Contents
- 1 only back
- 2 Gabbygate
- 3 Feedback
- 4 Thank you
- 5 Thank you
- 6 Question for you
- 7 ugghhh
- 8 Discretionary sanctions alert
- 9 Protection in the comments section
- 10 Tired of Harassment
- 11 Sock
- 12 Your weekend leisure reading
- 13 Problems
- 14 File:Nell Gwyn.png listed for deletion
- 15 The next day…...
- 16 Annotating block logs
- 17 Jonathan Oakey
- 18 more plagiarism noted
- 19 Protection for the Dino Charge pages due to persistant vandalism?
- 20 a fabulously trendy British hairstylist
- 21 HallKeen Management
- 22 Rosie
- 23 A cup of tea for you!
- 24 User:Kajit paron
- 25 500/30 enacted for four caste articles and a talk page under DS
- 26 Userfy
- 27 Your edit to my page!
- 28 Closure box at WT:AE regarding submissions from IPs
- 29 Hey, question.
- 30 Clarification
- 31 Need your opinion
- 32 Clarification
- 33 Warning
- 34 Pizza - Mafia (Mandolino, Spaghetti, etc. :-))
- 35 I have to idea how to reply to this...
- 36 Gabby Merger
- 37 Thanks for protecting my user talk page
- 38 User: Help me edit
- 39 A barnstar for you!
- 40 Query of DS sanctions
- 41 Margaret Sanger
- 42 Danish?
- 43 User:Karabakh Quebequization
- 44 I feel loved
- 45 Hey hey!
- 46 As Someone I Trust
- 47 Diwali greetings
- 48 bish for arbcom?
- 49 Laid-back
only back
for a few things. i pretty much gave up on wiki. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC
I kinda feel that he is following me around. IMHO. Even nominated one of my articles for deletion out of nowhere. [1] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Gabbygate
Hi. I noticed your comments on Gabby Merger's Talk page, so I thought I would also draw your attention to this discussion, starting from here. Though I have frequently disagreed with Gabby in the past, she sought to draw me into her dispute with Jeppiz, continued the 'discussion' after I clearly indicated I was not interested in continuing, and then finished with a 'reminder' about my 'typical hasty arrogance', my "horrendous attitude", my "cold attitude" and how my "brain and biases won't allow" me to be 'nice' except "Maybe only with fellow anti-JWs, or anti-Bible types, and atheists perhaps". If you think any of my comments in the discussion were not appropriate, please let me know. This is not a specific request for admin action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. Your typical hasty arrogance? Hmm. I'll take a look. Gabby knows now, or should know, that she's not allowed to attack people. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
- If you get particularly bored, you could also review the discussion now archived at User_talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015b#edits (and that's without the four time I had to prune it at the end[2][3][4][5]).--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine, thanks — the recent stuff will do me. I have posted a final warning on Gabby's page. In an attempt to fix the {{hat}} business, I tried to add a {{hab}} to close the hat, but that only made everything worse, presumably because there are other hats on the page. Groan. I don't really feel like spending the best years of my life straightening it out, especially considering I don't even know what kind of hatting she was trying to achieve, and may merely disoblige her if I try to help. So now my final warning post is invisible on the page along with everything else ... I hope she reads it through the history. I suppose my kind talkpage stalkers wouldn't like to help? But please note I don't guarantee you'll get any thanks from the user. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
- PS, John Carter took care of it. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
- Thanks. Yeah, there was one {{hat}} nested inside another. I think she saw a 'hatted' section on my Talk page and decided to do the same, but maybe didn't realise you have to {{hab}} them. I had some trouble following Gabby's reationale of deleting two large seemingly arbitrary blocks of discussion and then hatting other large chunks, but I shall leave that for her to sort out. After the recent rollercoaster of, essentially, 'I don't like you, but I want your opinion, and I still don't like you', I'm a bit worn out trying to work with her.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you shouldn't try. That's definitely my advice. I understand you may edit the same pages and their article talkpages, but if I were you I really wouldn't encourage her to come to your page any more, or post on hers. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
- I've deliberately stayed out of any contact with the user for days, hoping it would lead to tensions cooling down. Unfortunately the user continues making their WP activity mostly about me by the discussion this afternoon at Jeffro77's talk page. [6]. Their continued posting at Jeffro77's talk page after Jeffo77 has told them repeatedly to stay away follows the same pattern. Jeppiz (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I know. I just warned her to leave him alone. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
- I've deliberately stayed out of any contact with the user for days, hoping it would lead to tensions cooling down. Unfortunately the user continues making their WP activity mostly about me by the discussion this afternoon at Jeffro77's talk page. [6]. Their continued posting at Jeffro77's talk page after Jeffo77 has told them repeatedly to stay away follows the same pattern. Jeppiz (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you shouldn't try. That's definitely my advice. I understand you may edit the same pages and their article talkpages, but if I were you I really wouldn't encourage her to come to your page any more, or post on hers. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
- Thanks. Yeah, there was one {{hat}} nested inside another. I think she saw a 'hatted' section on my Talk page and decided to do the same, but maybe didn't realise you have to {{hab}} them. I had some trouble following Gabby's reationale of deleting two large seemingly arbitrary blocks of discussion and then hatting other large chunks, but I shall leave that for her to sort out. After the recent rollercoaster of, essentially, 'I don't like you, but I want your opinion, and I still don't like you', I'm a bit worn out trying to work with her.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- PS, John Carter took care of it. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
- I'm fine, thanks — the recent stuff will do me. I have posted a final warning on Gabby's page. In an attempt to fix the {{hat}} business, I tried to add a {{hab}} to close the hat, but that only made everything worse, presumably because there are other hats on the page. Groan. I don't really feel like spending the best years of my life straightening it out, especially considering I don't even know what kind of hatting she was trying to achieve, and may merely disoblige her if I try to help. So now my final warning post is invisible on the page along with everything else ... I hope she reads it through the history. I suppose my kind talkpage stalkers wouldn't like to help? But please note I don't guarantee you'll get any thanks from the user. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
- If you get particularly bored, you could also review the discussion now archived at User_talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015b#edits (and that's without the four time I had to prune it at the end[2][3][4][5]).--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Feedback
Hi Bish I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on my ANI report [7] that I feel was not dealt with properly and was closed unfairly. I took alot of abuse on that ANI that I feel was wrong and unacceptable. I'm not asking you to comment on ANI, I'm asking for feedback on what you think and how you feel on it because I really do not understand it at all. Thank you. Caden cool 18:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- A thorough review of the history of that section, and the comments related to it elsewhere, would probably be reasonable if you are to do so. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bish is a trusted admin who is fair and does her job properly. You have no need to worry. BTW could you please stop following me around John and stop commenting on my ANI report? I do not like it. Caden cool 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Caden, it's too complicated for me, and basically I agree with Sarah here. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
- Its ok Bish, I no longer care anymore. I feel like quitting for good. Thanks anyway. Caden cool 23:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand it's no fun, Caden. I hope you cheer up in a bit. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
- (watching:] Caden, read in the spirale of justice wisdom from 1510, and don't expect it to change, certainly not in the WP:Great Dismal Swamp. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well Bish its very hard to do that when the same crap from yesterday has continued in to today. And Gerda thanks for that link. It was interesting. Caden cool 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Which link? Or both? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- ps: for an educated cry you may quote my latest cantata, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was the first link Gerda. Caden cool 20:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- You may be interested in the DYK hook on the talk, which I kept on my talk. Every time I look at your talk, I think you look like that pictured person ;) - I have a cat instead - also crying out, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well Bish its very hard to do that when the same crap from yesterday has continued in to today. And Gerda thanks for that link. It was interesting. Caden cool 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- (watching:] Caden, read in the spirale of justice wisdom from 1510, and don't expect it to change, certainly not in the WP:Great Dismal Swamp. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I understand it's no fun, Caden. I hope you cheer up in a bit. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
- Its ok Bish, I no longer care anymore. I feel like quitting for good. Thanks anyway. Caden cool 23:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Caden, it's too complicated for me, and basically I agree with Sarah here. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
- Bish is a trusted admin who is fair and does her job properly. You have no need to worry. BTW could you please stop following me around John and stop commenting on my ANI report? I do not like it. Caden cool 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
For crying out loud: now we can use a Bach cantata also, and a template. The cat returned. I made my appearance Jimbo's talk, with this
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Thanks for steering me in the right direction re Benjamin Genocchio. Penelope1114 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
Neat barnstar! Thank you! Bishonen | talk 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
Thank you
Thank you very much Bishonen. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Question for you
Bishonen, why would my revision to Benjamin Genocchio be reverted when the content is factual, reliably referenced and an improvement to the stub that previously existed? Other editors could improve upon those statements which could be more encyclopedic in tone while leaving a more informative article in place. Really appreciate your time and thoughts here. Penelope1114 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's a lot to ask of other editors that they follow you around and tweak your additions on the page itself. And so, instead, they revert. I can understand that. I mean, you realize they're not being paid for their work. Like several other people, I've been urging you to follow best practice and propose changes on the talkpage, and then discuss them there. I haven't seen you respond to this suggestion, so I'll try to demonstrate with an example why the necessary discussion can't be carried out via edit summaries (and absolutely not via reverts back and forth); it needs to be hammered out on talk.
- Here's one point: it's not only a matter of style, but of proportion. In how great detail should facts and opinions be covered? As an example, I'm concerned about the section you called "International focus and art criticism".[8] I don't doubt that Genocchio has said that his art evaluation process begins with his belief that “artwork can channel the spiritual, challenge the mind and stimulate the senses,” or that “making art is one of the final arenas where there’s true freedom of expression". He's said it in interviews, these are quotes. But should they be reported in his Wikipedia bio? Not in my opinion. Also, when you describe these views, you often do it as it were from inside Genocchio's head — "Genocchio’s art evaluation process begins with his belief that" — "When Genocchio critiques a work of art, he considers", etc. As opposed to "Genocchio has said that his art evaluation process begins with his belief that “artwork can channel the spiritual, challenge the mind and stimulate the senses,” "Genocchgio has decribed.." etc. The sources are reliable, for statements that Genocchio has made in them, but interviews in, say The Weekend Australian, a lifestyle magazine, don't exactly tend to show the notability of such self-descriptions. In my opinion. I would remove the second and third paragraph in that section altogether. (As well as change the "meaningless-variation" artsy word "penned" in the first.) Please present your overhaul a section at a time on the talkpage. Also, it's better to put more general discussion on the talkpage too. I mean, you are absolutely welcome on my page, but the question you have asked me would actually go better on article talk. For more eyes. I think I'll go there now and put a link to our interchange. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC).
- Hi Bishonen. I proposed a few updates to be made to the introductory paragraph of Genocchio's article. One editor has replied with a very good alternate suggestion. What would the best next step be? Thanks so much. Penelope1114 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Penelope, BMK may not have realized you were asking for somebody else to make the changes. I suggest you ask him to please make the change he proposes — point out that you don't want to, because of COI — and also prompt him (and others) to assess your other suggestions. For the next time you propose changes: if you use the
{{request edit}}
template — click and take a look at it — people will know where they are from the start. Just paste {{Request edit}} above your request. Using the template will also add your request to the Category:Requested edits, which is useful, because some editors patrol that category, and will be drawn to the page to assess your proposed edit. (So I'm told, at least.) Bishonen | talk 10:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC).- Thanks so much Bishonen. BMK went ahead and made the edits as I believe you saw which is great. Last question for a while, I promise... Should I propose changes first and begin a discussion and then use the
{{request edit}}
you speak of above to request that the edit actually be made after a consensus has been reached on the talk page or do I use the template from the get-go? I think you are saying to use it when I propose a change right away but I'd just like to confirm. Thank you again in advance for helping me become a better contributor. Penelope1114 (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)- (May I? I've got Bishonen's talk page on my watch list.) If the article talk page is active, it's probably enough to just propose the changes there and leave it up to the regulars to discuss and decide. If there's little or no recent activity on the talk page, you might as well use {{request edit}} when you post your proposed changes. The point is to try to minimise your use of the volunteers who patrol the {{request edit}} category - they've got a lot on their plate and will likely be less familiar with the topic than the talk page regulars. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Anthony. I think it's probably good for the regulars too if Penelope uses the template right away — then they'll see at a glance what it is. Also Talk:Benjamin Genocchio isn't a particularly lively page. A request doesn't become any more formal because you use the template, Penelope — it can be discussed afterwards. Once there's a consensus, you don't have to use any formalities to ask for your changes to be added; somebody who was part of the consensus will surely just add them. Consensus may be a bit of a highfalutin term for such a low-traffic page anyway — the changes will be added if there aren't any objections. Thanks for your help, BMK. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC).
