, all-perfect" pontiff claiming to speak for this movement, and exercising special powers over it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I proposed desysopping Jimbo in 2009. That's a hard sell, but he did agree to renounce use of the block button, see Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales#Arbitration Committee. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC).
- Actually I would support too. If he actually participated in a meaningful way then I would say no. But he doesn't use the tools anyway, so really he's just another inactive admin. We ask him for help and he doesn't do anything but then when some celebrity bumps into him at Shakira's house and asks about their unfair BLP he's all over it. Its the worst sort of POV. He either needs to take a role or not, but not do it when the mood strikes him. As far as I'm concerned at this point he can leave a message at ANI like any other editor. Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- "We ask him for help..." = "We want him to support our view of policy over others..."? Just saying if he disagrees with what you want, he's obviously not going to do anything. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- The problem isn't that he disagrees, he has agreed on multiple occassions and has said in several that he was going to do things and never did. We're all still waiting for his ideas on RFA reform that was supposed to be mentioned back in February. He was going to mention about a role change for him, that never materialized. I am ok with him disagreeing, but when he does agree and states he's going to take action, then he should follow through. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agree on the RFA thing. I would have bet money that wasn't going to happen in the timeframe he put forth as reform is a complex topic as shown by the number of failed proposals. But he also gets smacked around when he doesn't "do anything" to further a pet policy or cause. --NeilN talk to me 13:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have to be honest I generally favor the WMF staying out of our policy issues, especially given their past habits of dropping bombs on us like Visual Editor and forcing us to clean up the mess. There are many cases where we have been incapable of forming a consensus though and their help could be useful. So if the WMF isn't willing to help out when we want/need them too, then they need to stay out and go through us before making major changes. RFA reform is one example of inaction, the Visual Editor mess is another example of unwanted action. IMO, I would prefer this fall on the Arbcom or something like it where the community cannot make up our minds (but I don't have much faith in them either unfortunately). So, if the WMF wants to be involved then they need to take an active role, otherwise they need to vet things through the community not just show up whenever they feel like it. We are volunteers and donate our time to participate, they are paid so I have less sympathy about them having to do some of the dirty work they don't want to do. Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agree on the RFA thing. I would have bet money that wasn't going to happen in the timeframe he put forth as reform is a complex topic as shown by the number of failed proposals. But he also gets smacked around when he doesn't "do anything" to further a pet policy or cause. --NeilN talk to me 13:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- The problem isn't that he disagrees, he has agreed on multiple occassions and has said in several that he was going to do things and never did. We're all still waiting for his ideas on RFA reform that was supposed to be mentioned back in February. He was going to mention about a role change for him, that never materialized. I am ok with him disagreeing, but when he does agree and states he's going to take action, then he should follow through. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- "We ask him for help..." = "We want him to support our view of policy over others..."? Just saying if he disagrees with what you want, he's obviously not going to do anything. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I got your hopes up :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah yes. I had it in my mind that he'd further clarified his renunciation of the block button. But I must have been thinking of his right to ban editors. Ugh. What a situation. Sorry. I'm obviously in a very dark mood regarding our founder at the moment. He is a volunteer, and as best as I can tell gets nothing in return for his involvement here but a great deal of abuse from disgruntled people like me, for which I occasionally feel pangs of regret, but as an admin, he's not performing. At all. And as a figurehead and moral compass, he's MIA. Perhaps he's just tired of the whole thing and would willingly hand over the responsibilities if he could see a way of doing so that didn't put the project at risk.
- Actually I would support too. If he actually participated in a meaningful way then I would say no. But he doesn't use the tools anyway, so really he's just another inactive admin. We ask him for help and he doesn't do anything but then when some celebrity bumps into him at Shakira's house and asks about their unfair BLP he's all over it. Its the worst sort of POV. He either needs to take a role or not, but not do it when the mood strikes him. As far as I'm concerned at this point he can leave a message at ANI like any other editor. Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is a massive gap in governance here that could be filled by a presidential figure of some kind. Is there anything stopping us from elevating someone, by popular acclaim, to figurehead of ENWP? They could take over Jimbo's reserve powers at least in relation to this project, as the proposed president of Australia would simply take over Queen Elizabeth's reserve powers?
- Is there a move afoot somewhere to create a "thematic organisation" or similar to cover EN:WP? If so, the ED or chair of that might fill the role of the founder here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- We have the Arbcom. They are like a governing body and pretty nonfunctional like the US Congress. Maybe a Prime Arbitrator who can make "arbitrary" governing decisions? :-)Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Aren't they more like the judiciary? The more I think about a non-profit with a bank account and a staff to support ENWP, the more I warm to the idea. I'm not sure they should hold the reserve powers, though. We could probably still use a president. Sorry. Just daydreaming out loud here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- We have the Arbcom. They are like a governing body and pretty nonfunctional like the US Congress. Maybe a Prime Arbitrator who can make "arbitrary" governing decisions? :-)Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a move afoot somewhere to create a "thematic organisation" or similar to cover EN:WP? If so, the ED or chair of that might fill the role of the founder here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous....Bbb23 screwed up and had he done to me what he did to Jimbo I would have been asking him to resign too.--MONGO 14:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Asking someone to resign for one misjudgement is absurd; particularly when it involves being over-cautious around a BLP. Do you realize what you are saying at all? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Was it only one? I've seen other discussions involving Bbb23....so you think a fast revert in one case after a few minutes and in the other case after ONE minute is an indication of being over-cautious....interesting.--MONGO 14:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you actually bother to look at going on, yes, it was being over-cautious in terms of leaving potential BLP violations. And there are plenty of discussions surrounding most admins... most are baseless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Jimbo doesn't deserve any more consideration than any other editor...but he isn't some troll either and he is sort of well known around these parts so any admin worth his mustard might have taken a moment to pause and check to see what Jimbo was posting...I highly doubt considering the time frames that Bbb23 did this. That's not overly cautious...that's ownership and excessive zeal.--MONGO 15:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Jimbo referenced a blog, which, related to a newspaper or not, is enough of an alarm bell for Bbb23's actions to be understandable and not fall under the ownership bag you're trying to throw. All Jimbo has shown is that he's out of touch with what most of the community thinks, and that he overreacts big style - far more than Bbb23 did. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- So Jimbo who helped develop and has long defended the BLP policy is to be assumed to be trolling? It's a matter or interpretation and a blog is not a RS but for the sake of a discussion on a talkpage it isn't a no go zone. One minute revert....that is bullshit.--MONGO 15:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Where the fuck did I, or anyone else, claim Jimbo was trolling? That's right, no one has, you've just pulled it out of your arse. I will repeat myself: it is perfectly logical for Bbb23 to have seen the word "blog", and, as they were already actively defending against unsourced or poorly-sourced comments left, right and centre, to have reverted it having spotted that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- One minute revert on a talkpage no less is reserved for the removal of a trolling comment....no admin should be doing it for anything less than pure vandalism or disruption. It's not logical at all. The fuss here is about Jimbo and his suggestion/demand/whatever that Bbb23 hand in his tools and in my opinion I do not think that would have been a bad idea. You say Bbb23 saw the word blog....I disagree...I don't think he bothered to look at all and for the sake of discussion on a talkpage, that blog is not an issue....you're simply trying to justify the unjustifiable.--MONGO 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you're either blinded by "Jimbo is perfect"-type thoughts, or by a dislike of Bbb23. It takes 5 seconds to look at something, see the word blog, and revert it as a result. I think it's a fucking stupid idea that anyone should have to hand in their tools for one mistake, and Jimbo's call was based around this one situation, not over any other historical actions. It was a petulant and poorly thought-out reaction, that he's made a half-arsed attempt to backtrack on. If you're this blind to a perfectly logical and feasible explanation for Bbb23's actions, then you should probably disengage from the debate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dead wrong on both counts in your first sentence. I thought Jimbo was wrong regarding Bishonen years ago. The only thing that saved Bbb23 on this matter is that he didn't use rollback on his edits. The reverts were still done with an arrogant and flippant petulance. What was he thinking? It's Jimbo...it must be a BLP violation? How stupid is that....pretty stupid! In fact I would label it idiotic.--MONGO 19:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar!
