User talk:Bishonen/Archive 18

Brief.. ? It's wordy, loquacious, prolix, tedious, pleonastic and verbose, have you been taking Bishzilla's advice? Please don't overwhelm my page with essays or 18th-century novels, and please notice the way posts like that kill conversation. (Have you noticed?) I, for instance, won't attempt to respond, and I don't see anybody else looking eager to, either. I wish I could remember who said "I could have made that a lot shorter if I'd had more time." Is that your problem? Inserting collapse boxes doesn't help. I hereby ban collapse boxes from this page. Collapse boxes inside a person's own posts are not allowed. If it looks too long without them, well, then it fucking is too long. Condense, don't collapse. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC).

Pascal quoth the quote you seek. And no, it's not time-pressure halting condensing; writing in advance, the answers to not-yet-asked-questions, is an occupational hazard. Condensing: noticed, but this isn't a conversation with RexxS (unfortunately since they seem nice). It *is* a goal-oriented seeking of a mediator, willing and able to pick up the flaming buck. That means, any such person positively has to be able to handle verbosity, given my own Clarissa-capacity and the count of vzaak's mainspace contribs. I've met folks around the 'pedia that can handle verbosity, in brief doses at least, but the ones I know are either 1) not the mediator types, or 2) not FTN types. Hope this makes sense, despite the watery-condensation. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not interact with 74.192.84.101, and I have no plans of doing so. Applications for mediators will be politely refused. In addition to the disruptive/uncivil behavior I described at the outset of this thread, this user continues to wrongly cast aspersions toward me. One example (among others) from this thread alone is the suggestion that I am filing SPIs against editors that "weren't anti-sheldrake-enough".

In fact I've filed SPIs against one sockpuppeteer who is a menace to WP. All these users are him: [8][9][10][11][12], and goodness knows what else will be found. He is responsible for the permanent semi-protection of Rupert Sheldrake and Terence McKenna. He wars to get literally crazy material into WP, e.g., "The redshiftedness of the Mongoloids and the blueshiftedness of the Jews imply that they are the broad Epimethean and narrow Promethean parts of the same funnel-shaped gravity well"[13]. Anti-Semitism is a theme. Some of the vandalism has remained for years.

74.192.84.101's massive walls of text follow me around from page to page, which is a disconcerting experience. I would like all of the aforementioned behaviors to stop, otherwise I will ask for an interaction ban. vzaak 09:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Vzaak, if you want to claim you don't interact with me, then you'll have to stop reverting me on my own talkpage, then complaining about me to Bishzilla. (I'm happy for you to complain to Bish, and if they agree with your complaint, then *they* can talk to me.) Furthermore, your edits to

the editing behavior related thereto

, which means I've also stuck to the subject. You cannot say I'm following you, when you don't go anywhere new. WP:FTN is a public noticeboard; do you also worry that jps is following you? Editors can review what other editors do; that is wikipedia.

  Specifically, you are free (encouraged!) to keep working on 8i347g8gl and socks from Russia, and thanks much for doing that tedious business. Similarly, your work on the other major sock from Los Angeles is appreciated; those LAX socks *are* different from the one in SaintPete though, except for a shared interest in editing Sheldrake during 2013 (mainspace-only and talkpage-only respectively methinks). In any case, you are neither

WP:REQUIRED to be my BFF, nor even to listen to a mediator. Calling me names and attempting to semi-prot-ban (and now i-ban) me from working where you work, though, is not going to achieve anything for either of us. The page already went to arbcom once, and was declined without solving the problem. More importantly, the definition of pillar two is more fundamentally crucial than any one page, since disagreements about the meaning of the pillars will invariably spread to other areas of wikipedia, if not worked out. NPOV && RS is the core of the content-dispute here. 74.192.84.101 (talk

) 01:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Did not notice it until now but user Kiruning has been at it again changing most of the Yohio article. Again mentioning the Big in Japan claim etc. Should we just revert most of the edits or? Kiruning also voices his opinion about you on Yohios talk page from the same day he did the edits, apparently "You seem obviously unfit to be an administrator". I dont agree ;).--BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I made the decision to revert the users edits back to the neutral version. I also gave the user a notice of this. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Babba, you already knew I'm slow (only one of the many ways I'm unfit to be an administrator), but I've finally posted on Talk:Yohio, and for good measure scrambled the article itself like an egg. Please check it out. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC).