- Bishonen and Anthony thank you for providing insight here. And thanks too, BMK for your work. Much appreciated. Penelope1114 (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't know how often I'll be around the article in the future, though. If you post something and get no response after a while, feel free to contact me on my talk page. BMK (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bishonen, really hope you are doing well. What are the best next steps to take if no one responds to my requested edit? This is a pretty straightforward one too. Thank you! Penelope1114 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, the article isn't very well watched, I guess, Penelope. But you see BMK's offer just above — why not profit from it, and post on his page? Also, quite a few people watch this page, mine. Dear talkpage stalkers, would somebody like to help? Incidentally, Penelope, it may seem counterintuitive to abandon this thread, but the fact is, most people only look at the bottom of a page for new stuff. So the next time you have a question for me, it might be more effective to create a new section at the bottom. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- Creating a new thread is more likely to happen when the old one is archived. Cluebot and Lowercase sigmabot are looking to earn their pay btw. —SpacemanSpiff 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- No bots ripping my beautiful page apart! No! I like a good long TOC. Which reminds me... time to reinstall the hardworking hamsters next to the TOC. They earn their pay! Bishonen | talk 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- I did indeed take BMK up on his offer. I am sure he is quite busy. Bishonen thanks again. Next time, you'll find me at the bottom of your page! Penelope1114 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Entirely coincidentally, I made the change you suggested just moments ago. See the talk page. BMK (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks so much BMK. Penelope1114 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Entirely coincidentally, I made the change you suggested just moments ago. See the talk page. BMK (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did indeed take BMK up on his offer. I am sure he is quite busy. Bishonen thanks again. Next time, you'll find me at the bottom of your page! Penelope1114 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- No bots ripping my beautiful page apart! No! I like a good long TOC. Which reminds me... time to reinstall the hardworking hamsters next to the TOC. They earn their pay! Bishonen | talk 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- Creating a new thread is more likely to happen when the old one is archived. Cluebot and Lowercase sigmabot are looking to earn their pay btw. —SpacemanSpiff 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, the article isn't very well watched, I guess, Penelope. But you see BMK's offer just above — why not profit from it, and post on his page? Also, quite a few people watch this page, mine. Dear talkpage stalkers, would somebody like to help? Incidentally, Penelope, it may seem counterintuitive to abandon this thread, but the fact is, most people only look at the bottom of a page for new stuff. So the next time you have a question for me, it might be more effective to create a new section at the bottom. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- Bishonen, really hope you are doing well. What are the best next steps to take if no one responds to my requested edit? This is a pretty straightforward one too. Thank you! Penelope1114 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't know how often I'll be around the article in the future, though. If you post something and get no response after a while, feel free to contact me on my talk page. BMK (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bishonen and Anthony thank you for providing insight here. And thanks too, BMK for your work. Much appreciated. Penelope1114 (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Anthony. I think it's probably good for the regulars too if Penelope uses the template right away — then they'll see at a glance what it is. Also Talk:Benjamin Genocchio isn't a particularly lively page. A request doesn't become any more formal because you use the template, Penelope — it can be discussed afterwards. Once there's a consensus, you don't have to use any formalities to ask for your changes to be added; somebody who was part of the consensus will surely just add them. Consensus may be a bit of a highfalutin term for such a low-traffic page anyway — the changes will be added if there aren't any objections. Thanks for your help, BMK. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC).
- (May I? I've got Bishonen's talk page on my watch list.) If the article talk page is active, it's probably enough to just propose the changes there and leave it up to the regulars to discuss and decide. If there's little or no recent activity on the talk page, you might as well use {{request edit}} when you post your proposed changes. The point is to try to minimise your use of the volunteers who patrol the {{request edit}} category - they've got a lot on their plate and will likely be less familiar with the topic than the talk page regulars. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks so much Bishonen. BMK went ahead and made the edits as I believe you saw which is great. Last question for a while, I promise... Should I propose changes first and begin a discussion and then use the
- Penelope, BMK may not have realized you were asking for somebody else to make the changes. I suggest you ask him to please make the change he proposes — point out that you don't want to, because of COI — and also prompt him (and others) to assess your other suggestions. For the next time you propose changes: if you use the
- Hi Bishonen. I proposed a few updates to be made to the introductory paragraph of Genocchio's article. One editor has replied with a very good alternate suggestion. What would the best next step be? Thanks so much. Penelope1114 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
ugghhh
Hey Bish - how the hell ya doin? Miss talkin to ya. How's the kids? Little ankle biter still got those sharp teeth? How's the honorable monster? You talked to Floz? . he ok? I saw Giano poked his head in a while back - but I was so busy that I didn't talk to him myself. Anyway - just wanted to drop by and say hey. hugs. — Ched : ? 05:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Cheddie! Florence is good in himself, just pissed off with Wikipedia. I'm thinking of sending the anklebiter to visit some editors I've been, uh, "interacting" with recently. Or Bishzilla, but she tends to be too mellow for my purposes these days. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
Discretionary sanctions alert
Hi Bishonen. I wonder: is user:Joshua Jonathan being investigated on the same grounds?
I mean, I am denouncing harassment coming from this user only to I find that is me who is being investigated. All of a sudden editors appear on his support even using awkward statements and being so hasty, taking decisions in very little time, when the issue at stake is a complicated one. Mauna22 (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- The DSA is well-known to me. Actually, I considered myself to post it at your talkpage. I think you should familiarize yourself with Wiki-policies, instead of abusing terms like WP:HARASSMENT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Investigated? What makes you think you're being investigated? Perhaps you didn't notice the line at the top of my discretionary sanctions alert: This message ... does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Italics and bolding in the original. But what I see on your page after you got the alert forces me to warn you: the more you assume bad faith, and the more you follow the lead of User:Dseer, who I have just blocked for the personal attacks on your page, the more likely you are to be sanctioned, up to and including a topic ban or an indefinite block. As for Joshua Jonathan, he's well aware of the discretionary sanctions in the area in question. Your talk, here and on WP:ANI, of "harassment" by him is absurd. Please click on the policy links in this message, you will find them informative. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
-
- Hi! I didn´t mean harassment towards me myself but rather to the article at stake.
-
- "What makes you think you're being investigated?" This [9]
-
- As for User:Dseer commentaries I understand I cannot/should not erase them. Not even my own user talk page. Mauna22 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- You protested, with reference to my discretionary sanctions alert, against being investigated. It turns out you're referring to a checkuser investigation (not performed by me) of your account, mentioned at a sockpuppet investigation that's nothing to do with me. Ask Bbb23 about the investigation of your account, if you want to ask somebody. The reason seems clear to me from the SPI, but if it's confusing to you, you should ask. I've no idea why you bring that here.
- Only people are capable of being harassed, not objects such as articles. Look up the word, or, as Joshua Jonathan has already suggested, read the harassment policy.
- Your understanding about removing comments is mistaken. You may remove any posts you like from your own talkpage, see WP:REMOVED. But I haven't been blaming you for Dseer's comments, or suggesting you ought to remove them — have I? No, and I'm not now. I was warning you against following his lead. That was because you explicitly expressed appreciation of his words,[10] with reference to a post that included the word "Nazi" (thrown at specific editors). He has been blocked for that post. I'm glad to hear you now sounding as if you've had second thoughts about throwing in your lot with Dseer. I'm sorry you got such poor advice from him; that wasn't your fault. Bishonen | talk 12:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
-
-
- Obvious from this unproductive dialogue why I am retiring my user account after 10 years and why I warned Mauna about consequences. If we responded that way we would be sanctioned so it makes the point for me; thanks. Exactly why I abandon my account unapologetic and unmoved by being "lucky" there were not more severe sanctions for blowing the whistle. I knew the consequences going in. Silence here IS golden. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source academically anyway. Goodbye. Dseer (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Protection in the comments section
I noticed that you protected Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20151007/Feature, which seemed to have been after an IP address pinged you. I don't agree with your reasoning of it being because of sock puppetry. If that's the case then shouldn't there be a case to see if they're all sock puppets? GamerPro64 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing. The discussion was hardly out of hand, and as far as I know there have been no specific allegations backed by evidence against anyone. We shouldn't forbid IP editors from contributing just because a topic is semi-controversial, especially on a relatively backwoods page that is specifically there for discussion of the subject. To put a finer point on it, there's not really anything to disrupt. —Torchiest talkedits 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I've been taking a while to answer, but I had to think. There are some disruptive IPs, but I regret throwing out the baby (meaning 97.103.154.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) with the bathwater. I've unprotected. Thanks for your input. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
- Thank you for responding and unprotecting the comments. GamerPro64 19:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I've been taking a while to answer, but I had to think. There are some disruptive IPs, but I regret throwing out the baby (meaning 97.103.154.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) with the bathwater. I've unprotected. Thanks for your input. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
Tired of Harassment
Deteriorating copyvio discussion. Open a new thread if you must. Bishonen | talk 07:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This and this are pure acts of vindictiveness and mean-spiritness. I will not joust with him. The fact that he even approaches me or has anything to do with my actions (under the guise of protecting the encyclopedia) is pure crap. As I say on my User page: "I don't vibrate at that frequency". Buster Seven Talk 06:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If there is any "stalking" it is shown by a vast array of posts on the ArbCom case against an editor whose last "interaction" was a vote on an RfA - which failed. I arrived at the pages here as a result of their connection to Philately - so any claim of "stalking" is not only silly, it is a personal affront. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Sock
Hello, Bish. Would you mind taking care of Arsalan Kiani (talk · contribs · count)? It's an obvious sock of someone, making unsourced edits promoting Punjabi on multiple articles related to Pakistan, and pasting lots of totally frivolous warnings on my user page in retalation for being reverted, clearly showing that they're not a new user (I don't know who the master is yet, though, since there are several masters doing similar things). They have received up to and including a level-4 for unsourced POV, and have been reported to AIV, but nothing has happened there for a while. Thomas.W talk 09:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- At first I'd have said NAB, but then I thought Kmrhistory, then I got confused...—SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm leaning toward LanguageXpert. Thomas.W talk 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- LX is Punjabi dialects, a bit different, if Materialscientist is online now he'd probably be able to pick the tells of Kmr. —SpacemanSpiff 09:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've taken care of AK for now. I'll take a look later. The editing is so, hm, special, that it ought to be possible to relate it to a master. This, for example. Have either of you guys seen your suspects doing anything like that? And Space, could you ask Materialscientist, please? I'm on my way out. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC).
- Arsalan Kiani edits through Opera Mini, which is a kind of proxy, thus CU data are inconclusive. Kmrhistory didn't use Opera Mini (in the past). Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've taken care of AK for now. I'll take a look later. The editing is so, hm, special, that it ought to be possible to relate it to a master. This, for example. Have either of you guys seen your suspects doing anything like that? And Space, could you ask Materialscientist, please? I'm on my way out. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC).
- LX is Punjabi dialects, a bit different, if Materialscientist is online now he'd probably be able to pick the tells of Kmr. —SpacemanSpiff 09:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm leaning toward LanguageXpert. Thomas.W talk 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, why worry about whose sock he is, when he's so eminently WP:NOTHERE under his own steam? I've amended the block accordingly. And now I am going out. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC).
Your weekend leisure reading
First this, and then this. I think that you will find each enjoyable in its way. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- LOL, the first was great with my Saturday breakfast — where's my Beluga, though? And who's the "Seal" character referred to, besides being a well-known expert on the international hospitality industry? Seal (musician)? As for our article, how could you have the heart to remove the entire elegance of an enchanting past? (As you and I know, sometimes it just feels good to have a block button.) Were you tempted to add the Guardian feature as a reference? Seriously, it's perfectly informative. It could replace this, for instance. Bishonen | talk 07:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC).