If I worked full time for a year I couldn't compete with the magnificent barnstar at the top of your page, so I'll not even try, and go the other direction instead). I give you this Minor Barnstar for your brisk removal of a not-ready-for-prime-time essay to user space. "Humor" should be at least a little funny, "criticism" should be at least a little coherent, and neologisms should be at least a little difficult to interpret the wrong way when first read. Userfication is so much better than an MFD. Well done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- (watching) cute, but I like mine - even if it "destroys" the TOC, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, and satire should be at least slightly cutting. Thank you for the cute baby barnstar. Appropriately, or ironically, whichever you prefer, the posting of it finally got the hamster-driven fairybread carousel to sit right, the way it's supposed to, i. e. comfortably in the whitespace next to the TOC, which with your heading grew just long enough. (YMMV, but that's the way it went on my screen.) When there are say five or six more headings, I'm thinking of embiggening the carousel to full size again. More fairybread, yum! Bishonen | talk 19:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC).
- Is it just my damaged brain, or do the poor hamsters look like they are forced to race all the faster in your miniature? I hope it can be attritbuted to some optical illusion, but I hope even more, for the sake of the guinea pigs, they'll be restored to full size. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- God, I hope not. What have I done?? At the same time, I don't feel like embiggening them to natural (..?) size until the TOC leaves enough space. Suggest you help by posting a few more headers! If more people weigh in, I'll ultimately be able to turn them into slow-moving, dignified capybaras! Bishonen | talk 21:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC).
- Is it just my damaged brain, or do the poor hamsters look like they are forced to race all the faster in your miniature? I hope it can be attritbuted to some optical illusion, but I hope even more, for the sake of the guinea pigs, they'll be restored to full size. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright then, subsubsub, should also extend the TOC
You think Bishzilla could lick Joe? ---Sluzzelin talk 21:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hehe. Hamster, hippo, or Moomin? [Bishzilla sticks the cute little Joe in her pocket and goes off to construct Joe-powered carousel.] bishzilla ROARR!! 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC).
- Darwinbish, who identifies almost sentimentally with Little My, recites her favorite lines of poetry in an unwontedly solemn voice:
- .. Min lilla syster My
- Har för en stund sen lyckats fly!
- Men Mumintrollet sade nej,
- Min kära Mymla, lugna dig!
- Hon är nog gömd av någon skurk
- Kanhända just i denna burk!
- [Db pastes the poem reverently into Googe Translate for the benefit of the ignorant. Falls over herself laughing at resulting doggerel. Now we recognize you, db! ] darwinbish BITE ☠ 12:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC).
- Aww, thanks for that, how can one not adore Little My, and how can one not adore db? I lied, we only had the written books (except for The Moomins and the Great Flood), not the picture books. It took me a while to figure out where your poem is from, but I did find an English translation ("Moomins Not Mormons" :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 07:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Sand-Covered Church may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- kirke|year=2013|publisher=Diocese of Aalborg|language=Danish|accessdate=6 September 2013}}</ref>) <!--there's a handbook with small line illustrations of coastal churches which would be the ref
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Re your block of User:CEngelbrecht
Self-admitted block evasion: [9]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. Thanks, Andy. At first I assumed they were a new user, from the way they acted and the fact that they were previously unblocked, but actually they've been here for years. Anyway, I've let them off with a warning about the block evasion, since they were so open about it. What can I say, I'm soft. I've blocked the IP in question, but it appears they can jump between them (since the original block included an IP block). I hope you'll let me know if you see any indication of further block evasion with new IPs, and I'll throw the book at them. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC).
- I'll do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- He's at it again: [10]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Modesty, punctuality but above all equality is important aspects of the Danish way of life.[1][dubious ]
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (June 2013)
Weird. Is this so strange?
It is the Danish way, you just know it. Everybody is doing it,[2] well almost everybody. http://janteuniversitet.wordpress.com/about/, [11][12], [13] [14] Koldau, Linda Maria (2013): Educational Disaster. The Destruction of Our Universities: The Danish Case. (forkortet engelsk udgave af trilogien Jante Universitet med de vigtigste analyser og et kapitel om, hvordan Janteloven virker i uddannelsessystemet. Hamborg: Tredition (udkommer til efterår 2013). ISBN 978-3-8495-4936-7., [15] I think the Danish don't know about it before they go abroad. Than they notice it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Denmark - Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette. From Kwintessential. Retrieved 4 December 2008.
- ^ article (in Swedish) by Viveka Adleswärd in Svenska Dagbladet 2003-11-02
- I love the Danish character, but modesty? Puhleeze. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC).
- You can tell they're modest because they can't stop bragging about it. MastCell Talk 21:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Quite. I happen to watch Culture of Italy fairly closely, both in honour of User:Giano and because it's rather subject to vandalism. That article is very self-congratulatory also (perhaps with a smidgeon more justification, actually?), but I can't remember ever seeing any boasting about the "national character" in it. When were national characters last fashionable in encyclopedias.. let's see, they were all the rage in the climate theory of Montesquieu (1689—1755), weren't they. Anyway, I removed the bit about admirable Danish modesty, and, for balance, took out Jantelagen as well. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC).
- You can tell they're modest because they can't stop bragging about it. MastCell Talk 21:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I heard my name mentioned: I had forgotten Culture of Italy; it seems to have fallen off my watchlist - I have to say though the risotto does look very unappetising; no worse than your rotting tinned fish though, I suppose. Glad you're watching the page still. Giano 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I am not sure that it was what I meant, to remove Jantelagen as well. I am kind of confused now, because I did agree with some of the stuff you removed. Did you lived in Denmark? Or Sweden? Hafspajen (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Like all SwedesActually like all Scandinavians, I have a high opinion of Danes (and a correspondingly low opinion of Swedes). :-) But I have a poor opinion of having the notion of national character, positive or negative, as part of any encyclopedia article about the culture of a country. That applies to Jantelagen as well. (I'm familiar with the concept, which has blurred some since Aksel Sandemose invented it. I've actually read the book.) You might like to add something about it in an appropriate section of the article, if there is one (I hope you don't expect me to read an entire article ;-)), or create one. A section about how the Danes view themselves? But having Jantelagen in the intro is absurd in my opinion. Sorry, when people appeal to me it can in fact happen that they're not happy with the result, what can I do? Bishonen | talk 19:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
- Bishy if you treat me like this, I am not going to marry you. What is wrong with the Swedes? No way, I am not that fond of the Danish that I should start adding a new section about how the Danes view themselves. Actually I don't know, since I am not a Dane.
The only thing is that there is SOMETHING in these Scandinavian countries that is different from other coutries, Jante or whatewer that is. Bragging about youself is something very very rare. Nobody or allmost nobody does it, and if there is someone who does, it is usually not a Scandinsavian but someone from an other country. It is terible difficult to explain. like some undercurrent or subsurface current, like a water current which flows beneath and usually independently of surface currents, or what. And punctuality is an important aspect, too. Try Greece, and you will see the difference.
By the way, why should these heavy templates should be on top, they distort the whole article. Are there any common sense rules about those items (You know, christiany temlpate, and so on) ????? .
Hafspajen (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're not going to marry me?? C'mon. And please be punctual, we can't have it turn into a Greek wedding. As for templates, no there are no common sense rules, certainly not, you must be joking. They're templates! Bishonen | talk 20:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
- When I say "Suck" to my son, he invariably tells me "You do, too". That's your cosmopolitan (a k a halvspråkig) Swedish youth of today. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
- Think about the på barnets marginalisering! Hafspajen (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
AN3 Complaint and topic ban
I take your point. I hope you can see my logic however. To me it was better not to become involved on the article at all because any reverting by me could be misinterpreted and I'd prefer not to face other sanctions. Hence the AE cases. Without being disingenuous how would you suggest I deal with such an instance in future where I see edit warring taking place on a troubles related article? Am I forbidden from raising ANI and AE cases when there is obviously a need for someone to do so? As you can hopefully see I did nothing more than urge participants to calm down and obey guidelines. I made no attempt to discuss the subject matter of the article.