Tis true. (Your unfitness.) There's also that whole "putting people in front of wiki-rules" and "maintaing a sense of perspective (and humor)." How did you pass an Rfa? NE Ent 02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Bish was once a horrible horrible person, but 'Zilla straightened them out! :D — Huntster (t @ c) 02:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight,

Arbcom Enforcement. Since then, Sandstein has replaced 'Zilla in performing those duties, so 'Shonen took over 'Zilla's unused tools. --RexxS (talk

) 15:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

:-D RexxS, you're a very wicked man. Huntster, what you say is true in a sense — Zilla taught me my place (=in her pocket) — but it's a mere canard (which she puts about already in her 2007 RFA, I see!) that I'm afraid of her. Not at all. My natural authority brings her effortlessly to heel. When I look sternly at her, she cowers. No, if I've become less of a horrible person of late years it's because some of my evil nature has been taken over by you-know-who. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

[Feels the need to post, even though presumably everybody gets it. She wants to display another badass sig.] That's me, you know! darwinbish ^{Forgive and forget? How about fuck off and die?} ☠, 18:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I read the Bishzilla RfA and it seems like I missed out on all the fun. I had an account back then, but no time to spend here, and now that I have time to spend here most, if not all, of the good-spirited fun seems to have gone... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well,

Go support!! darwinbish ^{Evil genius seeks minions for world domination attempt} ☠

, 18:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Move Like This
by 28bytes

Duck moving with clay on it's feet, thank you! - Move Like This was translated to Dutch yesterday, any page stalker up to another language? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(I made a poem, asked below.)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Bish, I'm not sure if this is something you'd know or not (I have trouble remembering who's what when it comes to things like this), but would you have any insight into this issue? I don't know the first thing about it, so if you do, a quick look to say that it's reasonable would be nice. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I just needed to make sure they weren't both the same… my Norwegian geography isn't up to much. All those mountains! But one Fløyfjellet near Bergen and one on an island in Lofoten does sound quite reliably not the same, or even close. It's perfect with the titles and the redirects, as far as I can tell. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

Well, given that my knowledge of Norwegian geography is limited to "it's a country in Europe that's further north than some", that's still better than I can do. I took it on faith and went ahead with the request, as you saw. Thanks (again). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, and I'd just proposed my very first motion, too. Now moot. You mooted my motion! You... mooter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, the joys of being a rouge admin. Do you remember them? Actually, I looked at the RFAR page and clicked on a few links and I couldn't stand it. I kept imagining all the vulnerable newbie arbs resigning in horror. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

This wouldn't make even the top five reasons for that.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Really? I don't even like to think what the top five reasons might be, then — unspeakable things taking place on the sekrit mailing list, presumably. I'm sure at least Bishzilla, a sensitive soul, would have run a mile from such a terrifying first experience of arbitration. (Remember she was a candidate for arbcom some years ago?) Bishonen | talk 21:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

The only one of the reasons I should discuss here is that the list is overly full of bad puns. I would complain more loudly, but most of them are mine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And I lost the election. There is no justice in this world. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

None. Isn't there some fairly well-known essay about how there's specifically no justice on Wikipedia and you shouldn't expect it because it would interfere with building an encyclopedia? [/me tries

the obvious shortcut. No good, it just leads to "Righting Great Wrongs", that's not it.] Something like that? I'm sorry you didn't get in, George. Don't blame me, all my socks supported you. Perhaps Brad has some file with all his puns that he can share with you? So that you can still enjoy that part of arbitration. Bishonen | talk

22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

Isn't

WP:NOJUSTICE the obvious shortcut? NE Ent

22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, hardly. Only the essays creator will ever think of that one! Good essay, Ent. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

(ec) sorry, I couldn't vote for you, George, after you answered my question with "The edit is Andy Mabbett putting an infobox in a musician's biographical article." - That may have been what most arbs on the infoboxes case saw (if they looked), but it's just not so, and 16 other candidates saw it without help, - I voted for nine of those, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This thread is not for serious things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How would I know, when "no justice" comes up and I immediately think of the image above ;) --Gerda Arendt aka User:Gerda the Notorious Infoboxen wikiCriminal[14] (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I demand that this attack upon me be rephrased either as a pun or in iambic pentameter. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly recommend rephrasing as a pun; I have a little experience trying to write poetry here and it's harder than it looks. Brad is pretty good at both puns and poetry, but as I recall he does haiku or limericks or something; not hard stuff like iambic pentameter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am still too sad, tired, not good enough in English ... to do a pun or Haiku or even attack. I supported Darwinbish for admin, will that do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't think that you might be concerned about writing puns or poetry in English due to language issues. Your use of english in editing is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Don't sell yourself short, Gerda; anyone can do a haiku:

Haiku's big secret

is that it actually is

as easy as you'd think.