Perhaps "Seal", whoever he or she is, is to international hospitality what Paris Hilton is to music. ¶ I know, I know, I removed from the article all that was beautiful. This gave me the sads; perhaps I'll recover and, as you suggest, replace crap sources with good ones. -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hoary, if it's leisure reading that you're looking for, may I suggest The Adventures of Odin Singh in the Land of the Blue Eyed Blondes? —SpacemanSpiff 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Problems
Hi Bishonen. I just wan't to apologize for putting a problem in your plate, but this IP (who's hard to track since he/she keeps changing IP addresses) there is a dispute between me an the IP in the article of Pound sterling as seen in the edit history, the IP didn't agree with me at first, and he was right, but now that I point out to a given source by the IP that the new edit doesn't have anything in regards to a misleading data (something about a 40% data), he thinks I'm morphing the source to my POV and posted a complain here in the Administrator notice board. I tried looking for third parties, but none respond. (N0n3up (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
- Never mind, it's all good now.... Pretend this doesn't exist.. like it's invisible. (N0n3up (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
- OK. See also the top of this page: I'm not doing ANI at this time. Bishonen | talk 06:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC).
File:Nell Gwyn.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nell Gwyn.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The next day…...
In Dec of 2014, Editor Carptrash and I created List of United States post office murals and started to fill it with info and images (when available). While creating the list and doing research, etc. we realized that we were by-passing a lot of interesting information that might come in handy for future articles about the muralists. So, later that same month we created User:Buster7/The List - Women Artists and User:Buster7/The List - Men Artists and used them as a file drawer of sorts for names and information and sources and whatever was interesting. Most of it was via cut-n-paste in a random, quick, rather loose system of fact gathering from varied sources. Over time I created about 7-8 articles using one of the two Lists as my starting point. Just the other day I decided to start creating more muralist articles and made a personal vow to do one a day.
I regretfully admit that I should have been more careful and concerned to paraphrase and use my own words. But I was eager to create content. I kind of knew I was stretching the copyright issue and plagiarism but I figured the articles were about remote individuals; they would be “out of the way” , unseen, and I could get them into namespace and edit them as time allowed. I didn't expect much traffic (if any) at the articles so I thought I would create them, with what I had, and I could fine tune them later.
And then, behold, surprise of all surprises, an old nemesis shows up and dis-credits my content creation. I won’t get into the long history that he and I have but I challenge any editor to compare our general history everywhere on WP. Compare our talk pages over the last 6-7 years. See how many complaints come my way compared to his. I stay out of trouble: he searches it out.
Somewhere, twice, you say that he was right. O! How it pains me to admit that that may be correct, technically. But, what could have been a warm cuddly moment of olive branch entwining and a future of peaceful co-existence was sacrificed for a never-before seen and rarely used template; used against a veteran editor of long and exemplary service to the encyclopedia and the WP community. That would be me. I won’t stay retired. I love WP too much. Also, my wife has started to add jobs to the honey-do list now that I have extra hours in the day. Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm glad you find yourself drawn (and pushed, by your wife) back, Buster7. As you probably recollect, I'm aware of the long history, and I hope I've been supportive when that was called for. But I won't play favorites, and I don't think Collect did anything improper in this context. Best regards to Buster3.5. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC).
- Being named a person of interest here I think I will weigh in. My guidelines are, if I cut-and-paste then I just use quotes and reference where it came from. One thing I am always trying to do with articles is to use a variety of sources anyway, so I don't view this as being a problem. We need those articles so don't despair. Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Annotating block logs
Check recent block history of the notorious bad guy User:ThisIsaTest, to see how you could have squeezed a permanent link to an Arbcom decision into a block log entry. It uses the Special:Permalink/123456 notation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Jonathan Oakey
Can you do me a favour and correct the move from Jonathan Oakey to JayJay Oakey. It was a copy paste rather than a proper move and the edit history was lost.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, a little later today, after I've been to get the groceries. It'll involve the dreaded history merge, since there has been a little further editing at the new location, so I need to gird up my loins first. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
- Never to get in the way of a good loin gird - no rush. The speedy deletion of the new article was declined because of the article history and if further action is to be taken the history will be important.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't seem to remember this trick very well.. I made a bit of a meal of it, and misspelled the name in several ways. But finally the history goes back to 2010. Now let's take a look at the talkpage… Bishonen | talk 11:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
- I was watching the change. I have had days like that too - thanks for the effort.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't seem able to stop the talkpage redirecting to itself. It's funny in a way, but not... a good thing. Talkpage stalkers please help!! Bishonen | talk 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
- Sorry, now we're both doing it — I'll stop! I'll leave it completely to you. Just let me know if you need some version deleted. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
- Yes I should have left it alone. In any case the talk page is not that important. Let me deal with that and I will send you any deletion requests.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, now we're both doing it — I'll stop! I'll leave it completely to you. Just let me know if you need some version deleted. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
- I don't seem able to stop the talkpage redirecting to itself. It's funny in a way, but not... a good thing. Talkpage stalkers please help!! Bishonen | talk 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
- I was watching the change. I have had days like that too - thanks for the effort.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't seem to remember this trick very well.. I made a bit of a meal of it, and misspelled the name in several ways. But finally the history goes back to 2010. Now let's take a look at the talkpage… Bishonen | talk 11:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
- Never to get in the way of a good loin gird - no rush. The speedy deletion of the new article was declined because of the article history and if further action is to be taken the history will be important.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm on mobile so won't do tool stuff but you have to undelete oakLey and move to oakey (talk pages).—SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Good job - it all looks good. Thanks.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I will not. I've lost my nerve. And I thought that was what I did before? Oh well, one more time on the roundabouts, it's not as if I've got any more face to lose. Why do they give the admin tools to these fumblers? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
-
-
- Look at the history of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar. It so happened that Abecedare and I came across the same set of disruptive moves at around the same time and edit-conflicted in moving this article back and in the process deleted the article and its entire history and made it a redirect to itself. Luckily Bgwhite or his bot figured it out and got me to fix it. Talk pages are ok to mess with after that. —SpacemanSpiff 13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- (edit conflict) I will not. I've lost my nerve. And I thought that was what I did before? Oh well, one more time on the roundabouts, it's not as if I've got any more face to lose. Why do they give the admin tools to these fumblers? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
- I am sorry I put you through that. I would suggest deleting Talk:JayJay Oakley to tie everything into a pretty knot. A little latter today I will start concentrating on the article. Thanks again.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good job - it all looks good. Thanks.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
more plagiarism noted
Talk:Paul Theodore Arlt demonstrates what appears to be specific and deliberate plagiarism - using a Washington Post source in the first place, grabbing more than 150 words from it, and then not citing it at all. [14] is the initial edit. There is a pattern here - but I was perfectly happy to be cordial until the editor then accused me of "plagiarism" for quoting his post about being a sleuth seeking information about me personally, as though it were the same problem as this plagiarism (far worse than a mere copyright violation) of taking a source, quoting it extensively, and then not citing it whatsoever. With warm regards, and noting you will see others also note that using 150+ words from a source which you used in the first place, and then did not cite as required by Wikipedia policies and US law is a major problem for an editor. Collect (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, [15] is the initial edit of the article while it was under construction @ User:Buster7/Paul Arlt. Yes, it was a direct copy and paste from the Washington Post Obit which I then chiseled down during construction. It was a starting point. Yes, its quite possible I may have inadvertently used some few of the many thousands of words available in the Obit and then forgot to state it as a reference. Buster Seven Talk 14:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, though, you quite specifically removed all mention of your primary source.[16] I believe that is the essence of the offence. At this point, I am becoming unwilling to accept "accident" or "inadvertently" or "some few" words where your edit summary was simply "copy edit." The more I look, the worse the offence appears. Collect (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop looking. You see a devil behind every tree. My mistake is how I construct articles. My method creates pitfalls that I tumble into. Buster Seven Talk 15:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then I suggest you no longer routinely delete the actual source you use - especially when you simply lift entire colorful sentences. I think you might not appreciate just how important the issue of plagiarism is to Wikipedia. Copyright is not an area which tolerates accidental "pitfalls" nor do I "see a devil behind every tree." Your problem is that your area of editing overlapped an incidental area I looked at - nothing more. But when you shout that "he is out to get me" it is also possible that you created your own "pitfall". If we wish to retain editors, we should also be an example for them. Warm regards. Collect (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Collect, you've made your point. The plagiarism/copyvio issues are real and it was appropriate to bring them to attention, but the way you're going about it is petty, mean-spirited, and distasteful, and smacks of using the issue as leverage to bludgeon someone you dislike. Bishonen told you the same thing in the last thread you opened here, although she used nicer language. You're even doing your typical thing where you post aspersions on your talkpage, an unproductive habit which has gotten you in trouble in the past. If you identify copyvio or plagiarism issues, then you can either edit the article directly to remove them, or bring them to another editor's attention. If you think there is a deeper issue with Buster7's editing, then you can raise it in the appropriate venues, for example WP:AN/I (if you believe it requires immediate administrative attention). Otherwise, let people with less of an axe to grind handle the issue. The copyvios need to be fixed, but this whole exercise on your part has a very distasteful and vindictive feel to it. MastCell Talk 16:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Amazing. I note I have found plagiarism by others as well. You might have had half a point had I not found other plagiarism/copyright violations, but as it is, you appear to be much more interested in following my edits than I have ever been in following yours. Am I on your watchlist perchance? And I fins your characterization of my varied posts as "aspersions" to be an aspersion in itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I find your description of my description of your aspersions as an aspersion to be a third-order aspersion! What a productive thought process. But to be clear, you're not on my "watchlist" and I literally have no idea what you've been up to since your most recent bout of ArbCom sanctions. You posted to Bishonen's talkpage, which is on my watchlist, and I responded. (In contrast, I don't believe for a moment that you just happened upon Buster7's edits, but it's not really important either way). Fix the problem, or ask someone else to do it, but at this point you're just being gratuitously mean-spirited. MastCell Talk 17:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a first-order aspersion...the mere presence of MONGO casts a very dark shadow. Other editors usually recoil in disgust when MONGO appears. Everyone better play nice or BISHZILLA is probably going to open up a giant can of whoop ass! --MONGO 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I find your description of my description of your aspersions as an aspersion to be a third-order aspersion! What a productive thought process. But to be clear, you're not on my "watchlist" and I literally have no idea what you've been up to since your most recent bout of ArbCom sanctions. You posted to Bishonen's talkpage, which is on my watchlist, and I responded. (In contrast, I don't believe for a moment that you just happened upon Buster7's edits, but it's not really important either way). Fix the problem, or ask someone else to do it, but at this point you're just being gratuitously mean-spirited. MastCell Talk 17:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Amazing. I note I have found plagiarism by others as well. You might have had half a point had I not found other plagiarism/copyright violations, but as it is, you appear to be much more interested in following my edits than I have ever been in following yours. Am I on your watchlist perchance? And I fins your characterization of my varied posts as "aspersions" to be an aspersion in itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Collect, you've made your point. The plagiarism/copyvio issues are real and it was appropriate to bring them to attention, but the way you're going about it is petty, mean-spirited, and distasteful, and smacks of using the issue as leverage to bludgeon someone you dislike. Bishonen told you the same thing in the last thread you opened here, although she used nicer language. You're even doing your typical thing where you post aspersions on your talkpage, an unproductive habit which has gotten you in trouble in the past. If you identify copyvio or plagiarism issues, then you can either edit the article directly to remove them, or bring them to another editor's attention. If you think there is a deeper issue with Buster7's editing, then you can raise it in the appropriate venues, for example WP:AN/I (if you believe it requires immediate administrative attention). Otherwise, let people with less of an axe to grind handle the issue. The copyvios need to be fixed, but this whole exercise on your part has a very distasteful and vindictive feel to it. MastCell Talk 16:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then I suggest you no longer routinely delete the actual source you use - especially when you simply lift entire colorful sentences. I think you might not appreciate just how important the issue of plagiarism is to Wikipedia. Copyright is not an area which tolerates accidental "pitfalls" nor do I "see a devil behind every tree." Your problem is that your area of editing overlapped an incidental area I looked at - nothing more. But when you shout that "he is out to get me" it is also possible that you created your own "pitfall". If we wish to retain editors, we should also be an example for them. Warm regards. Collect (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop looking. You see a devil behind every tree. My mistake is how I construct articles. My method creates pitfalls that I tumble into. Buster Seven Talk 15:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, though, you quite specifically removed all mention of your primary source.[16] I believe that is the essence of the offence. At this point, I am becoming unwilling to accept "accident" or "inadvertently" or "some few" words where your edit summary was simply "copy edit." The more I look, the worse the offence appears. Collect (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Protection for the Dino Charge pages due to persistant vandalism?