Also, as you say you are a "softie admin" how do you fancy reverting my topic ban? ;) SonofSetanta (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Haha. I don't know enough about the Wikipedia Troubles history to even form an opinion of your ban, and I'm not going to get involved with it. But if you worry that "any reverting by you could be misinterpreted", please do note, again, that you only get to revert obvious vandalism/BLP vios. You know what the policy says about that: the example of obvious vandalism they give is "such as replacing a page with obscenities". If you stick to reverting stuff on that level, which is the appropriate level for you to stick to, it's hardly going to be misinterpreted, is it? As for how would I suggest you "deal with" edit warring: you don't. You're topic banned, you don't deal with stuff on Troubles-related articles. You let other people deal. Why the <forceful word censored> don't you just take the articles off your watchlist for the duration of the topic ban?? Bishonen | talk 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
- P.S. I know at least one of my regular talkpage watchers does know a lot about the wikipedia Troubles history. I ask them and others to please not comment here, since SoS isn't supposed to discuss it. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
- Seriously: I take your point. I've obviously misinterpreted the instructions at Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans. My intent was honest and genuine. Perhaps in future I should alert admins instead of trying to deal with it myself? I don't see any harm in keeping certain articles on my watchlist however because I can still communicate privately with others about content. I don't suffer from "itchy fingers". I agree that we shouldn't discuss the troubles here - or anywhere so I echo your appeal to your page watchers.
- Thank you for your approach and your understanding. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
At it again
Hi Bishonen, this guy is at it again, doing vandalism at the same article with a misleading edit summary. Do we need to do the whole warning and waiting escalation before an appropriate measure or can we cut to the chase? Zad68
13:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, no we don't need that, in fact I just blocked them before I saw your post. 3 months. They don't do it very often, admittedly. On the other hand it's all they do, and it's obviously a really static IP. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
Porscha
Just tidying up my watch list in prperation for a busy period head and came across this [16] It seems that poor, dear Porcha is no longer with us! tres sad. Giano 21:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Fleetham
Hello there. I've taken a very quick look at some of Fleetham's recent edits on Yang Rong and Tata Nano, and found a number of disturbing similarities with his edits on Lavasa, adding new text and removing properly sourced existing content in the same edit, with an edit summary that gives the impression that he has done something totally different from what he actually did. Often with small incremental edits. Which is an editing pattern that to me at least looks as if he has been hired to make the articles conform to certain views. Thomas.W talk to me 20:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- And I didn't like this edit on Tata Nano. With a single click, and with no explanation other than the edit summary "restore", he removed eight months worth of edits (57 edits by 44 different users), including properly sourced controversies. Thomas.W talk to me 21:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Mmmm. This edit summary is very strange, if you look at what he really did. And editing with ProveIt – que? Proveit is a specialized tool for references. But I guess none of that editing is really new. I'll keep an eye open for future developments. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC).
- Another thing that irritates me is that s/he always moves things around in the articles, which makes it a lot more difficult to see what s/he has changed/added/deleted. An editing behaviour that I, especially when combined with a misleading edit summary, interpret as a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult to detect his/her sneaky vandalism/promotion/removal of content. Thomas.W talk to me 14:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I dunno. It sort of comes with the territory that diffs of rearrangements are impossible to understand. Just look at this one I just did.[17] The only way to get any feeling for what's happened with such edits is to stare at the whole before-and-after versions. So, essentially, Fleet can't help that difficulty. Anyway… obviously, the big problem with the structure of the article is the extremely short sections. Before as well as after, sigh... I'd merge them into one or two sections, except that I don't feel such housework is the right thing to introduce as long as sourcing and possible COI are the big issues. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC).
- Another thing that irritates me is that s/he always moves things around in the articles, which makes it a lot more difficult to see what s/he has changed/added/deleted. An editing behaviour that I, especially when combined with a misleading edit summary, interpret as a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult to detect his/her sneaky vandalism/promotion/removal of content. Thomas.W talk to me 14:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Mmmm. This edit summary is very strange, if you look at what he really did. And editing with ProveIt – que? Proveit is a specialized tool for references. But I guess none of that editing is really new. I'll keep an eye open for future developments. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC).
Fox News Channel
You fully protected the Fox News article for a week (which seems kind of long), but left in the information that is in dispute. I'd like to request that you remove the disputed material while it's being discussed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, can't do that, please see The Wrong Version. I've responded more fully on the article talkpage. I'll just mention here, Niteshift, that your personal attacks on the talkpage aren't exactly helping the discussion climate, or making a compromise more likely. Please tone it down. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
- I think that it's wrong to ask me politely here and then essentially chastise me on the talk page. Sorry, but when he starts out with bad faith allegations, that tends to set the discussion climate. And that he started it that way has been ignored. Still, if anyone actually looks, we can see that the quote is actually inaccurate and that's why we shouldn't have it in the article while it's being discussed. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- What? Do you really think that? And here I thought I was being tactful, only reproaching you about personal attacks here on my page, and mentioning nobody specifically on article talk. There, I criticized the entire section on the page, thus, by implication, to some degree everybody contributing to it. Colour me surprised. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
- Yes, I do think that. It may not have been your intent, but since I was the only one you addressed by name, it had that feel to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Would you mind returning to the talk page to clarify what happened? It seems one of the editors thinks that you leaving it means you "judged it worthy". [18] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Result of clarification request concerning "Psuedoscience principles"
You participated in this recent clarification request. This message is to inform you that the clarification request has been closed and archived. If you would like to read the arbitrators' opinion section, the request has been archived to here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Confession: I almost lost my temper today...
...which doesn't happen very often. But experienced users who issue user warnings in retaliation for being reverted p*ss me off, because it's the kind of behaviour that drives new editors off WP. A warning accusing me of not having provided an edit summary, and saying that my edit had been reverted, neither of which was true. The discussion I started on his talk page in response to the warning can be found here, with details about the edit/revert that prompted the warning. And please note his response. Thomas.W talk to me 16:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look at something?
Hi Bishonen, It was suggested I include you in the discussion of Swedish emigration to the United States at User talk:Hegvald#Your revert of my move, since you were the main author of the article. Could you take a look at the discussion and weigh in as you see fit (and move the discussion to the article talk page if appropriate)? Thanks, Mojoworker (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's true I wrote the article, but it was a long time ago, and I confess I'm a little tired of going back over the same points re the emigration/immigration issue. It was discussed when the article was new, and I guess I said my say there.[19] If you disagree with my argument and User:Hegvald's, perhaps you'd like to take it to WP:RM. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC).
- OK, I'll file a move request when I get a chance. People will keep coming along to correct the grammar, so might as well see if we can get some wording that everyone can agree to. I've got a few thing to take care of first, but I'll try to get something started in the next week or so. Mojoworker (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
COI-editing on Theodore Garland, Jr. by Whatiguana.
Hello Bish. There has for a long time been a COI-problem on Theodore Garland, Jr., an article originally created by Whatiguana, a user who by all available evidence, including just posting a message on my talk page (identifying himself as Whatiguana) from an IP address that belongs to University of California, Riverside, is the subject of the article, making the article an autobiography. Whatiguana/the subject treats the article as a personal web page or a résumé and continually adds promotional/selfglorifying material, mixed in with adding pure trivia, such as today repeatedly adding a Youtube-link to a clip from a TV program where Theodore Garland appears. The article has been cleaned a couple of times, by different users, removing tons of résumé-material that most definitely does not belong in an encyclopaedia. I have reverted the addition of the Youtube link twice today, but don't want to risk getting into an edit war where I might inadvertently cross the magic 3RR threshold, so I would like someone else to take a look at it (including taking a look at what I've done in case I'm being a bit too harsh...). And perhaps add a bit more weight to the words than I can (metaphorically of course...). I have tagged the article with {{coi}} and Whatiguana's talk page with {{uw-coi}} so he knows that we, or at least I, suspect that there is a COI problem. Cheers. Thomas.W talk to me 18:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
Wow! A whole week with nothing from you. Are you OK? Hope all is well with the Bishpack! Here's a cupcake for whichever minion gets here the quickest. Tex (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
- Yeah, I've been on sick leave. Too impromptu to leave a note here, unfortunately. Better now, and the delicious cupcake has restored me like nobody's business. :-) (Fortunately the minions were sick too.) But I'm only back on a bit of an "Oh, poor me, don't ask me to do any actual work" basis for the next few days. Feel free to post grapes, nectarines, or baked goods, HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC).
Vandalism to the Mirko CroCop article
Can you please ban the IP 188.75.201.173 from wikipedia and permanently lock the CroCop article? See my latest contribution to the Mirko Filopovic talk page. The article is unlocked and keeps being vandalized by some idiot from Russia. I am almost certain this is the same vandal from before. Machine Man (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks for pinging me. I've blocked the IP for 6 months, since they returned to vandalizing sports articles as soon as the previous block expired, and I've semi'd the article for 6 months also, as there's quite a record of shorter protections,[20] and they don't seem to have discouraged anybody except temporarily. It must be tremendous fun to vandalize this one. But permanent protection, no, that's normally only done for real high-profile articles. You know, like Barack Obama. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC).