Especially if

you just ignore kireji

and on and kigo.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I've perpetrated a haiku, a limerick, a double-dactyl, a parody, a sonnet, and a couple of overlong monstrosities otherwise unclassified. But it's been awhile, and I may be out of practice. These days, I might come up with nothing better than There once was a sock from Nantucket... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There once was a 'zilla from Bish-place

Who stomped on the tail of poor Tiktaalik

Darwinbish laughed, and Darwinfish wince.

Bishonen frown, and crowd be ashame.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, very nice, George. I hope the Master of Shakespearean sonnets sees this thread. But what's everybody doing still up? You really keep some unchristian hours over there. Goodnight. Bishonen | talk 00:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

Still up? I'm in California, it's only about 5 pm now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Floq:I just want to point out that haiku is not as easy as you'd think, because "as /ea/sy/ as/ you'd/ think" is six syllables. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Philistine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read

WP:CIVIL. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 00:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, arbi-traitor. *ba-dum-tsh* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I know why you're not named "Wit Keeper". --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

They say your haiku doesn't scan,

And hence deserves the garbage can?

The best response to that, I deem,

Is "I don't give a Floquen' Beam."

Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(I really wish I'd thought of this earlier) Thanks for the defense, Brad. Criticizing the syllables in my haiku is just not on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• For having too much fun, you are all indefinitely site banned. For the Authoritarian Committee,
  [•]
  12:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, AGK. I suppose that'll have to console me for the lack of real drama following on what I flattered myself was a controversial block. Disappointing! But I welcome this opportunity to thank everybody for the very beautiful celebratory verses and spirited raillery above. (P.S. I though the standard term was "the Arbitrary Committee"?) Bishonen | talk 18:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

• sounds familiar --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(I made a pun haiku poem, again late at my night but it's too serious for this thread, I moved it up to its title, Clay.) ::--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

With the same image: did you know that his blue duck attacks the German Main page right now? - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: this edit... don't 'welcome' templates usually go at the top of the page? -

Maybe. They're most often used on an empty page, and so end up on top. Insofar as it's a principle, it's in tension with the principle that you shouldn't top-post and thereby sideline the message that was there. Obviously the IP was an established user logging out in order to disrupt (there was a reason I didn't welcome them), but if you want to welcome them as emphatically as possible, feel free to move your welcome template back to the top. I admit I don't understand why you'd post the templated "Signature" message above my post. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

No big deal. Cheers -

^theWOLFchild

11:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Once addicted there's no escape from WP... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Maybe. Thanks, Tom. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen,
To be honest with you, I have not followed nor did I further investigate accounts misuse by Andajara. I suspect they will be back, but their pattern of behavior and POV-pushing should be fairly obvious to anyone. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I really liked this edit. It was a model of what I love about this project. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Philippe. Very kind of you to say so. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC).

...to this? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha, right, thanks. Those do look like likely precursors to Tollsnanak900 and Andajara120000. And the "forgot my password" theme again… It worries me, quite frankly, that Andaraja hasn't appealed the block. I won't be watching the articles — they're so foreign to my interests and competence, and also I want to remain uninvolved — but if anybody should see a suspicious "new" user editing them, I'll be happy to investigate. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC).

You blocked User:Jayadevp13 at his request on 4.January 2013. Another account User:Wikiuser13 has started making edits identical on Aadhaar identical to Jayadevp13's in collaboration with previously blocked user User:Ravishyam Bangalore who has recently come out of an indefinite block. The article itself is a "highly POV topic" per Toddst1 and Ravishyam_Bangalore is a self admitted SPA and crank for this topic.

Jayadevp13 and Wikiuser13 seem to have similar editing patterns [15]

Jayadevp13 tag-teamed for Ravishyam_Bangalore here after the latter was indeffed [16] and [17]. Now Wikiuser13 is doing the exact same thing here here as an extension of Ravishyam_Bangalore [18] and [19].