Hey there! Please protect the Power Rangers Dino Charge pages from this persistant vandilism from a person who keeps changing IP's. I understand you've already banned one of him (and he's been banned for this before), so it should be easily justifiable. Cheers! Also, he has a new IP. 174.236.98.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 174.236.97.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) He keeps cycling through IP's. He also is responsible for this dubious activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=686779403 . Thank you for protecting the main page, though please do List of Power Rangers Dino Charge episodes as well! It's much appreciated. Cheers! Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, good point, please stop edit conflicting me! Yes, I saw him on WP:AIV, that's what got my attention. It's been semi-protected for three months before, so I've done the same. I'll see if maybe I can do a range block as well. Bishonen | talk 07:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- Hahha, sorry. I get nervous when writing about stuff like this and I try to make my points as concise as possible, which means editing. My bad. I'll be more careful in the future! Also, there's some vandalism going on WP:DRN from the same user as well.Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It happens! I appreciate your report. The range is much too big to block, so I've tried doing 4 very small rangeblocks for a week (they're static IPs). He may well find his way out of those, though. I'll see if DRN can work as a honeypot! Bishonen | talk 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- Thank you so much! Cheers! Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It happens! I appreciate your report. The range is much too big to block, so I've tried doing 4 very small rangeblocks for a week (they're static IPs). He may well find his way out of those, though. I'll see if DRN can work as a honeypot! Bishonen | talk 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- Hahha, sorry. I get nervous when writing about stuff like this and I try to make my points as concise as possible, which means editing. My bad. I'll be more careful in the future! Also, there's some vandalism going on WP:DRN from the same user as well.Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
a fabulously trendy British hairstylist
Hi Bish! It's a tale of a horrendously spammy draft for a fabulously trendy British hairstylist, Daniel Galvin, who "did" the hair colour of Princess Diana and Twiggy, amongst others. It turns out (surprise, surprise) that the creator of that little beauty, works for Galvin's PR agent and has:
- a username which impersonates Galvin, i.e. DanielgalvinOBE
- claimed on two separate occasions that she was not Mr. Galvin but two different people, the owner of the PR agency (Jessica Psalia) and one of Psalia's employees (Sonia Lall).
I cannot get a straight answer out of her/them as to whether the password to this account has been shared. If it has, it's going to have to be blocked. If not, at the very least there has to be a name change. I told her/them that I'd ask an administrator to sort it out. Can you help?
The main discussion is at User talk:DanielgalvinOBE#Paid editing. There's more background at Sam Sailor's talk page here, where Ms. Lall/Ms. Psalia claims that despite their being the PR agent for Daniel Galvin, there is no paid editing involved. Righty-O! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
PS As a preemptive strike, I created a puffless Daniel Galvin article. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
PPS Me again. It now transpires that Ms. Lall and Ms. Psalia do share the password to that account [17]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I've blocked that account, with a nursery word about paid editing and terms of use in the block notice, for when they create new account/s. Are you saying they don't understand that editing when they have Galvin as a client is paid editing, by definition ? 'Strordinary. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- So, I looked at your article. Where did all the renowneds and famouses and classics go? It's nice and clean, but it's not going to shock the general public into reconsidering hair colour as something creative and expressive, is it? Boring! Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- You're a brick for sorting that out, Bish. Yep. They did indeed claim that this was not paid editing because it was "no profit" and done of their own... er... free will. [18]. As for my article, I too am quite impressed with its utter boring-ness. It's a veritable masterpiece of boring-ness, if I do say so myself. Needless to say, both Sam Sailor and I have it on our permanent watchlists in case "someone" tries to make it more "interesting" . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll just discreetly add something about his hair colour vision and what it did for women all over, when you guys aren't looking. Hi, Sam. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- Oh will you now? In that case, you might want to add that he is "the man responsible for some 32 million Japanese women now colouring their hair". Damned impressive that! There are lots more fab suggestions at User:Colourguru2015. (Another of his minions?) Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bad, bad Bish - Running with scissors is a very silly thing to do! in Voce's exquisite hair parlour. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll just discreetly add something about his hair colour vision and what it did for women all over, when you guys aren't looking. Hi, Sam. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- You're a brick for sorting that out, Bish. Yep. They did indeed claim that this was not paid editing because it was "no profit" and done of their own... er... free will. [18]. As for my article, I too am quite impressed with its utter boring-ness. It's a veritable masterpiece of boring-ness, if I do say so myself. Needless to say, both Sam Sailor and I have it on our permanent watchlists in case "someone" tries to make it more "interesting" . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- No suggestions on that userpage any more. Explain to me why I haven't speedied the draft you link to, again? It's just as much an advertisement. But it sounded like Sam was in favour of letting it (and the other drafts) languish until G13 gets them..? I don't mind either way. They're drafts, and the article exists. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- Ah, but you missed Draft:Daniel Galvin, Bish. These folk have been very busy. That one could definitely be deleted as G11. As to the latest (very slightly toned down) version, Draft:Daniel Galvin (2), in the past drafts have been deleted as G11 (blatant advert), but I gather they have to be very blatant. If you think it is, just zap it. I'm not sure if A10 (existing article on same subject) applies to draft space. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Zap zap! [Looks hungrily around for more.] Bishonen | talk 07:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC). Well done. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, but you missed Draft:Daniel Galvin, Bish. These folk have been very busy. That one could definitely be deleted as G11. As to the latest (very slightly toned down) version, Draft:Daniel Galvin (2), in the past drafts have been deleted as G11 (blatant advert), but I gather they have to be very blatant. If you think it is, just zap it. I'm not sure if A10 (existing article on same subject) applies to draft space. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- No suggestions on that userpage any more. Explain to me why I haven't speedied the draft you link to, again? It's just as much an advertisement. But it sounded like Sam was in favour of letting it (and the other drafts) languish until G13 gets them..? I don't mind either way. They're drafts, and the article exists. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
Hmmm. You don't hang out much at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, do you? Loads of tasty pond life there. I'd say about 80% of the queries are "Why did my flaming advert draft get rejected?" Of course, it's blindingly obvious why to everyone else, and even when they're told yet again why, they still don't get it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Advert, nah! This is an advert. Bish bring bucket. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Brits who stalk may ask why there is no page for Laboratoire Garnier and yet there is one, a whole paragraph, for Garnier -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- But there is a redirect to Garnier from Laboratoires Garnier. You forgot the "s", Roxy. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- An indication, I'm afraid, of the quality of my editing. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 08:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- But there is a redirect to Garnier from Laboratoires Garnier. You forgot the "s", Roxy. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Brits who stalk may ask why there is no page for Laboratoire Garnier and yet there is one, a whole paragraph, for Garnier -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
HallKeen Management
Who was the master? --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know who the master was. I do know a user who calls themselves User:Justlattersandnumbers has been around the block. Actually I meant to refer to both socking and advertising, but for some reason the opportunity to add a second reason to the deletion summary didn't come up (as it normally does). Feel free to recreate the article and delete it per G11 instead, if you think that would be useful. I have warned the IP who removed the speedy template, btw. I think it's very obvious that it's yet another incarnation of the same person. (And I doubt their butt is actually in Morocco.) Bishonen | talk 20:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- Deletion was fine. Would have been useful to know who Justlattersandnumbers was in case they pop up again. As it stands, it's a username block so they're free to create a new account. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's hard to tell — the real user, Justlettersandnumbers, chases vandals and promoters quite a bit, so I couldn't guess who it is he has disobliged to the point of impersonation. Anyway, it's a "hard" username block, so I don't think they're any more free to create another account than people are after any block — are they? If I've understood the concept of a hard vs a soft block, which isn't necessarily the case. But I don't want to fall foul of WP:BEANS, so I'll say no more. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- Deletion was fine. Would have been useful to know who Justlattersandnumbers was in case they pop up again. As it stands, it's a username block so they're free to create a new account. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Rosie
There is currently a question at the reference desks "Italian gesture" where an esteemed colleague brought up the notion that Rosie might be implying a bit more than "We can do it" in her gesture ... As Rosie is one of very few images currently illuminating your page, I thought I might point this out. And say hello. (And look at Laurel & Hardy). And wish you a happy Halloween in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Lovely sound effect with the gesture in I vitelloni! I'll always imagine that now, whenever I catch sight of Rosie on my page. You know, I once got a similar image from Soviet Russia on my page (as a barnstar?), long long ago. An older image, I'm pretty sure — from the twenties. Not sure if there was a gesture… it's got to be in my archives somewhere. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
- Come Into the Factories wasn't a Soviet poster, but is arguably more Soviet Realist than anything the USSR ever came up with. ‑ iridescent 23:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's evocative of old memories: "Ask at any employment exchange" - do other folks still remember labour exchanges? There's stubby information on Wikipedia at Employment agency, Public employment service, and Labour Exchanges Act 1909, but nothing that really does the topic justice. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's an at-least-adequate summary of previous incarnations at Jobcentre Plus. Remembering the hassle Eric and PoD had trying to write Workhouse, I'd be extremely reluctant to touch anything similar with a barge-pole, especially since in the current climate anyone writing on such things will have a flock of assorted Corbynistas ranting about your being a lackey of the neoliberal war machine for not explaining that unemployment is part of the global plot hatched up by rootless cosmopolitans in Wall Street and Brussels (I was accused of using offensive language for using the term "lower classes" recently), right-wing cranks accusing you of being a commie agent trying to legitimise government control of what should rightly be left to the open market, and nationalists of all flavours accusing you of being an English/European (delete as appropriate) stooge for failing to mention some arcane difference between how they operated in Carlisle, Carmarthen, Carstairs and Carrickfergus. ‑ iridescent 15:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I thought "rootless cosmopolitans" (especially combined with "Wall Street") was antisemitic code, Iridescent? Either I've got that wrong, or you're suggesting the "Corbynistas" are worried about a jewish plot for world domination … really? Perhaps I've totally misunderstood the subtleties, or I'm simply
fiftyeighty years out of date with the phrases. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC).- In current British leftie-speak, "rootless cosmopolitans" means American bankers; the code for "Jewish plot" is "oligarchs of east European origin". (See for yourself.) ‑ iridescent 16:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I thought "rootless cosmopolitans" (especially combined with "Wall Street") was antisemitic code, Iridescent? Either I've got that wrong, or you're suggesting the "Corbynistas" are worried about a jewish plot for world domination … really? Perhaps I've totally misunderstood the subtleties, or I'm simply
- There's an at-least-adequate summary of previous incarnations at Jobcentre Plus. Remembering the hassle Eric and PoD had trying to write Workhouse, I'd be extremely reluctant to touch anything similar with a barge-pole, especially since in the current climate anyone writing on such things will have a flock of assorted Corbynistas ranting about your being a lackey of the neoliberal war machine for not explaining that unemployment is part of the global plot hatched up by rootless cosmopolitans in Wall Street and Brussels (I was accused of using offensive language for using the term "lower classes" recently), right-wing cranks accusing you of being a commie agent trying to legitimise government control of what should rightly be left to the open market, and nationalists of all flavours accusing you of being an English/European (delete as appropriate) stooge for failing to mention some arcane difference between how they operated in Carlisle, Carmarthen, Carstairs and Carrickfergus. ‑ iridescent 15:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's evocative of old memories: "Ask at any employment exchange" - do other folks still remember labour exchanges? There's stubby information on Wikipedia at Employment agency, Public employment service, and Labour Exchanges Act 1909, but nothing that really does the topic justice. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- This one!. Only friendly helpful gestures depicted! And at the time we translated the bottom text (in grey) as "Say NO to the oppression and Babbittry of the household work!" (meanwhile changed) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sluzzelin. It warms the heart to see the unfortunate Marta being helped out from under a crushing mountain of samovars and Primus stoves! Bishonen | talk 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- Come Into the Factories wasn't a Soviet poster, but is arguably more Soviet Realist than anything the USSR ever came up with. ‑ iridescent 23:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
- Thank you, that looks like the delicate Keemun tea in a Meissen cup. Just what I needed. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
User:Kajit paron
FYI - I have renominated User:Kajit paron for speedy deletion: like you I believe this was perfectly ok as a user page but IMO this subsequent version is not; it was previously deleted when it was the same or broadly the same as the latter. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, quite, Richard. I've reverted the additions to the userpage and in doing so removed the speedy again... and replied on the talkpage. I hope he gets it. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
- Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
500/30 enacted for four caste articles and a talk page under DS
500/30 enacted. I'm leaving you a note since you reminded me to close it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ed, that's great. A much-needed tool for the overworked editors and admins in this area. Are you going to log it at WP:AC/DSL under India-Pakistan, page-level sanctions? Compare Zad's note under Gamergate. Bishonen | talk 08:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
- Done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Userfy
I went to Sandstein to userfy an article. He won't, but he said go to another admin. [19] . Can you please userfy it for me. Thanks. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not looking up those Google searches, CrazyAces489. Please convince me that you really have significant new info — stuff that's not already there — and I'll put it in your userspace for a limited time — say a week.