- Understandable. And you're welcome for the ping, thanks for the semi. I appreciate the quick response! Machine Man (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back
Nice to see you back. Thomas.W talk to me 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the fruit, Sluzzelin! How pretty you are! Bishonen | talk 18:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC).
- Ohh ... he's part of the gift! Added myself now. Far prettier! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you...
...but I'm kind of stuck right now. An IP-user (200.73.232.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made an edit on Wikia, deleting what seems like a perfectly valid reference with a misleading edit summary (an edit summary that didn't in any way explain why he deleted the reference). I reverted and posted a {{uw-delete2}} on their talk page, with a comment that I found the edit summary misleading. Followed by the IP reverting me again, with a snotty edit summary and an even snottier comment on their talk page (see user's talk page). And so on. The IP has now deleted the reference three times, with increasingly hostile comments on their talk page, including telling me to "fuck off", but still no explanation for why the reference is being removed. The last thing I did there was to post a 3RR-warning, which in hindsight was a bit premature since it's technically not three reverts, but one deletion and two reverts, but what's done is done and I was about to lose my temper. So if you have some time to spare I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at it, looking at both my actions and those of the IP. While I'm having a badly needed cup of tea to cool down (sometimes I feel that I'm too old for this...). Cheers. Thomas.W talk to me 18:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. 201.215.187.159 (already under a 3-month block) is probably the same person. Same city, same ISP. Unfortunately I can't block a range like that, it's huge. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC).
- P.S. I've inquired of Bbb32, who blocked 201.215.187.159, but I don't suppose he or anybody can do much, as it's not a manageable range. But who knows. I've only just figured out range blocks (and am very full of myself in consequence), maybe there are some smart tricks I don't know about. Here's a little fake Latin for you, Thomas: Illegitimi non carborundum. Chamomile tea is soothing, I believe. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC).
- Thanks. Thomas.W talk to me 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (I had a cup of Lapsang Souchong, BTW. Try it, you'll either love it or hate it.)
The Wrong Venue
You might have a look at this WP:VENUE. I've been meaning to collect thoughts on this topic. You perhaps have experienced similar annoyance as me when editors import controversy to your talk page. Jehochman Talk 21:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea, especially the bit about user talk pages. Methinks the general bit about finishing a discussion where it was started may need qualifying. Lately I've been running into discussions on biography talkpages where people at a certain point move the discussion to WP:BLPN for more eyes, which can be a good idea. Especially if it's a kind of low-profile subject that not many people follow, I've sometimes recommended people to take their favoured POV to a noticeboard (instead of nagging on and on on the talkpage forevermore and boring the rest of us to death, as it might be the SPA currently bloating up Talk:Deepak Chopra).
- But it's a real problem to be always larding essays with "yes, but on the other hand" qualifications and considerations, as I'm sure you know. It de-focuses them. Essays need to be lean and mean and to know where they're going. I got so pissed off with the people who kept adding "but this is not always true" to the short snappy "With all due respect" essay I'd written, that I asked (successfully) for it to be deleted. If every statement in an essay is qualified and half-contradicted, it ends up saying absolutely nothing, you know? "Some people say, but on the other hand it sometimes happens that"… bah. So I dunno. I'll see if I can come up with some suggestions for using WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and suchlike, without derailing the forward movement of your essay. Perhaps the best advice would be "if you're gonna move the quarrel to a noticeboard, do it right away"?
- I'd have no hesitation in recommending people to fgs not move the controversy at any time to ANI, RFC, or to the grave of all naive hopes, the black hole where good intentions go when they die: the dreaded "dispute resolution".
- Meanwhile, Darwinbish is honing her own best advice: "If you have an admin in your pocket, always rush any controversy to their user talk page, and bring cupcakes!" Bishonen | talk 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC).
- With all due respect, I miss that essay and wish it were still around! :-( Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)″
Hi
Hi, I'm N0n3up and I'm sort of new on Wiki. I was wondering if you could help me out with some things..(N0n3up (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
- Hi there. I've replied on your page. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC).
- Hi again :), I didn't exactly call you about that situation, but now that we hit the topic.. you're probably right, I'll dig into the sources. I'm sorry for any inconveniences. :( (N0n3up (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC))
- Glad to hear it. So what's the difficulty you contacted me about? Anything specific? To be going on with, I can give you the general advice to join WP:TEAHOUSE, a welcoming place for new users. :-) Bishonen | talk 09:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC).
- Hi again :), I didn't exactly call you about that situation, but now that we hit the topic.. you're probably right, I'll dig into the sources. I'm sorry for any inconveniences. :( (N0n3up (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC))
It'll probably come up on your watchlist; however, as you locked Royal Central against an article on a website being recreated, I thought it best to let you know I've created a disambiguation page at that location. I will assume some responsibility for the page. I have protected it, and will watch it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll defer to you, but the reason I chose pending changes was that there are never more than a couple three vandalism edits a day, which is more than within a manageable pending changes workload. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't defer, I didn't mean to change what you did — please change if you like. I was trying to save my post on your page for like five minutes — I may actually have started posting there before you did here — anyway, Wikipedia's like treacle for me. :-( Bishonen | talk 20:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC).
- Sorry, I think I posted here while you were posting to my talk page. Per my reply there, I put pending changes for one month on there in addition to your short semi, so that when the semi protection expires the pending changes takes over. It should work fine that way. No hard feelings...protect conflicts are among the most confusing sometimes! Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Buyer's remorse
Hi. I've replied to you at User_talk:Rwxrwxrwx#Buyer.27s_remorse. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Spalagdama (talk · contribs) is back at it again, not having learned anything from his two blocks. Thomas.W talk to me 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC) (He has BTW deleted the user warnings he's been given.)
Thomas.W (talk · contribs) is back at it again adding unsourced content to Apraca. He edit wars with me and when I revert his unsourced changes, he asks his buddy moderator Bishonen to block me, after which he proceeds to re-add the unsourced edits once more. Thomas. W made an erroneous report about me to Daniel Case who upon discovering Thomas. W's bogus, malicious report unblocked me. Thomas. W is now at it again asking his buddy Bishonen to block me after I reverted his unsourced content. Clearly both these buddies are in violation of the wikipedia's polcies, one adding unsourced content, and the other blocking anyone who intervenes. Spalagdama (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)He has deleted any and all warnings I have left for him in regards to repeatedly adding unsourced content to the article Apracarajas.
- ? This is my talkpage here. Why do you speak of me in the third person? Whom are you addressing? Did you mean to post somewhere else? If you wish to complain of my admin actions, I suggest you do it on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC).
- This is the mighty Bishonen's page...thou must tread lightly here or else!--MONGO 16:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
My talk page has just been vandalised by 2.103.230.26 (talk · contribs). I suspect that this is a sock for You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs), who you recently blocked for similar actions; it's the same target and the same style. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I hope you're wrong, but I'll try to find out. It may take a while. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- All right, I think this is so obvious (not just the abuse of you, but all four edits in different ways) that I'll block per WP:DUCK. Thanks for alerting me. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- BTW, 202, I ask you to please not post on YCALAM's page any more. I don't blame you for being provoked into doing that before, but it would be better to remain aloof now. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- I'm trying hard to do so. Thanks. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, 202, I ask you to please not post on YCALAM's page any more. I don't blame you for being provoked into doing that before, but it would be better to remain aloof now. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
FYI |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
At this point I asked YCALAM to tone it down and he said he'd give it a shot. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I know you did, Anthony, I've read their talkpage. Your diffs show that their history is really worse than I knew. When I blocked them the first time, I'd mainly read their usertalk, which was bad enough; now I think my 48 hours was a very short block. Short and belated. However. I blocked them anew today because it seems only the logged-in account toned it down, not the person. A one-month block at this juncture is short too, IMO… I toyed with indef, but after advising with a very experienced user on IRC, I settled on one month. I'm not one to think blocks make people more civil, but I'm hoping self-reflection eventually will. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- I'm with you there. Hopefully he'll modify his behaviour once the current block expires. If not, I think a permanent site ban proposed at ANI would be appropriate and unanimously supported. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
He's continuing to post as 2.103.230.26 (talk · contribs) Nothing highly offensive yet, bur still block evasion. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. I wish he'd just leave Wikipedia alone for a while, regroup, and come back as the constructive editor he also used to be. I've blocked the IP to lessen the temptation to fuck about. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC).