The 2 editors have extensively coordinated, almost definitely off-wiki too, see this discussion [20] and this IP's email notification (same ISP and Indian state as Jayadevp's) and also this [21].

As far as the IP addresses are concerned, Jayadevp13 edited from 117.199.176.190 which resolves to either Uttar Pradesh [22] or Bangalore [23] from where Ravishyam_Bangalore also edits [24] see [25]. Unfitlouie (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gee, evading a self-requested block? I hope not; I hope he's focusing on school, per his request to be blocked. This conversation is admittedly somewhat suggestive of off-wiki coordination. On the other hand, Wikiuser13 started editing back in April 2013, long before I blocked Jayadevp13. Do you really think he's been socking since April? I find that hard to believe. It's possible, of course, and there may still be disruptive editing involved on the part of Wikuser. Anyway, if you'd like to pursue this, could you please approach another admin, or file an

SPI report

? I appreciate your efforts and your report, but I'd rather not deal with this.

P.S. Jayadevp13 states on his userpage that he's in Uttar Pradesh, so that's no secret. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC).

I'm giving it one final try on the article talk page to get a fix on the sockmaster before taking it to a notice board. Now another IP from Uttar Pradesh has started editing the article once I put Wikiuser13 on the mat. But thanks for your insight. Won't bother you with this. Unfitlouie (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And this+ Eh?Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Fourth level vandalism warnings? I'd probably better block Drmies, Yngvadottir and Justlettersandnumbers. Meanwhile, I've whacked the sock. Thank you, Hafspajen. Bishonen | talk 00:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

I am trying to say it to you guys! Hafspajen (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dissapointed. Nobody cared what I was trying to say to Drmies guys! (Down there)Never mind, done. Hafspajen (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like you got your speed - momentum back... Hafspajen (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all rested. Thanks for the dancing, hmmm… socks, are they? Bishonen | talk 22:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Neeh, regular shoes. Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

		Health warning
		Too much. NE Ent 19:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha. You should hear my mother (try to) tell the story. The hot weather is important. Have you got a pic of melted butter? Bishonen | talk 19:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Thank you, that's most obliging. Now have you got a pic of a collapsing pram? Bishonen | talk 22:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Will this picture of an apparently Danish barnevogn do? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha, well I wasn't thinking of a collapsible pram, especially not such a handsome vehicle, Thomas, but of a pram actually in the course of collapsing. On account of being old and decrepit. Then it would suit the girlscouts-with-pram-full-of-butter story (destined never to be told). Even better if it was full of melting butter. Google Images's got nothing. Strange. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

• Ent, I think most Scandinavians should be able to tell you that I was not joking. Of course, if all you need is a Pripps Bla every know and then you have no need for an alcohol bath on a ferry, and if you like margarine...well, if you like margarine I don't want to talk to you. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the article's author intends it as an attack page. Most likely, they're a fan who doesn't see anything wrong with, for lack of a better phrase, celebrity gossip. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I can think of better phrases quite easily. But I have no notion that he meant or means any harm to the subject. (I've read his userpage with interest, and so I say "he".) I'm not concerned with his intentions, but only with their result; with the page, not with what was in the creator's mind. Incidentally, of course you've noticed that this is the page I referred to as an attack page, not this. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

See, this is why wikipedia sucks. Someone is more concerned that you might have assumed the bad faith of some random user whose real name no one has to know - than that that user wrote a disparaging article about a real person, that could harm a real reputation. Stuff the real world, you didn't play the game rules you evil bitch.--Scott Mac 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. (He does give his real name on his page, though, and he's only 18.) Bishonen | talk 22:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

OK... hum... I figgered I had to revdel BMK's blanking of the offensive material too, or the blanking diff would still display it. But maybe not, because my action also made his next edit invisible. Not intended. How do you undo this stuff...? NE Ent, don't you know better than to ask somebody stupid, what's the matter with you? Bishonen | talk 12:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

Sigh. After messing around a little, it's visible again. I have no idea what I'm doing, but it looks all right. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