- I'm not going to encourage you to sock, though. What do you know about the IPs who supported keeping the article in the AfD? Do you have any theory about how they happened to find it? Bishonen | talk 20:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
I believe he passes WP:MANOTE. As per http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_fields_0901.htm
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q1i72pyM-RwJ:https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/101466676/Judo-Sadaki-Nakabayashi-1965+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
https://books.google.com/books?id=adkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=judo+japan+nakabayashi&source=bl&ots=jVPy3l_GB5&sig=sjfyZhvlpfEh2UoHLxN3rkn7BlM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMIvoO4qtHVyAIVwnk-Ch3QCg4Q#v=onepage&q=judo%20japan%20nakabayashi&f=false
http://www.usja-judo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/USJA-Story-V2-5-69.pdf
Also he was a 2 time college champ in Judo in Japan. This was before there was Olympic Judo and any judo world champion He is an author of a number of Judo books. He held the highest rank in Judo in the United States. 173 is mine. Anyone else, I don't know. I won't put any other article in userspace for a bit under a year. So a week won't mean a thing. I could simply start from scratch and use the links I currently have (until the year is done), but I wanted to see some of the information and sources in the old article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the consensus at the AfD was that he doesn't. I notice you don't answer my question about the IPs, btw. If you won't answer, I've got to assume they were all you. :-( Anyway, I'd rather not put it into your space, especially since you say a shorter period is no good to you. But I don't mind e-mailing you the last version. You can get the information and sources from that. Most conveniently if you paste it into Wikipedia and use preview to look at it (without saving, please). OK, I'll do that.
- ..sigh. No, I guess I won't. I can't, since you don't have wikimail enabled. That really is not convenient. Oh well. If you'll give me a temporary e-mail address in some way, I'll send you the article. That's the best I can do. Bishonen | talk 22:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
I said 173 is me. The other I dont know about. I didn't log on. Please send me the latest version. I will put up an email. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, CA, I missed where you said that about the 173 IP. I apologize. (But I don't much like to see that that IP removed the AfD template. You're an experienced editor, you know not to pull stuff like that.) I've mailed you the last version of the article. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
- The AFD of an article i wrote drew me back in. When did an IP remove an AFD template? I will see what I can do with the new information. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Do you ever thread your posts?) The 173 IP that you say you is you removed the AfD template on Sadaki Nakabayashi on September 24. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
- The AFD of an article i wrote drew me back in. When did an IP remove an AFD template? I will see what I can do with the new information. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prob an accident. IT's pointless to remove them. IT won't take away the AFD. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Your edit to my page!
Please do not mock! it is important for other editors to know the education and experience of those to whom they speak and address. While some lesser educated Japanese people may experience difficulties when conversing with me in Japanese; this is largely due to a lack of concentration on their part. Indeed. the manager and staff at my new favourite restarant are all very complementary about my Japanese and have no problems taking my orders. My aunt and I will both be displaying our accomplishments for all to see. Not to do so, is false modesty. Giano (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Mock? Never — I celebrate you as a Renaissance man. But do I have to do it two metres down in the right-hand corner of your page? @RexxS: You see the problem, Dino? Bishonen | talk 16:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
- Yes Chère, there were two opening box-tops, but only one closing box-bottom. Speaking of the Renaissance, did you know I was born 500 years to the day after Leonardo da Vinci? Spooky, huh. I like his Excellency's new reastaurant in Knightsbridge, but it has a sign on the door
-
- and I haven't finished my training yet. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh that's all too confusing for words. More excitingly, I have just found this:
, so I think we'll all have one each. Giano (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ha. That really is handsome. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
- No, no, no, no. I think that's quite horrid and possibly full of bookworms and suchlike, we had a lot of ghastly Egyptian type things in the library at Scrotum Towers brought back by my father in the 1920's (he was very close to dear Lord Carnavon) - nasty little cats and things. They upset my darling Pekes, so I burnt the lot of them for hygiene reasons. Oh yes, My Dear, I am back too - one can't play bridge during the winter, especially as all foreigners cheat. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Dear Lady Catherine, prepare to be shocked: I've been credibly informed that your nephew, whom you (deluded no doubt by affection and family pride) have so often referred to as "a saint", is actually a misogynist who ought to be "topic-banned" from anything to do with gender. A woman-hater! Please have a nursery word with him. And topic ban him from something or other, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 22:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
- Ha. That really is handsome. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
- Oh that's all too confusing for words. More excitingly, I have just found this:
, so I think we'll all have one each. Giano (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- and I haven't finished my training yet. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
{{Gom}}
Not sure I approve of an image that just provides a link to the crappy main page. I'm sure we could do a lot better.
Ah, that's better. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Aspire to be little 'shonen? Ha, unlikely. See better box below! (Little Rex perhaps line up all the boxes horizontally? Too much whitespace on page!) bishzilla ROARR!! 22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
Closure box at WT:AE regarding submissions from IPs
Please see this closure where I boxed up the WT:AE thread for which you implemented the result. Yesterday an IP filed a new request at AE and couldn't recall whether IPs were allowed to post. Now it appears that you and a few other people settled the matter in September. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, with some arb input, and after a well-attended ANI discussion. I note the IP is edit warring to reinsert it; I went to warn them, but I see you already did. Also, it looks kind of reasonable to remove that request no matter who filed it; it's hardly a proper AE request. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
Hey, question.
Someone I reverted on Wikipedia contacted me on Reddit and I don't know what to do about it. Can you offer advice? Cheers. Kitsunelaine (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got nothing, I don't do Reddit. Talkpage stalkers please assist? Bishonen | talk 23:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
- @Kitsunelaine: Without looking at Reddit the usual rule would be don't feed the trolls. It's conceivable that a new and naive user might contact someone at another website in order to discuss some point; in that case, you might post at the user's talk page here to say that if they have a question, please ask at the article talk page [or your talk if it's specific to you]. However, it's much more likely that contact at Reddit is a first step in a campaign. I would not reply because each reply is another step into a trap. It's less clear what should be done if someone posts hostility at another website. If you don't mind linking your Wikipedia account to Reddit, you might post once at the Wikipedia user's talk and ask them if they wrote the comment [link here]. Don't offer an opinion about the comment, you merely want to determine the authenticity of the comment's author. The fundamental point is that replying to someone on a campaign is always counter-productive—your aim is to be as boring as possible. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers. I won't talk to him unless he brings it to my talk page, then. Kitsunelaine (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Clarification
Hello, would my editing Kalinga (India) and removing Mahabharata content be in violation of ban? Someone has mixed history with mythology, as there is already a Kalinga kingdom. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please ask before you edit, Capankajsmilyo![20][21] Are you talking about removing the whole section "In Mahabharata"? That's 75% of the article! (Mind you, I suspect all those other subsections aren't actually meant to be part of "In Mahabharata", but the way the headers are currently formatted, that's how they're presented.) @SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare: Could you guys take a look, please? It doesn't look very religious to me, more like mythical history, so I think it would be OK as far as the ban is concerned. But please wait for input from Space or Abece first. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- Anything related to Mahabharata, Ramayana etc would be covered under Indian religions as they are religious works. Whether this merits an exception from the ban itself, I'd suggest not at this point as this sort of thing is where the original problem started. If the content is bad, I'm sure there are other editors like Kautilya3 or Cpt.a.haddock who edit these areas and are bound to identify problems sooner or later. —SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Bishonen. The edits you mentioned were on Kalinga (India) which is a historical kingdom and I think is not covered in my ban (Please correct me if I am wrong). Further I asked, when clarity faded for Mahabharata. As regards SpacemanSpiff comment, well (no offence meant) they haven't been able to do so till now. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The historical kingdom is not covered, but any edits related to Mahabharata are covered by your topic ban.—SpacemanSpiff 15:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK, with that information, I'm with SpacemanSpiff: you need to leave Mahabharata alone, in all articles, Capankajsmilyo. I do remember, indeed, that it was the uncertain, shimmering, vague borderland between myth and religion that started all the trouble where you're concerned. Bishonen | talk 15:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- @Capankajsmilyo: I'll take a look at the Kalinga articles.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Captain Haddock, much appreciated. Amphitryon! Misérable ectoplasme! Nom d'une pipe![22] Bishonen | talk 19:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles! You really know how to get my goat, you bashi-bazouk! :P--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Captain Haddock, much appreciated. Amphitryon! Misérable ectoplasme! Nom d'une pipe![22] Bishonen | talk 19:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- The historical kingdom is not covered, but any edits related to Mahabharata are covered by your topic ban.—SpacemanSpiff 15:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Bishonen. The edits you mentioned were on Kalinga (India) which is a historical kingdom and I think is not covered in my ban (Please correct me if I am wrong). Further I asked, when clarity faded for Mahabharata. As regards SpacemanSpiff comment, well (no offence meant) they haven't been able to do so till now. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Anything related to Mahabharata, Ramayana etc would be covered under Indian religions as they are religious works. Whether this merits an exception from the ban itself, I'd suggest not at this point as this sort of thing is where the original problem started. If the content is bad, I'm sure there are other editors like Kautilya3 or Cpt.a.haddock who edit these areas and are bound to identify problems sooner or later. —SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Need your opinion
Hi Bishonen, I need an outside opinion, I'm discussing whether the British Empire was a "Superpower", whereas the other editor disagrees, but c'mon, look at these: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. They all call the British Empire a superpower> Not to mention, these dictionaries applied to the Empire's position during it's heyday [32], [33]. (N0n3up (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
Clarification
Hello, can I use tools like chrcklinks on pages like Jainism? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Don't do anything that will or could result in an edit. Please just leave the article alone. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC).
- OK thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Warning
I have received another warning, please help me in getting clarification. In BLP articles, do we have to state the whole lineage upto great grandfather? Also are tools like checklinks act with POV? Please help. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also do we have to discuss an edit on the talk page of article or user? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bish, this is related to my warning to Capankajsmilyo. He was soapboxing at Narendra Modi and was warned for it (not by me) and then he went to the political opponent Rahul Gandhi to make pointy edits by removing contextual content and tag bombing with cn tags (because sentences and not phrases are cited!) and stuff like that. I left a warning that this sort of editing is likely to get the scope of the topic ban expanded or editing privileges revoked altogether.—SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Capankajsmilyo, at the Teahouse, I noticed you were trying to gather some support against SpacemanSpiff's, in particular his latest warning on your page. That hasn't profited you any, as the uninvolved users replying there didn't see any "bullying" (as your section header called it). I don't either. Look, I've seen you do good work, for instance at Faridabad — your tagging and removal of tourist-y promotion there drew me in to do some further cleanup — why can't you stick with that kind of useful editing? Your questions above are highly pointy. You merely make yourself look foolish with a question like "In BLP articles, do we have to state the whole lineage up to great grandfather?" — as if you had been removing any old greatgrandfather — and not giving me any context, so I have to dig out that you were talking about removing Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru from the Rahul Gandhi article! Please don't try to tell me you're not aware of the importance his descent from them has had for his political career, or of the relevance of that descent in his biography.[34] Also I don't altogether understand your question "are tools like checklinks act with POV?" — it's strangely put, and of course a tool isn't POV in itself — it's always about how it's used. As for "discussing" an edit — yes, that should be done on article talk — but a warning should be placed on yours, to make sure you see it. I'm frankly having trouble seeing any of your questions as asked in good faith; they're tendentious in themselves. In short, I agree completely with SpacemanSpiff that you're editing tendentiously and cruising for a wider topic ban or a block. You should listen to him. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC).