Expresso IP back
193.109.199.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Editing Expresso this time. Yworo (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Yworo. It doesn't look like it's the same, though. If you look at whatismyipaddress.com (most conveniently by using the "Geolocate" link at the bottom of all IP talkpages), you'll see that 92.145.77.139 and 92.145.197.216 are in France, while this new IP is in or near London. It may be an open proxy, I'm not sure how to read the mention of "Network sharing device or proxy server". (Dear talkpage stalkers, could you apply your greater technical proficiency and check this out?) Bishonen | talk 19:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- This says "Network sharing device or proxy server", it's an uncommonly-viewed, uncommonly-edited page, and this didn't start until the previous disruption at espresso ended so I put a little semi on it for the time being, hopefully the individual doing this will find something better to do with their time.
Zad68
20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)- Yep, I know this says that, I was asking for somebody to explain what it means. I. e., should it be indeffed as an open proxy? Bishonen | talk 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- Ah, yes, right... I'm not sure either how that should be handled, technically, and would like to know too!
Zad68
20:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)- All right, I'll speak the magic word, then. Yo ho, Writ Keeper! Bishonen | talk 20:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- If the magic word doesn't work, you can try reporting at WP:OP. They can do the super-thorough proxy check. I did a rudimentary check of the IP for proxyness but couldn't tell. Meanwhile the IP editor had clearly made some personal attacks so I blocked it for 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, the 'whois' goes to Areti Internet Ltd. which is a web hosting provider. So I modified the block to six months, and marked it as a {{webhostblock}}. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- If the magic word doesn't work, you can try reporting at WP:OP. They can do the super-thorough proxy check. I did a rudimentary check of the IP for proxyness but couldn't tell. Meanwhile the IP editor had clearly made some personal attacks so I blocked it for 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I'll speak the magic word, then. Yo ho, Writ Keeper! Bishonen | talk 20:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- Ah, yes, right... I'm not sure either how that should be handled, technically, and would like to know too!
- Yep, I know this says that, I was asking for somebody to explain what it means. I. e., should it be indeffed as an open proxy? Bishonen | talk 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC).
- This says "Network sharing device or proxy server", it's an uncommonly-viewed, uncommonly-edited page, and this didn't start until the previous disruption at espresso ended so I put a little semi on it for the time being, hopefully the individual doing this will find something better to do with their time.
Talkback
Message added 01:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
EvergreenFir (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Anagrams
Hello, Bishonen! Re. your remark & animation link at AN/I: here are some options for your consideration.—Odysseus1479 07:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- OMG we should not encourage that, let's hope Andy never sees that list. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- (@John: I think he has seen it.) Used Soys, that's the site that generated the Angry Thumped animation. A little embarrassingly, I had to log it as "own work" in order to get to upload it to Commons, but I credited the site as best I could. Got permission from them per OTRS and everything. Nice guys. Shinbone·Talk, 13:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC).
Precious
"Crying is okay here"
Thank you, melliflous understanding encouraging sometimes tired user, for being a refuge in times of need, for "The proliferation stops here", for a torch, - repeating (sort of): you are an awesome Wikipedian (14 June 2007 (with a Swedish poem), 13 October 2012)!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Holdeck
I don't mind un-no-wiki-ing the request, but this goes contrary to what I assumed you wanted. Is it okay if someone reblocks him during the discussion, or if someone overrides you and says "you're not going to be reblocked" during the discussion? As I see it, it really wouldn't be appropriate for someone else to override your decision without getting consensus at the discussion, unless you say you're okay with it. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the thing is, there isn't any discussion, you know. Did you take a look at the ANI thread? The only people who have posted there *about Holdek and/or the block* are the OP (Ymblanter), the blocker (me) and the blocked (Holdek). There was no discussion before Holdek posted, and there hasn't been any since. Ponyo's posts about ANI notifications and the persiflage from Drmies and Beyond my Ken don't really have anything to do with the matter. So it's a pretty theoretical notion that somebody would be likely to turn up there and agree with Holdek at this stage. Nobody has been interested enough to post any kind of comment so far.
- But I do see that it must have been confusing; I just thought somebody uninvolved could review the unblock request on its merits (after all, what Holdek has said on ANI is mainly his unblock request copypasted) and either decline it or come pow-wow with me about it. (And if they wanted to kill the block, I would be fine with that.)
- Sigh. What a bother this has been. That's the last time I unblock somebody to "discuss" something. In hindsight, I should simply have
sent Bishzillawaited a day or two before blocking, then we wouldn't have had these complications. (I just thought it was so obvious.) Anyway, Nyttend, I assume you're perfectly uninvolved? Might you like to take a look at the ANI thread, and, if you agree that it has run its course, close it? I don't know if ClueBot is playing truant or what. Then I could reinstate the block and revive the unblock request and somebody would come review it. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC).- Yeah, I'm happy to provide outside review; I just didn't understand what was going on and didn't realise that you were actively trying to get another admin to come along to the talk page. ClueBot NG has been busy today, according to its contributions, but I don't know anything about its normal activities other than vandalism reversion. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Re: Loomspicker AN
Has gone active again, continuing the same behavior; shall we wait to see if he addresses the AN reports? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Wisdom needed
I have no idea how you will react to this issue. Could you have a look at this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Ban_Appeal_of_AKonanykhin Your experience would be appreciated. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been looking, Jonathan, and trying to engage the wisdom, but the clutch as so often keeps slipping. My instinct is to trust you in such a matter, certainly, as it's something you've worked with and thought about a lot. I'll see if something eventuates... I'm a bit distracted by RL right now. :-( Bishonen | talk 14:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC).
Call me cynical
Re Original cynic ... With all due respect It appears my account was registered about five months before MastCell's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)
- Aha! But did you notice i linked the term "original Wikipedia Cynic" to the Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia? I meant to point to MastCell as the originator of the useful Cynic's Guide — not so much as the first cynic. Anyway, mystery guest, do you reckon you're a cynic, really? As far as I can see, you're not even burnt out and with a bad attitude! (Neither am I, but Bishzilla spent some glumtime in that category.[41] She has cheered up now, and merely keeps the members of it in her pocket.) Bishonen | talk 23:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC).
- Oops. ("Mystery guest" much nicer than "anonymous coward") Let me ponder that a bit -- mustn't be hasty, you know? NE Ent 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The anonymous coward template isn't for slowfox ents, it's just for logged-out assholes. darwinbish BITE ☠ 11:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC).
- I reckon I exist in some sort of Cynic-optimist duality, similar to Wave-particle duality. The system is somewhat dysfunctional, we're "eating our young" Technology Review:The Decline of Wiki, and there are to many "rules are rules" (and "tautologies are tautologies") folks around. But I'm heartened by the fact there still some number of iar grokking editors around who put the encyclopedia first. NE Ent 09:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. ("Mystery guest" much nicer than "anonymous coward") Let me ponder that a bit -- mustn't be hasty, you know? NE Ent 01:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Sonny1998's block
Hello Bishonen,
a few days ago you blocked Sonny1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two days because of unsourced edits and refusal to discuss and reason their edits. Unfortunately, Sonny1998 has continued with exactly the same problematic conduct since the block has expired. I am afraid that other consequences are necessary in this case. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the alert and for keeping your eyes open, RJFF. I must say the user seems to be heading straight for the abyss (an indefinite block), but let's hope he'll get the message of gradually increasing blocks. Two weeks this time. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC).
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Because you deserve it, and because it's funnier just to pick one from the list than to make one up. Begoon talk 20:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
For Bishonen?? If there's a barnstar of laziness, that's the one she deserves! darwinbish BITE ☠ 22:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC).
- Thank you, Begoon. Just ignore the sock. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC).
- Ironically, the fact that Admin-bish is too lazy to block an obviously WP:NOTHERE sock shows D-bish is coooorrect!!! Jester of the court (sock) 01:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe Darwinbish should give Begoon a barnstar of irony. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. Well it was kind of a jab at myself - I'm a graphist and designer, yet I couldn't be bothered even to choose a picture... I think she's at least a bit diligent - and anyway, as I know personally, there's often quite an effort involved in being properly lazy. It's an artform. Begoon talk 03:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Desperately seeking levity
Hey, Bishonen! You're an Admin and I'm sure that brings a lot of baggage along with the tools. What do you do when someone just throws cr@p at you to see if it will stick?