-
- May I request both of you to go a bit easy on Capankajsmilyo this time? Yes, he was soapboxing at Talk:Narendra Modi, but he wasn't the only one doing it. The edits he did to Rahul Gandhi may be pointy, but again they may not be, because he was doing similar edits at a whole lot of other pages. Pankaj, please take the warning seriously and be very cautious in editing topics that may be influenced by your political views.
- Bishonen, can I ask you to keep an eye on Narendra Modi and its talk page? There is some new critical material coming and the fan club is not able to take it objectively. I think most other admins I know think they are involved with the topic and so can't intervene. But the discussions are likely to get quite inflamed. So, a watchful eye would be welcome. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, as Kautilya pointed out, Pankaj was not the only one doing soapboxing at Talk:Narendra Modi, I was also blamed for the same, though I usually don't do these things, still if there was any kind of soapboxing I will take care next time. As far as Pankaj is concerned, he is relatively new and as of now he is like any other typical new user who usually joins Wikipedia to push own political/social/religious views. I think he may need more time to settle because as per my experience same kind of users usually convert themselves to more sensible user once they spend some more time on Wikipedia. Kautilya said to "take it easy" on Pankaj because "he is not the only one", it is an argument like WP:Other stuff exists. There are many very experienced editors on India-Pakistan arena who are involved in some kind of POV pushing. Bishonen can keep many other India-Pakistan conflict related pages on their watchlist and should endorse discretionary sanctions for POV pushers (whatever their experience) on this arena (including me obviously). POV pushing by experienced editors usually goes unnoticed but new editors usually becomes victim of bite. Pankaj needs more improvement, he should keep his political views aside while editing Wikipedia if he want to become nice editor someday. --Human3015TALK 23:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- "New" can only go so far Human, a lot of leeway has been provided here, but pointy editing on BLPs is not something that can be easily excused. Context matters, you may also have indulged in soapboxing (I'm not saying you did or didn't -- just a follow on from your statement) but that did not affect your editing behavior elsewhere. And to Kautilya's point, the deadlink thing (which is what was being done on multiple articles) by itself is fine and welcome -- it's all that surrounded it. In this case, the behavior has already been sanctioned in one area, if instead of being used as an opportunity to learn and modify that behavior the user indulges in similar behavior elsewhere then that is problematic. There are always going to be good-faith errors and some leeway provided for some sort of behavioral issues, but not again and again because it's new to a particular article or topic. —SpacemanSpiff 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: I should probably have linked to the recent Teahouse discussion in my post above, for the benefit of the watchers. Did you see it? Note the header Capankajsmilyo gave it, "Admin Bully", and the advice from an uninvolved admin, RockMagnetist. As for watching Narendra Modi, I do realize that uninvolved admins are thin on the ground there, since the knowledgeable and interested admins understandably tend to dive in and edit. This is something of a systemic problem on Wikipedia, with only the ignorant and less-than-interested admins left able to perform admin actions on a topic. ;-( This is my case here. I'm frankly not sure how much use I'd be on Narendra Modi, and also I have a lot on my plate. But feel free to alert me if you see major problems. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- Hi Bishonen, I didn't see the teahouse pose earlier. Now that I have, it seems to be a good sign that Pankaj is going to the teahouse to get another opinion. Some people have to go through a painful learning process. What can I say? I will try to say a few words to him on his talk page. As for the Narendra Modi page, all that I would need is to remind people about policy periodically. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Now that you've seen Caps' posts at the Teahouse you think they're a good sign, really? In that case I have no more to say to you on the subject. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- Hi Bishonen, I didn't see the teahouse pose earlier. Now that I have, it seems to be a good sign that Pankaj is going to the teahouse to get another opinion. Some people have to go through a painful learning process. What can I say? I will try to say a few words to him on his talk page. As for the Narendra Modi page, all that I would need is to remind people about policy periodically. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, as Kautilya pointed out, Pankaj was not the only one doing soapboxing at Talk:Narendra Modi, I was also blamed for the same, though I usually don't do these things, still if there was any kind of soapboxing I will take care next time. As far as Pankaj is concerned, he is relatively new and as of now he is like any other typical new user who usually joins Wikipedia to push own political/social/religious views. I think he may need more time to settle because as per my experience same kind of users usually convert themselves to more sensible user once they spend some more time on Wikipedia. Kautilya said to "take it easy" on Pankaj because "he is not the only one", it is an argument like WP:Other stuff exists. There are many very experienced editors on India-Pakistan arena who are involved in some kind of POV pushing. Bishonen can keep many other India-Pakistan conflict related pages on their watchlist and should endorse discretionary sanctions for POV pushers (whatever their experience) on this arena (including me obviously). POV pushing by experienced editors usually goes unnoticed but new editors usually becomes victim of bite. Pankaj needs more improvement, he should keep his political views aside while editing Wikipedia if he want to become nice editor someday. --Human3015TALK 23:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Pizza - Mafia (Mandolino, Spaghetti, etc. :-))
Ciao page stalker :-) did you understand what happened on my talk page about mafia? I found myself in the middle of a dispute about pronunciations of Italian words on Wikipedia, but at the end I was overwhelmed by the Northern Cyprus issue... :-) I tried to answer to the ip on his talk page, but I disappeared. Who was right, who was wrong there? (Except myself, of course :-)). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Alessandro57: Who was right or wrong about putting in the pronunciation for those well-known loanwords, you mean? I don't know. I can't face researching it. But if there's consensus about it, as I believe you said somewhere, then the consensus is right. (Sorry to hear you disappeared — what happened?) Bishonen | talk 13:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
I have to idea how to reply to this...
edit summary of "Revert last by Hchc2009: This is an edit controversy between self and Ealdgyth, at 1st revert stage only of 3RR process. Not standard WP procedure for 3rd party to jump in to kill process. Move to talk usually something decided on by editors concerned" - I wasn't aware that there was a 3RR "process" ... and that having a 3rd party step in was bad and grounds for a third revert... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, I agree that's a very unusual edit summary. I think you really know what's wrong with it, and what reply to make — indeed, the user in question has been here since 2010, so I rather think they know it, too. But I've posted on their page. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
- I will freely admit to being a grumpy old lady ... so rather than posting what I want to post (which was a bit like Eric Corbett's more intemperate replies), I thought it best to have some outside input before spewing swear words all over. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Gabby Merger
I have been involved in one of the articles in which Gabby Merger and Jeffro77 were at odds, and I was shocked to find that the reason Gabby stopped taking part in the talk page was because he/she was blocked. I didn't see any "personal attacks" against Jeffro by Gabby Merger, but I did see plenty of ad hominem comments by Jeffro against Gabby. I would ask that you please reconsider the decision to block Gabby Merger. GBRV (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- A longer block was an appropriate response to a long-term problem of personal attacks, accusations, edit-warring by Gabby Merger, coupled by her utter contempt for the concept of collaboration. This editor's last series of absurdly long, rambling rants shows she just doesn't understand what is wrong with her approach. And God, this Laurel and Hardy gif is irritating. BlackCab (TALK) 08:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's a coincidence that GBRV supports Gabby Merger's position in the editing dispute at The Exodus. In any case, GBRV is possibly unaware of not only Gabby Merger's history of POV edits but also Gabby Merger's long-winded badgering. For example, in the period 22-23 September alone, Gabby Merger made eighty edits to my User Talk page, all the while claiming that I was 'hounding' her. (For clarity: I made a total of 14 edits to my Talk page in the same period; nearly half of them were requesting that Gabby Merger cease commenting at my Talk page, and some were in response to other editors.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting my user talk page
The IP vandal has moved on to User:DeCausa/Articles. Could you protect that too (although my "mother was a slave of my shoes" was entertaining). And also, User:DeCausa/sandbox and User:DeCausa/Shortcuts and templates. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- The great and good User:WritKeeper created a script for semiprotecting everything with a particular prefix with one click, at a time when I was getting my userspace vandalized a lot. I just tried to semi yours, but the script didn't seem to work this time. :-( What happen, Writ? Anyway, I've done the three you requested by hand. No doubt they'll move on… but I have to go now, for my part. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
User: Help me edit
Hi Bishonen, Thank you for reverting personal attacks on my user and user talk pages by this user. He personally attacked me because i reverted a vandalism edit by his IP address on Tanki Online. He then created an account just so he could attack my pages. I have also told another admin, Anna Frodesiak who helped me a couple of weeks ago, but since you restored my pages, i decided to tell you about it. Could you please protect both my pages or do i have to send a request for that?
Thanks Class455fan1 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- No no, I'll protect them for a couple of weeks (semiprotect), no problem. Since that was how it was, I've blocked the account (on second thoughts; as you probably saw, I warned them at first) indefinitely, and the IP for a few days. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
Thats what i meant, semi-protect them. Thank you very much for your help! Class455fan1 (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
For semi-protecting my pages from personal attacks and vandalism. Thank you very much! Class455fan1 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC) |
- Very pretty! Thanks! Bishonen | talk 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
Query of DS sanctions
Last time I had seen the request to topic ban Swamiblue and had read your comment.[35] Knowing that you had previously told that you can topic ban disruptive editors from the subject if they have been alerted with DS notice, I wanted to know if you are still willing to take review such requests for DS sanctions. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, D4iNa4, I don't think I can. I don't understand the area well enough. Actually I never said I could topic ban them, but that they could be topic banned. By an admin who understands the ins and outs of it — not me. In my WP:AN post that you link to, I was giving advice, and pointing out that I had handed out a DS notice. When users have had the notice, an uninvolved admin can topic ban them if they're being disruptive. I suggest you request review at WP:AE. Sorry to be so useless. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC).
Margaret Sanger
Slow motion edit war with anti-birth control activists, trying to plant argument that birth control is racist. Centers on minimizing importance of web du bois. Page needs semi-protection or full. Thanks for watching. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Semi for two weeks. I see the account that removed the same content has been alerted to discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 05:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
Danish?
Bish, was your assertion that you could understand Shouroff because you understand Danish a joke? I know many Danes who do not understand Danish. OP Curious. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Gosh, I must have been unclear; I was trying to say that I could not understand Shourov, and that I understood him even worse because I can read his Danish sources. (He used the sources in an incomprehensible way.) That wasn't a joke — a bit of hyperbole, maybe — I probably don't actually understand him worse than the people who can't read Danish; just, it doesn't help any. So you know Danes who do not understand Danish? Well, I have in fact heard it's increasingly the case that Danes themselves don't understand their own spoken language, which is getting more and more blurred. I'm not Danish, and I sure as hell don't understand what they say, but I can read the language. I come from one of those other little countries up north. Bishonen | talk 05:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
- Er dette en dobbelt, tredobbelt eller endnu mere kompliceret negation? I don't understand Danish too, but I'm Dutch. Some people don't understand Dutch either. But there are some nice Dutch people who do understand
DutchDanish. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)- Joshua, did you know Scandinavian and Dutch people share a unique bond, or so I'm told? Apparently we're the only people in the world who like salty liquorice — salmiak. (I love it passionately.) I read somewhere on the internet a theory by an American, who had been so appalled when he tasted the stuff that he decided we must be eating it out of masochism, based on our puritan heritage. His idea was that we're ashamed of enjoying sweets, so we ruin the nice liquorice with salt (ammonium chloride), and only then will our conscience allow us to eat it. Clever fellow. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
- Salmiak? Ja, lekker! Americans play American football, instead of soccer, and they have Santa Claus, instead of Sinterklaas; how can we take them seriously in matters like this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- American football is sort of like salt water taffy, the foot is as key to it as salt is to the taffy. —SpacemanSpiff 14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I've just thought of a similar theory of my own to explain the existence of white chocolate: people who're ashamed of enjoying chocolate ruin it by removing the cocoa. The resulting dreary concoction, consisting only of sugar and fat, seems to be very popular in the U.S. It keeps popping up in their cake and cookie recipes. If it wasn't for the internet, we wouldn't know about these strange things. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
- American football is sort of like salt water taffy, the foot is as key to it as salt is to the taffy. —SpacemanSpiff 14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Salmiak? Ja, lekker! Americans play American football, instead of soccer, and they have Santa Claus, instead of Sinterklaas; how can we take them seriously in matters like this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Joshua, did you know Scandinavian and Dutch people share a unique bond, or so I'm told? Apparently we're the only people in the world who like salty liquorice — salmiak. (I love it passionately.) I read somewhere on the internet a theory by an American, who had been so appalled when he tasted the stuff that he decided we must be eating it out of masochism, based on our puritan heritage. His idea was that we're ashamed of enjoying sweets, so we ruin the nice liquorice with salt (ammonium chloride), and only then will our conscience allow us to eat it. Clever fellow. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
- Er dette en dobbelt, tredobbelt eller endnu mere kompliceret negation? I don't understand Danish too, but I'm Dutch. Some people don't understand Dutch either. But there are some nice Dutch people who do understand
- «I come from one of those other little countries up north.» Did they finally secede then? --Xover (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not yet. Norway has seceded from Sweden, though! In 1905, which is quite recently, as these things go. See Unionsoppløsningen; Unionsoppløysinga; Unionsupplösningen — I think those various words for it sort of hint that the languages are mutually intelligible, right? Bishonen | talk 18:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
- Norway? No longer part of Sweden? Of all the nerve! Unleash Bishzilla and those other Jurassic creatures of War to put an immediate end to this comeuppance and arrogant action by those lesser Norwegians! They will either resubmit to their natural subservience or perish in a rain of fire!--MONGO 18:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not yet. Norway has seceded from Sweden, though! In 1905, which is quite recently, as these things go. See Unionsoppløsningen; Unionsoppløysinga; Unionsupplösningen — I think those various words for it sort of hint that the languages are mutually intelligible, right? Bishonen | talk 18:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
-
-
- (edit conflict)A language is a dialect with an own army and navy. I.e. it's purely political. The difference between Swedish, Norwegian and Danish is less than the difference between various dialects of German, as anyone who has had the chance to compare southern highland German (for example Bavarian) and northern lowland German knows. Thomas.W talk 18:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, sure, except they're kinda long and multisyllabic, and have funny characters in them, so they might as well be Urgic for all most folks on here are concerned. No, if you want to demonstrate mutual intelligibility you want to go with something short and that most people here can relate to. Like Øl, Øl, and Öl. I wonder though, what can be read into the fact—in anthropological terms, obviously—that of the Scandinavian Wikipedias, only nowiki and fiwiki have an entry for that one (apparently) entirely unforgivable word that is the proximate cause of the latest bout of drama on here, and on fiwiki that article is even featured content (GA-equivalent I believe). I feel certain something quite profound about folkesjela may be understood by careful study of this phenomenon. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ask Hafspajen|Hafspajen about Scandinavian Wiki's... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, sure, except they're kinda long and multisyllabic, and have funny characters in them, so they might as well be Urgic for all most folks on here are concerned. No, if you want to demonstrate mutual intelligibility you want to go with something short and that most people here can relate to. Like Øl, Øl, and Öl. I wonder though, what can be read into the fact—in anthropological terms, obviously—that of the Scandinavian Wikipedias, only nowiki and fiwiki have an entry for that one (apparently) entirely unforgivable word that is the proximate cause of the latest bout of drama on here, and on fiwiki that article is even featured content (GA-equivalent I believe). I feel certain something quite profound about folkesjela may be understood by careful study of this phenomenon. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
User:Karabakh Quebequization
I notice that you deleted the user page and blocked the above user. Apparently, it was just the tip of the iceberg, as I've found a whole lot of similar accounts/pages, where "Abbas Nurrollahi Diba" -- as he or she signs him/herself -- creates a new account (seemingly as a title) and posts yet another rambling bit of discourse. I think I've found a couple of dozen, going back a year. --Calton | Talk 09:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The aforementioned user pages I have come across, so far, in no particular order:
- Non Scientific Merit Politics (talk · contribs)
- Mindless Political Neuroethics (talk · contribs)
- Rabbi Abraham Herhsberg (talk · contribs)
- Bioethics Fritz Jahr (talk · contribs)
- Bioheredity (talk · contribs)
- Neuropseudology (talk · contribs)
- Biochemistry in Global Politics (talk · contribs)
- Carteronomics (talk · contribs)
- Political Moralnomics/sandbox (talk · contribs)
- Geriatric Economics (talk · contribs)
- Dignity Neurochemistry (talk · contribs)
- World Diseases Economics (talk · contribs)
- Carter Jimicracy (talk · contribs)
- Karbakh Neuropolitics (talk · contribs)
- Finpolitical Neurodiplomacy (talk · contribs)
- Tetonia Diplomacy (talk · contribs)
- EDIDS (talk · contribs)
- Biohaustus (talk · contribs)
- Abourezk Kennedy Diplomacy (talk · contribs)
- Glucopexiology (talk · contribs)
- Dyscognitive Diabetes (talk · contribs)
- Global Aylan (talk · contribs)
- Spinal Neuronomics (talk · contribs)
--Calton | Talk 10:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Wow. Great work, Calton. I see User:JohnCD has recently written advice on a few of the talkpages, such as User talk:Neuropseudology and User talk:Rabbi Abraham Herhsberg, explaining about userpages and articles, and he has also moved the essays to draftspace. I've just pointed John to your list here. Maybe WP:AN is the place for this, to try to do something for the future. And about the others probably left out there that you haven't come across... Bishonen | talk 11:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
I feel loved
Whenever I see such lovely comments about me like this one I feel much endeared. Fun times!--MONGO 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that turned up on my watchlist, I enjoyed it, too. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC).
- Note the timestamps: the lovely comment at 21:37 UTC, the block at 21:38. Under ideal circumstances my banhammer is pretty fast these days (thank Twinkle). Bishonen | talk 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC).
- Yes...the speed and violence of that block made me think it was done by Bishzilla...it was thunderous!--MONGO 22:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- ha ha ha, yes, I get a steady stream of love letters from that guy now that he's out of jail. How to begin to describe the subtlety and range of delicate feeling expressed. How do I love thee? let me count the sockpuppets ... Antandrus (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hehe. Do they all begin with "Antbrain"? @MONGO: Oh, right, I should tip off Bishzilla about Twinkle. You see how slow she was here. If she'd had Twinkle, the little arb would surely have been reduced to a crisp before I could intervene. Bishonen | talk 22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC).
- I think giving Bishzilla block ability as your avatar makes more sense than ever giving MONGO block capabilities...just my thinking.--MONGO 22:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- ha ha ha, yes, I get a steady stream of love letters from that guy now that he's out of jail. How to begin to describe the subtlety and range of delicate feeling expressed. How do I love thee? let me count the sockpuppets ... Antandrus (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes...the speed and violence of that block made me think it was done by Bishzilla...it was thunderous!--MONGO 22:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note the timestamps: the lovely comment at 21:37 UTC, the block at 21:38. Under ideal circumstances my banhammer is pretty fast these days (thank Twinkle). Bishonen | talk 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC).
Hey hey!
I have already seen the new version of Template:Uw-spamublock used by seven different administrators. (There may be more, for all I know.) None of them has objected to the change. If I had known it would be so completely uncontroversial, I would have done it years ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. I suppose, with Twinkle, people may tend to use existing templates without question, as if they were the stone tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. I know I did, when I started looking at the new user creation log not long ago and became hooked on blocking promotional usernames. (Only if they've posted something objectionable — if it's just the name, a block seems unnecessarily blunt, IMO.) But after a while I became worried about the templates. Thanks for composing this one — now we can all use your version! Bishonen | talk 18:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC).
- PS: and now I have also used it. It felt good. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC).
As Someone I Trust
Hi! Hope you are doing well. An editor seems to really be impressing things upon my on my talk page re paid editing disclosures. I feel as though I am complying with ToU and the directions you have given me. When you have time, would you please give me your take on what they are asking me to do. Thank you so much! Penelope1114 (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Excuse dropping in here, there's discussion of the policy and compliance at Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Disclosure contradiction (several sections). Widefox; talk 00:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thank you very much, Widefox, I wasn't aware of that. There do seem to be some contradictions in and between the policies and guidelines, and I hope the discussion is ironing them out; I'll try to get my head around it all as it affects Penelope. It may take a day or two, Penelope1114, sorry. In the meantime, please feel free to join that discussion. You don't, IMO, have any reason to mistrust the people there, even if they can occasionally sound impatient. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
-
-
- I must add, that the integrity of my communication with Penelope1114 has been compromised, as detailed in the full-circle journey at Talk:PAID. Best I withdraw from discussion due to patience vs WP:PAYTALK. Widefox; talk 09:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thank you, Bishonen, as always. The general nonacceptance I receive from the majority of editors due to my sometime paid research and suggestions make me hesitant to join a discussion about it. Thus far, the only editor who has acted on any of the suggestions I have made is BMK (a big thanks to him). Numerous editors are happy to advise/drill me on how they think I should disclose my paid suggestions. It feels like a bit of a witch hunt when I comply, even disclosing paid editing from before June 2014, am not a PR person, and yet have proposed edits to improve articles just sitting there with no discussion beginning. I really appreciate the time you are giving to me. Best Penelope1114 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Penelope1114 has been generally, but far from fully or without prompting, responsive to requests for disclosure. The matter that caught my attention was that she removed disclosures from her talk page as being 'no longer current'. I see she has fixed that now. A huge problem that I see looking at her talk page disclosures is she has added "Penelope1114 is an independent Wikipedia editor." to {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on Talk:Benjamin Genocchio and Talk:Melissa Chiu. An editor can not by by the definition of COI be independent and paid, Widefox has brought this up on her talk page.
Looking at the other articles she has disclosed; Stephen Messer (entrepreneur), Heidi Messer and Tad Martin (entrepreneur), I see she has not disclosed at all on the talk page as is required. In addition she has not disclosed anywhere the full "employer, client, affiliation" as required both bu WP:PAID and the ToU. This requirement has been explained to her many times. Proper disclosure is very easy {{paid}} and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} exist for a reason, they have all the fields needed for talk page and user page disclosures all that must be done is fill them out properly and the matter is closed.
@Penelope1114: your input would be valued in the discussion over at WP:PAID in particular it would be nice to get a paid editor's view on why not simply use the proper templates and disclose on your user and talk page. Why the resistance? I know paid editors can be treated poorly but paid editing is a huge problem here and disclosure is required and wiki-lawyering the minimum disclosure sets off alarm bells. JbhTalk 16:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I too brought it up on her talk page, Jbhunley. My comments there received no reply or acknowledgement from Penelope1114. She hasn't removed that dishonest (yes, it's dishonest to claim to be "independent" when in fact you are editing for pay) claim from her paid editing declarations, nor has she added such declarations to the other pages she's created. Our terms of use require disclosure; but what's the remedy when the editor refuses to comply? As Widefox correctly points out, this is just a time sink for everyone; but only one person here is getting paid for her time. Bishonen, I can't imagine you want this to be thrashed out here – do you want to re-open the COIN discussion, for example, instead? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe, but since Penelope1114 came here because she trusts me, I'll take a shot (at last) at outlining my opinion here, and if that isn't effective, I suppose the COIN discussion had better be reopened. Penelope, quite frankly, you are being treated with suspicion because people get the impression you will only comply with the minimal absolute rules of the WMF's Terms of Use. You should comply with best practice (an important concept on this site): COI editors should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. Best Wikipedia practice is outlined in the policies and guidelines Widefox put on your talkpage. To summarize them: please disclose your affiliations, including the specific client involved for each article on a) your userpage (not your user talkpage) and b) on the talkpages of all the articles affected. WMF may theoretically be satisfied with either a or b, but it's surely clear by now that Wikipedia is not. And what do you have against it? How is it onerous?
- I too brought it up on her talk page, Jbhunley. My comments there received no reply or acknowledgement from Penelope1114. She hasn't removed that dishonest (yes, it's dishonest to claim to be "independent" when in fact you are editing for pay) claim from her paid editing declarations, nor has she added such declarations to the other pages she's created. Our terms of use require disclosure; but what's the remedy when the editor refuses to comply? As Widefox correctly points out, this is just a time sink for everyone; but only one person here is getting paid for her time. Bishonen, I can't imagine you want this to be thrashed out here – do you want to re-open the COIN discussion, for example, instead? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Penelope1114 has been generally, but far from fully or without prompting, responsive to requests for disclosure. The matter that caught my attention was that she removed disclosures from her talk page as being 'no longer current'. I see she has fixed that now. A huge problem that I see looking at her talk page disclosures is she has added "Penelope1114 is an independent Wikipedia editor." to {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on Talk:Benjamin Genocchio and Talk:Melissa Chiu. An editor can not by by the definition of COI be independent and paid, Widefox has brought this up on her talk page.