I'm learning that if you speak up, eventually someone will be upset by the positions you take and give you grief. So, that's kind of predictable, I suppose, unless you are invisible. But what do you do to just shake off the negativity? I mean you've been editing WP for quite a few years so this must have come up...any secrets they passed down during your time at Admin Academy?
I'm trying to be light-hearted here but it seems like, with some Editors, once you get on their "list", you can expect to be regularly challenged. It's kind of a pain. Any friendly advice? Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Liz. Not so much baggage as you might think. Like the sissy I am, I avoid editing the chronically controversial pages — religion, politics, abortion, nationalist squabbles (arghhhh, especially that). I protect them sometimes, but then that's easy. The people who try to contain the endemic POV-pushing on topics like that have my admiration, whether they admin them or edit them. I mean, how many times has someone like Sitush been taken to ANI? What a life. (Check out this heartfelt question from Sitush.) You should really be asking people like him rather than me how best to keep your balance in a shitstorm, because they're braver than me, and you seem to be, too. I like Sitush's robust replies on his page: "Do you really think I give a damn abut your formal warning? I'll just carry on editing as I always have - the likes of you do not scare me: grow up." That's them told off. :-) The notion of a so-called "formal warning" does tend to be a bad sign, as are threats that somebody will "tell Wikipedia" if I don't stop whatever it is they don't like me doing. Or that they'll withdraw the substantial contribution to the project that they were just going to make, and it's all my fault.
- I'll give you a concrete suggestions if you like: why not create a big scary sock, or a really mean sock, to give expression to your own dark side? That may make it easier to not let annoying or aggressive people get to you, and to
pretend toremain always nice and pleasant. Not that I go in for always nice, exactly.
- BTW, does your sad question have to do with the recent Sheldrake brouhaha? You won't find we have the same views on that. Or rather, considering something I saw on your page — that there had been a hundred edits to Talk:Rupert Sheldrake in one day recently — I really don't think I can afford to have any views on it at all. These things take so much energy, and I'm a little distracted by RL right now. That's besides being a sissy. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC).
- Just reading your very human reply helps enormously. It's difficult on Wikipedia because either one is doing constructive work, all alone, or one is working in a forum/Talk Page setting and, in my experience, they are either empty or full of conflict. It would be nice one day to do some collaborative work but people tend to be loners as far as their writing goes.
- I've known about Bishzilla for a while (about the time I stumbled on to Chedzilla) and I don't know how folks like you and ES&L get away with having two active accounts. I've seen SPI launched on people when there is just a hint that they also edited without logging in and you are so open about your alternative account.
- I've talked a bit with Sitush over the past few months. He does find himself in the midst of controversy and, I'll admit, I kind of got him involved in one over the summer just because he offered a fresh perspective from the entrenched positions of those involved.
- As for my "sad question" (can I get an "Awwwwww" here?), it is indirectly connected with Sheldrake. I'm not exactly sure how that mess has come to the stage it is at now. I noticed earlier in October that there were a lot of posts to AN/I about the Sheldrake article and Talk Page so I wandered over there to see what the conflict was about. What I believe I saw was some bullying going on and I spoke up that I didn't think that was fair, that Editors have a right to share their views and be heard without being dismissed or belittled.
- And, that's kind of all I did, that's what led me being viewed by some as a foe. I never edited the Sheldrake article, I have absolutely no opinion about it at all. But because I defended someone whom more skeptical Editors view as "fringe", I guess I am guilty by association. The part that still kind of fascinates me is why on Earth a dozen or so Editors care so much about this one article about a person I had never even heard of until two weeks ago? But those involved just can't seem to walk away. I did and now, everything I wrote is already in the TP Archives so I consider myself uninvolved.
- Unfortunately, people on Wikipedia never, ever seem to put things in the past. I just saw in an AN/I complaint, an Editor's 3R block from six years ago was thrown in his face as if it happened yesterday. I guess that is the downside of having every word and comma preserved for all of eternity in Edit Histories.
- My "robust replies" are sometimes more so than I intend. That is in part due to the limitations of absent (non-face-to-face) comms and partly because, alas, frustrations do build up and sometimes I go a step too far. I wouldn't recommend me as a positive example to anyone! Having said which, I've always been someone who doesn't worry too much about perceived opinion or status, eg: my interview prior to admission to Cambridge resulted in me calling Hugh Trevor-Roper a "fool" ... in his presence. (He gave me a bottle of very good champagne for my 21st birthday a couple of years later, which maybe rather proved my point!) On Wikipedia, I do spend most of my time in a rather awkward area and perhaps here I am forgiven some sins because of it. But I do also collaborate - it just gets lost amidst the noise.
Liz, please don't be disheartened. The chances of you, me and Bish always agreeing are slim but I for one value what you say and that it unlikely to change even I were to disagree about some particular thing. And if you want to work on something non-controversial that really, really should have an article then you might just fancy taking up my current reading for "flint mills". They were used to grind flint, chert etc to produce a powder that, added to clay, enabled a stronger, whiter form of pottery. Some health hazards, some interesting technical stuff about immersion in water/links to early use of steam power etc, a bit of social history and, well, quite a lot of existing articles that refer to them but have no links. And some, like James Brindley, that make no mention at all even though they most definitely should. It is an oddball topic but full of potential and seemingly benign in terms of conflict.
Oh, and I'm one of the lucky 100 who have access to JSTOR via the Wikipedia scheme, so if you are not so blessed then do feel free to ask directly for anything that you might want rather than going through the (very wonderful) WP:RX process. I am innately very curious, so digging out stuff satisfies me on a pure "fun" level. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- My "robust replies" are sometimes more so than I intend. That is in part due to the limitations of absent (non-face-to-face) comms and partly because, alas, frustrations do build up and sometimes I go a step too far. I wouldn't recommend me as a positive example to anyone! Having said which, I've always been someone who doesn't worry too much about perceived opinion or status, eg: my interview prior to admission to Cambridge resulted in me calling Hugh Trevor-Roper a "fool" ... in his presence. (He gave me a bottle of very good champagne for my 21st birthday a couple of years later, which maybe rather proved my point!) On Wikipedia, I do spend most of my time in a rather awkward area and perhaps here I am forgiven some sins because of it. But I do also collaborate - it just gets lost amidst the noise.
- @Sitush: I spent most of my adult life at universities, either as a student or teaching, so it's really hard not to have access to JSTOR and other academic databases. It's really convenient to be able to download .pdf files that look interesting. I never knew what a luxury it was until I no longer had ready access.
- I'm pretty resilient so I don't let a few bad encounters color my view of Wikipedia and all of the well-meaning Editors here. It's just when someone takes personal potshots at you, it takes me a bit aback and unsure how to best respond. But I've learned through my years online that frequently, attacks are a sign that something is going badly in the other person's life and they lash out at convenient targets when they are irritated. So, I try to turn anger into sympathy....but I'm not always successful at it, especially when are persistent about it.
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
I want to present this barnstar for your efforts on Wikipedia, both as a user and an administrator. Keep up the good work, Bishonen! Best wishes Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
Most obliged, your lordship! Bishonen | talk 20:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC).
- No hard feelings. At least I don't have to put up with nonsense and vandalism. :) Take care, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
AN/I
Completely different question! I looked at the edit history for AN/I and it seems like most of it has been deleted although the comments remain. This seems really unusual, is this normal? Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's what happens when certain text needs to be removed. As you note, the text posted by various people is still at ANI, but the ability to take a diff of those posts has been removed because the diff would show the original text that needed to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's not unusual. Fully discussed here. Bishonen | talk 12:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC).
- Okay. I'm not sure why the edit history is deleted but thanks for filling me in that it's not unheard of. Liz Read! Talk! 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- See the third bullet-point at WP:REVDEL#Limitations and issues.—Odysseus1479 18:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm not sure why the edit history is deleted but thanks for filling me in that it's not unheard of. Liz Read! Talk! 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's not unusual. Fully discussed here. Bishonen | talk 12:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC).
Reply
I have drawn Tiktaalik a while ago, and am in the process of redrawing it. I'll show it to you when I'm finished.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cool bananas! bishapod talk to your inner fish 21:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC).