- Thank you, Bishonen, as always. The general nonacceptance I receive from the majority of editors due to my sometime paid research and suggestions make me hesitant to join a discussion about it. Thus far, the only editor who has acted on any of the suggestions I have made is BMK (a big thanks to him). Numerous editors are happy to advise/drill me on how they think I should disclose my paid suggestions. It feels like a bit of a witch hunt when I comply, even disclosing paid editing from before June 2014, am not a PR person, and yet have proposed edits to improve articles just sitting there with no discussion beginning. I really appreciate the time you are giving to me. Best Penelope1114 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why do you call yourself "an independent editor"? Are you referring to the editing you do without being paid for it (if I understand you, that's mostly copyediting)? It does run the risk of being misleading. A statement about you being an "independent editor" should absolutely not appear on the talkpages of articles you are or have been paid to edit, such as Benjamin Genocchio. I don't even understand what it means there, because you're not independent in relation to those articles. Please remove it from those talkpages.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- These things seem obvious to me, but your complaint that you make suggestions on talkpages and nobody responds is quite different; it's a problem that shouldn't be ignored. WP:COI states that it's best practice to only suggest edits on talk, but it doesn't say what you should do if the suggestions aren't answered. For instance, I see you suggested an update on Talk:Melissa Chiu on November 7, and your suggestion is still the last post on that talkpage. :-( In an ideal world, all articles would be well-watched, but the actual fact is that some are obscure, and nobody watches them, or nobody can spare the time and energy to respond. (People mostly edit Wikipedia as an unpaid hobby, so that happens quite a lot.) Now this is my opinion: provided you comply scrupulously with a) and b) above, and if nobody has responded to a talkpage suggestion within say 48 hours, then I think you should go ahead and make the edit. Indicate your COI status in a simple way in the edit summary, for instance with "See COI disclosure on talkpage". What do you say, guys? Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers, Jbhunley, and Widefox: is this reasonable? Bishonen | talk 19:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
- I disagree with the idea she should go ahead and make the edit after 'some time', in fact if she does so she will very rapidly end up back at COIN. It can be easily gamed and most articles for hire will have very few, if any, page watchers. What she should do and what COI editors are told to do, is fill out an {{edit request}}. The list of pages with edit requests is displayed at WP:COIN. If it is time critical she can post a message at COIN about the request.
While she may want to see action in a matter of days, she is the one getting paid not the ones assessing her requests. She should expect response times on the order of a week or so. If there is some critical matter @Penelope1114: is welcome to {{ping}} me
{{ping|Jbhunley}}
from the article talk page. My email notifications are on and, if I am able to, I will take a look at her {{edit request}}. JbhTalk 20:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)- I have filled out the paid coi template at Talk:Melissa Chiu properly as an example[36]. Note employer = 'who is paying you' and client = 'on whose behalf you are making edits'. If they are the same place the same name in both fields. Also, use first and last names. Do not add anything like 'to edit the article to be factually accurate' or 'independent editor'. That is all public-relations dross and meaningless. You already must edit the article in a factually accurate NPOV way; You already must follow Wikipedia's rules; and you are not independent. So saying those things is either redundant or false. In neither case should they be in a disclosure.
Please now go and place proper disclosures on the article talk pages. You also should, in my rather firm opinion, also simply fill out a {{paid}} on your User: page in the same way for each article. JbhTalk 21:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have filled out the paid coi template at Talk:Melissa Chiu properly as an example[36]. Note employer = 'who is paying you' and client = 'on whose behalf you are making edits'. If they are the same place the same name in both fields. Also, use first and last names. Do not add anything like 'to edit the article to be factually accurate' or 'independent editor'. That is all public-relations dross and meaningless. You already must edit the article in a factually accurate NPOV way; You already must follow Wikipedia's rules; and you are not independent. So saying those things is either redundant or false. In neither case should they be in a disclosure.
- PS I took a quick look at Talk:Melissa Chiu there is something going on between that article and Benjamin Genocchio which she has also been hired to work on. For some reason someone thought is appropriate to edit the article to include " In September 2015, The Washington Post reported that Genocchio had edited the content of this article to remove controversial material regarding her activities at the Hirshhorn and to add a laudatory statement."Heil, E. Reliable Source: Hirshhorn museum director’s husband scrubs her Wikipedia entry of controversy. washington Post, September 18, 2015.[37] so there is more than meets the eye going on here. JbhTalk 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Just a minor point, in agreement with User:Jbhunley: there's a guide for "likely waits"..."no guarantee of response" for editors in response to a COI edit request at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Steps for engagement which details 1 week. Widefox; talk 21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with the idea she should go ahead and make the edit after 'some time', in fact if she does so she will very rapidly end up back at COIN. It can be easily gamed and most articles for hire will have very few, if any, page watchers. What she should do and what COI editors are told to do, is fill out an {{edit request}}. The list of pages with edit requests is displayed at WP:COIN. If it is time critical she can post a message at COIN about the request.
- These things seem obvious to me, but your complaint that you make suggestions on talkpages and nobody responds is quite different; it's a problem that shouldn't be ignored. WP:COI states that it's best practice to only suggest edits on talk, but it doesn't say what you should do if the suggestions aren't answered. For instance, I see you suggested an update on Talk:Melissa Chiu on November 7, and your suggestion is still the last post on that talkpage. :-( In an ideal world, all articles would be well-watched, but the actual fact is that some are obscure, and nobody watches them, or nobody can spare the time and energy to respond. (People mostly edit Wikipedia as an unpaid hobby, so that happens quite a lot.) Now this is my opinion: provided you comply scrupulously with a) and b) above, and if nobody has responded to a talkpage suggestion within say 48 hours, then I think you should go ahead and make the edit. Indicate your COI status in a simple way in the edit summary, for instance with "See COI disclosure on talkpage". What do you say, guys? Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers, Jbhunley, and Widefox: is this reasonable? Bishonen | talk 19:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'll try to answer all your questions.
- 1. I refer to myself as an independent Wikipedia editor because I am self employed and have offered to help folks who wanted to see their articles improved but did not want to do so because of COI and/or did not know how to navigate Wikipedia. I am not in this as a PR person. I edit independently from those who hire me, notifying them the entire time that all edits or now, proposed edits will be made adhering to the guidelines that run Wikipedia. That meaning, I will do my best to adhere to strictly factual, highly referenced, NPOV edits, etc. Sometimes I fail and I appreciate especially how Bishonen and Jlan have pointed out where I can do better.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 2. I thought I was complying by doing one of the following options as per ToU the options being, a statement on the user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. I disclosed my COI on the talk pages for Benjamin Genocchio and Melissa Chiu. The pages I wrote a while back Tad Martin (entrepreneur), Heidi Messer and Stephen Messer (entrepreneur) were written and disclosed on my talk page, as I now understand needs to be the main user page(!), from the beginning. Widefox, I was simply updating the format of my talk page and I think it looks much better. I am also happy to comply with best practices Bishonen, I only wanted your and others feedback on Widefox's check list.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 3. I am happy to discuss the situation with Benjamin Genocchio and Melissa Chiu. They hired me to help improve their pages in a proper way. They themselves do not want to have anything to do with Wikipedia as per COI. They just hope to have factual information represented in their BLP articles instead of some nonfactual, damaging, potentially libelous sentences. The Reliable Sources Washington Post article written by gossip columnist Emily Heil is out there and is referenced currently on Melissa Chiu. A good example of why their articles need improvement can be seen in the Hirshhorn Museum section for Melissa Chiu. The section contains mostly negative references and does not provide much information about Chiu's position, the direction she is taking the museum, major curations, etc. That section does not offer a balanced POV.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for everyone's input. I appreciate it. Penelope1114 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (edit conflict) (with above) @Bish - It is because of edits like [38] which show the least possible compliance that people are continually posting on Penelope1114's talk page. She added the last name and left the disclosure saying "Penelope1114 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Benjamin Genocchio to help make this article factually accurate while adhering to the guidelines for editing Wikipedia. Penelope1114 is an independent Wikipedia editor.". This stretches my AGF to the breaking point and I think it is past time she see that there is some teeth in our paid-coi policy and gets a bit of a time-out. JbhTalk 22:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen makes a fair point about the possible wait time before requested edits are looked at (Widefox, I suspect that in practice it may often be a good deal more than a week). Though Category:Requested edits is not as over-loaded as I had expected to find it, requests (like everything else that needs doing round here) are handled by volunteers. They get handled when someone gets round to it; and anyway, what's the hurry?
My guess is that Bishonen's 48-hour wait idea would be unlikely to gain much support if it were proposed as a modification to our COI guidelines. It's one thing to say "you are strongly discouraged from editing articles where you have a COI", and quite another to say "you are strongly discouraged from editing articles where you have a COI – unless you wait a little while first". And unless the guidelines were radically changed, I believe I would in most cases revert such edits on sight. COI editors are discouraged from directly editing articles; but how? In practice there's only one way to discourage those edits, and that is to revert them.
Penelope1114 is a particular problem: her persistent failure to respond to advice is a massive waste of everyone's time; more seriously, the material she proposes for addition is poorly written and dubiously sourced (at Benjamin Genocchio I had to remove a BLP violation, unsourced material, and a Wikipedia mirror used as a ref, all added – entirely in good faith – at her request). Any request she makes should be examined with the greatest care – another timesink! I don't know when a paid editor crosses the line into being considered WP:DISRUPTIVE, but I note that Jbhunley seems to think it's been crossed here, and I'm inclined to agree. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Justlettersandnumbers, I have to agree she takes too much volunteer time. Penelope1114, I understand your explanation of why you call yourself "independent". But you should also understand that in the context of Wikipedia it's misleading: self-employed or not, you're still dependent on the people who pay you. (There's nothing to stop you from explaining about being self-employed on your userpage, but it should be a separate and really explanatory section.) You're not independent here. Please remove all statements where you call yourself "an independent editor". They're at best ambiguous and mysterious, and have no business at all on article talkpages. But I've already told you that. I'm flattered that you trust me, but I was hoping it would result in you taking my advice. I'm an unpaid volunteer too, and repeating this stuff is not the most fun I can have on Wikipedia. I now think I should give you the full version of the sentence from WP:COI I quoted above: COI editors should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously, and may be blocked if they cause disruption.. My italics. (BTW I'm going to bed now, it's night in my timezone. This had probably better be continued at WP:COIN, in fact. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
Diwali greetings
Happy Diwali!!! | ||
Sky full of fireworks, Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
|
Thank you, Pankaj, that's very nice. Especially the mouth full of sweets! Bishonen | talk 16:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC).
bish for arbcom?
it's that time of the year again! I say we elect Darwinbish to arbcom. bishzilla too busy pocketing users. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I think I've got a better idea: let's have 'zilla keep the entire little committee in her pocket, and keep 'em in order. Perhaps consider adding special pocket annexe, or lean-to, with round table, for their cute deliberations. Without catflap — don't want 'em scarpering and running around the project! And very nice to see you on my page again Aunva, you've been quite a stranger. Bishonen | talk 03:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
- "Without Catflap?" I'm shocked at your blatant attempt to unduly influence a pending case! Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- All right, without rope ladder, then. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
- [DB goes off to register User:Rope ladder. High time she had her own sock!] darwinbish BITE ☠ 08:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
- All right, without rope ladder, then. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
- "Without Catflap?" I'm shocked at your blatant attempt to unduly influence a pending case! Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- yeah, I kinda burned out, plus RL stuff, job, school, and herding cats on an Internet forum. I still hop on from time to time, make a few edirts, beat backa few vandals. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- You should try herding evil fish some time! darwinbish BITE ☠ 08:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
- yeah, I kinda burned out, plus RL stuff, job, school, and herding cats on an Internet forum. I still hop on from time to time, make a few edirts, beat backa few vandals. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Laid-back
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)