- Fly me round the world
- To find my inner fish
- Tik-tik-tik-tik-Tiktaalik
- Tik-tik-tik-tik-Tiktaalik… [42]] bishapod talk to your inner fish 21:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC).
- Me reach for surströmming. You all run very fast (Bishapod and all of its siblings included). Me win. Thomas.W talk to me 22:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC) (Surströmming trumps everything...)
- [Bishapod bows down to Thomas.W, the master of fish.] Thomas, why don't you create a surströmming-slapping template? Go on! You can be more scary than Darwinbish! bishapod talk to your inner fish 22:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC).
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Read the full newsletter
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Fleetham and strange editing.
Hello Bish. I've had a couple of run-ins with Fleetham, particularly on Lavasa, and took a quick look at his edits and editing pattern a couple of months ago. And what I saw made me suspect that he is a "gun for hire", i.e. someone who edits for pay, doing whatever the person or company who hires him wants him to do. He is currently involved in a big brou-ha on Bitcoin, editing/rewriting/deleting the work of other editors without discussing it with them (just look at the messages they post on his talk page), obviously pushing his own (or perhaps his client's) agenda. So if you feel like digging into something juicy you might want to take a look at what he's doing there... Thomas.W talk to me 14:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thomas, I think you're right, particularly re Lavasa as you say. But this kind of stuff is rather, uh, ah… my skill set and interests aren't highly relevant to it. I suggest you take it to ANI. You could create a subthread about Fleetham in this thread, for instance. Or maybe a whole new thread would be better, since that one is focused on Reddit campaigns. Think about it. In any case, on the noticeboard, you'll need to give some diffs, of course. And, well, you know, be painstakingly polite, so you don't give them ammo against you. (Don't say "gun for hire".) (Pro tip: say something about "paid editing" in your header. That'll make people look. The header is important on ANI!) Bishonen | talk 16:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC).
Can't believe IP is back for the third time
Greetings! If you remember my two posts on the ANI (First report there, also see the second one a few topics below) about the disruptive IP. Well they're back (User:90.200.85.196) and I've just got reverted 24 times. This is sure getting tiresome, these gross disruptive edits are plain silly and I feel equally sillier reverting all this again. Thanks in advance, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Blocked for a month. Nothing to do except play whack-a-vandal per AGK's recommendation, I guess. You may call the edits silly; of course they are silly; but it's also true that somebody who enjoys disruption and has access to semi-dynamic IPs on a large range has nothing to fear from us. They're unblockable. So the behaviour isn't so silly; it's our system that's silly. (We wouldn't have this if we required people to create an account before being able to edit; not really a lot to ask.) Anyway, I'm sorry to see it looks like you, personally, have annoyed the individual into enjoying messing with you. :-( If only there weren't so many different articles, semi would be the solution, but, well. It is what it is. Please alert me again if/when there's more. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC).
- You're quite right but on a positive side, this type of peculiar disruption must be extremely rare I assume because I just don't quite get the motive behind such persistent efforts (such enthusiasm could have been directed on so many better constructive things). Anyway, better be off to play whack-a-vandal :) Good day to you Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Quite rare, yeah. What's much more common is that IP vandals or inveterate POV-pushers take an interest in one particular article, or a small set of related articles. And that we can fix, with semi. [/me rubs hands in glee at thought. Ahhhh, semi! Friend!] Bishonen | talk 18:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC).
- I wanted to add my thanks for your help in dealing with this problematic editor. I have been dealing with him for two or three years so it is nice to be able to come to someone familiar with the situation rather than having to start from scratch the next time he appears. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Marnette. Yes, I could tell from your input on ANI that you know a lot about it. I'm adding an archive link here to the first ANI discussion, in case any of us need it later. It includes your useful (though depressing) SPI link. BTW, I can see that some of the IPs mentioned there were eventually blocked for as long as 6 months. I'm never sure how hard I can whack an IP, but I'll follow that example in future. Please just let me know if you notice some more disruption. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC).
- I wanted to add my thanks for your help in dealing with this problematic editor. I have been dealing with him for two or three years so it is nice to be able to come to someone familiar with the situation rather than having to start from scratch the next time he appears. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Quite rare, yeah. What's much more common is that IP vandals or inveterate POV-pushers take an interest in one particular article, or a small set of related articles. And that we can fix, with semi. [/me rubs hands in glee at thought. Ahhhh, semi! Friend!] Bishonen | talk 18:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC).
- You're quite right but on a positive side, this type of peculiar disruption must be extremely rare I assume because I just don't quite get the motive behind such persistent efforts (such enthusiasm could have been directed on so many better constructive things). Anyway, better be off to play whack-a-vandal :) Good day to you Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Bishonen, thanks for your last reply at the now closed ANI thread. I haven't yet read what (if anything) you wrote at the AN thread regarding the block, but wanted to come here first. Fram (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yeah, I posted way too fast originally. As for posting on AN, I had to deal with RL for a few hours, and the AN thread was well beyond TL;DR when I returned. Life's too short. For the record, I don't think it's strange that Eric Corbett went postal after the very, very bad 3-hour block. Heck, it was worse than Jimbo's 3-hour block of me![43] Telling people to fuck off is so far from being a personal attack you could see the distance between them from outer space, like the Great Barrier Reef. "Fuck off" is a rough or even rude way of telling somebody to go away. Nothing personal about it whatever. If I hadn't discovered the whole thing too late, I might have blocked User:Spartaz for wilful provocation/administrative incompetence. Not sure which of the two it was. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC).
- P.S. So it's on RFAR now... figures. I'll go say the same thing there, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 01:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC).
- I wouldn't block someone for reacting hotly against a block in the heat of the moment (well, unless they really get nasty, with accusations of racism or whatever, but that's not the csae here at all). But here, Eric Corbett indicated that he was cool, had thought about it, and decided that posting clear personal attacks was the best way to proceed. There was no baiting around, it was his own decision. Fine, but then he should face the consequences as well.
- As for getting blocked for telling someone to fuck off, I was blocked for this on Mediawiki (where I had done this on my own user talk page, not on some other talk page), so I know how it feels. I wouldn't have blocked for saying "fuck off", but for his general pattern of incivility and personal attacks before that 3 hour block. Anyway, while the current ArbCom case is not really useful, I guess that another case is in the making anyway, seeing how this continues to divide the admin and editor corps. Fram (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"Fuck off" isn't a personal attack but it is definitely uncivil. There is a huge difference between saying, "Go away" and "Fuck off" which is hostile and aggressive. Besides, it would be one thing if it was a rare outburst of anger over a frustrating encounter with an annoying Editor. That could happen to anyone. But when another user says something like, "Please do not post such rude messages" and it's met with a "Fuck off!" or "I don't give a fuck what you think", a pattern of incivility becomes apparent. I think when the standard reply to an Editor saying, "There's a problem here" is "Fuck off" (or the like), that shows a lack of respect for ones fellow Editors and, after this many blocks, shows the user has no intention of changing their behavior.
The problem I see is because the blocks seem to not have had any effect, the reaction from many Admins & Editors has been, "Why bother blocking Corbett? It won't change anything. And those who support him will just give me a hard time." So, he basically has carte blanche to behave however he wants (as long as he doesn't violate copyright, edit war or other unrelated infringements). When I was first becoming an active Editor this summer, it was baffling to me how a few Editors could get away with epic rudeness without any sanctions when any other user (or, God help them, an IP), would face an indefinite block. It was the first step in becoming aware that Wikipedia's Five Pillars are actually made out of rubber, not stone (particularly the 4th pillar).
I understand the dilemma this poses for Admins. But I'm also aware that most new Editors, facing a user that tells them to "Fuck off", either will quit editing WP or respond in a destructive way and get themselves blocked. Either way, they are gone. And this not only people who are the target, other Editors who simply read the exchange start viewing WP as a hostile environment. So, you all are left with the question: How many Editors is Corbett's incivility worth? One? A dozen? Two dozen? Fifty? Because that is the trade-off here. I have the impression that many Admins don't appreciate that there is a cost to tolerating habitual incivility but there is one. Liz Read! Talk! 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. This isn't just about Corbett, he's just the most prominent example. There are several other users that seem to be given much more latitude than others. Sorry for the long post, Bish. L.
- Well, I'm in the top 800 or so, thus 200 is perhaps a bit too tight, but the reality about Corbett is simple: I've yet to see him snark at anyone who didn't have it coming, frankly. Sometimes he snarks too fast or too crudely (I do wish he would eliminate the four-letter words from his on-wiki presence, but oh well), but he doesn't pick on newbies, and when he is asked for help, he is very helpful. There are too many trolls and bullies on wikipedia who do little actual content contributing (thus no risk to themselves of being criticized for their work) then like to poke the bear until he growls - and Corbett is not the only person they attack. If wiki were a workplace, you'd be annoyed at the person who cusses too much, and it might cost them promotions and a spot in the front office, but you aren't going to fire them so long as they are doing their job and doing it well. Same here. You don't indef someone for saying F-off on their own talk page. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the key here is the last bit -- you aren't going to fire them so long as they are doing their job and doing it well. I don't know anything about Corbett, so I don't have an opinion about them specifically, but I do think I know what their job is. Just like the rest of us, they have one job only. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm in the top 800 or so, thus 200 is perhaps a bit too tight, but the reality about Corbett is simple: I've yet to see him snark at anyone who didn't have it coming, frankly. Sometimes he snarks too fast or too crudely (I do wish he would eliminate the four-letter words from his on-wiki presence, but oh well), but he doesn't pick on newbies, and when he is asked for help, he is very helpful. There are too many trolls and bullies on wikipedia who do little actual content contributing (thus no risk to themselves of being criticized for their work) then like to poke the bear until he growls - and Corbett is not the only person they attack. If wiki were a workplace, you'd be annoyed at the person who cusses too much, and it might cost them promotions and a spot in the front office, but you aren't going to fire them so long as they are doing their job and doing it well. Same here. You don't indef someone for saying F-off on their own talk page. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- ((edit conflict... hello montanaBw)) There is a conflict between pillar four, and pillar five. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, wikipedia is not supposed to be biased towards political correctness... but in practice, that only applies to the actual content of mainspace articles. If one is politically incorrect on a talkpage, or fails to self-censor on a talkpage, it leads to either WP:NPA or WP:NICE violations. I find that the problem cannot be easily resolved... because I hate censorship, so I want people to be able to say fuck-off ... or even the oh-so-quick-will-you-be-blocked-fuck-you ... on their talkpages. Because otherwise, we are just fooling ourselves, and sooner or later censorship *will* be required, and the WPAA blacklist for foul-mouthed talkpage violations will exist (if it does not already). But the other side, where editors that throw four-letter-tantrums drive away contributors, UTTERLY drives me nuts. That's the whole point of pillar four, after all, is that we want wikipedians to be nice to each other, so that they don't drive each other utterly nuts.
- The key is pillar five, methinks, properly applied: if a person says fuck-off in a way that improves the encyclopedia (fuck off you person making physical threats! begone from the wikiverse!), they did the right thing. If the some other person says fuck-off in a way that harms wikipedia herself (fuck off! nobody wants you here, you disagree with me you n00b, so leave!), they did the wrong thing. Case one, give them a barnstar, for protecting wikipedia herself, case two, block the speaker -- not for saying fuck -- but for driving away other valuable contributors.
- In this vein, I think it helps to flip the pillars around: 5,4,3,2,1 methinks is the *correct* ordering, rather than 1,2,3,4,5. For instance, violating pillar four, in order to defend pillar two, is Not Good. You should be able to satisfy pillar two, *without* needing to rubberize pillar four, because after all, with pillar five at the top, you can do whatever is best for wikipedia herself, right? It's a tricky balance, but I find it helps to use the countdown-ordering. (It also helps me remember that, really, *exactly* five rules are actually necessary to run this railroad, with no need for five bazillion pages of WP:PG from the WPAA micromanaging our every step.)
- As for Aunva7's argument that we only *really* need 200 people to keep wikipedia running... uhm... we have 32k active enWiki editors... slowly dwindling... and things are falling apart. We *have* to improve WP:RETENTION, so that some non-negligible percentage of the hundreds of millions of unique *readers* that wikipedia enjoys every month, stick around to be *editors*. Which means we have to stop seeing an instant revert of a good-faith edit that was in some small-potatoes way *imperfect*, as anything but a slap in the face. Wikipedia is very off-putting, even when nobody says fuck off out loud. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was generalizing, and i'm aware that it's alot more than 200. but there's a point in what I was saying. people need to learn to have thick skin, and not just on the wiki. there's just too much pandering out there these days... anyhow, as I understand it, corbett wasn't making a personal attack, and WP:civility seems to have WP:commonsense in mind. if I didn't think it would end badly, I'd be tempted to trout worm... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Latest B-o-T IP
Hello B. Here 90.199.99.164 (talk · contribs) is the newest IP for our problem editor. Hope you have a spooky Halloween. MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
milquetoast
This is something unrelated that I definitely would also like to talk your ear off about, some time later, if you are not scared off by that other wall-of-text.
(from a bishonen subpage)
Upgraded yucky milquetoast version:
((subst:uw-vandalism)), which reads:
Hello, I'm
$adminSomebody Too Important And Busy To Write A Personal Helpful Note Or To Fix The Problem Personally. ((updated to hammer home how this *looks* to a beginner-editor.))I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive.
If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
I'm busy trying to rewrite some template-messages to be not just milquetoast, but outright chuckalish candy-coated happy-dances. Maybe I'll convince you, or maybe you'll help me tone down the patronizing-Clippy-voice which some of my rewrite-attempts have. Consider it a chance to nip further-milquetoast-i-fication in the bud, perhaps. Ping my on my talkpage, if I don't respond promptly, but I won't have time for error-message-rewriting until this weekend. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to note, I think $would-be-admin and $random-gnome and $random-editor use that template a lot too.
- I recognise it from some of my own recent contribs!
- I think the wording as listed above is the result of some careful thought, so don't be too crazy re-writing it please :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Demiurge, thanks for your ancient universe-creation-efforts btw. I actually fully intend to be really, really crazy. Which is why I'm trying to recruit some saner helpers, to reality-check my delusions before I commit them into twinkle. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Aunva, think I met your twin Seven. My rewrite is particularly aimed squarely at sub-99-edit-count folks, to improve WP:RETENTION, but I want also to use it on random vandals... because at least 1 in 1000 random vandals *actually* was editing in good faith, just sans WP:CLUE... and I firmly believe we must assume WP:NOCLUE in all the error-messages. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just think that the level one warning is patronizing for higher-level editors, but I do use it for new editors, but blanking and such I tend to use 2 or 3, depending on what they did. I DO try to assume good faith anyways, but sometimes it's pretty obvious that the edit was intended to be vandalism. then again, ClueBot gets alot of those, so there's not much for manual vandal-fighting anymore. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Aunva, think I met your twin Seven. My rewrite is particularly aimed squarely at sub-99-edit-count folks, to improve WP:RETENTION, but I want also to use it on random vandals... because at least 1 in 1000 random vandals *actually* was editing in good faith, just sans WP:CLUE... and I firmly believe we must assume WP:NOCLUE in all the error-messages. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's naturally used a lot, Demiurge and Aunva, since it's the yucky upgraded version — the current version of {{subst:uw-vandalism}}. If you use Twinkle it's what you get. My point on the subpage User:Bishonen/Useful warnings, which 74.xxx was referring to, was that I'd saved the text of the old version there. It's a little terser. Being kind and mild-mannered towards n00bs is all very well, I try to be, but I'm not sure I need to actually hug and kiss them and lick them in the face. Note btw that that subpage is purely a practical arrangement for myself, with stuff I've found I need sometimes; it's not useful to anybody else. (That's a hint. Better not read my subpages, they're not dressed for company.) 74.xxx, I look forward to seeing you talk like Clippy (ew). But basically, I've replied on your page. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC).
- Bishonen, please, just call me 74. Don't use my porn-nom-de-plume 74.xxx -- that's outing! :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
IT'S HALLOWEEN!
Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Bishonen! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! — dainomite 15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks. |
I assume you're going as 'zilla or the evil twin. little stupid just isn't scary. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, not very, but Bishonen is; I'm going as myself. Bishzilla, on the other hand, doesn't think she's scary enough, so she has sewn herself an enormous Darwinbish suit for trick-or-treating.[44] Imagine opening the door and seeing that. Don't faint, that's the main thing. Here's a little snack you can throw at the creature before shutting the door fast. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC).
Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;) - I was not "going as", I must be a witch myself, just look for "magic" on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)