What's the matter with you, editing Jimbo's talk page?? You were the first admin I saw currently online... someone had just referenced the page on ANI so I was in a very un Ent like hasty frame of mind. NE Ent 12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well, you're forgiven. Unexpectedly, it turns out I'm a brilliant revdeleter. I'd never "edit" Jimbo's talkpage, please don't talk like that. It's just that my finger itched when I saw Scott M had accidentally crashed the section header. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

All right, I had an opportunity to respond on AE. Right now, I have absolutely no intention to continue editing here. Let's start from a two-month block. So, could you please block my account for two months right now? Please annotate this block as a block made by my own request. I read your conditions. Thanks a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

All right, I'll block you, but not "right now". I always insist on a certain quarantine time, and considering the events of yesterday, I can't in conscience make it less that 24 hours. So, in 24 hours from your post above I'll place the block, and please let me know if you change your mind before then. Afterwards, it'll be too late, per the conditions you've read. Bishonen | talk 13:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

OK, noted. Yes, I am frustrated.

1. First, such AE decision goes against our rules: a couple of admins can not unilaterally decide (and use this as a reason for sanctions!) that a Russian book was "fringe", even though this is merely a book (a secondary source) that describes an approach to teaching SRT, which is not new. The book was published by a major publishing organization in the Soviet Union after review by Vitaly Ginzburg and other physicists from Lebedev Physical Institute... It would be fine to discuss a source on WP:RS (as I suggested to Urgent01) and decide if this is a reliable source. But use my editing as a reason for immediate sanctions?!
2. Second, I am also offended by the fact that such sanction would label me as a COI editor, although whole my editing record (on a huge number of different subjects!) shows me as a dedicated volunteer, and it was me who recently argued on AN against paid editing. I think this is also unjust, because that was my first lapse of judgement which could be interpreted as a COI problem.
3. Finally, this is all on the top of my personal/privacy issues I am not going to debate.

If such sanction is enacted, and if I will be back after this block, I will file a clarification request about the "Pseudoscience" case to Arbcom. Sure thing, they did not mean people be sanctioned based on the obviously incorrect interpretation of a single source as "fringe". But this is big if. I hope two months will be sufficient to leave this place forever. Please do not take this an offense. I still believe that WP is an important information resource, but I just do not want to contribute any longer, given the circumstances. So, yes, please block me for two months in 24 hours. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I will. I'm sorry you've come to such a conclusion. It's much too common that people leave the project in bitterness. :-( Good luck in all your endeavors. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

• I don't really know MVBW, but as another admin who does self-requested blocks, I saw this and wanted to chime in. WP is pretty good at grinding people down so that all that's left is the bitter residue. Speaking partially from experience, I think you'll find a 2 month complete break a good duration. One of 2 things is likely to happen. Either you'll come back with a better perspective, and enjoy editing again, or it won't appeal to you anymore, and it's enough time to break the "addiction", and you'll find it relatively easy to stay away when the block expires. In either case, a better solution than continuing to do something you hate but can't quite break away from. One bit of advice, FWIW: if possible, avoid the temptation to check in from time to time to see how things are going, whether you're blocked or not. Good luck with everything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! One more request. If a notice of AE sanctions (and especially those which are currently debated) will be posted on my talk page, could you please remove this notice to keep my talk page clean? I will see it anyway. Ideally, I would like my userpage and talk page be protected during this block. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can fullprotect your userpage and semi your talk, if you like. The talkpage needs to be accessible for people to put important (or whatever) messages on. But I'll keep an eye on it, and remove stuff I think you won't want displayed in public. It might be a good idea for you to put a note right here, or else commented-out (=visible only in edit mode) on your own talk, stating that Bishonen has your permission to manage your talkpage during your block. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

Then please protect userpage, and do not protect talk page. Sure, you have my permission to manage my talk page and sorry for the trouble. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

[26] Vogone (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replied there. Bishonen | talk 14:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) That's what I call being a WP-addict... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I sympathise, but at the same time this block is being more trouble than I bargained for. Maybe I should remove myself from the category, at least for a while. Sigh. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

Hello, Bishonen. I have been looking into the unblock request at User talk:50.0.121.102, regarding the Russian book and User:My very best wishes. What I see at the IP address is a consistent editing style, from a static IP address, suggesting one person editing. From User:My very best wishes I see another consistent editing style, and with occasional oddities in English (not surprisingly, since everything suggests that he/she is not a native English speaker), which do not occur in the IP editing. Indeed, in the IP edits I see a relaxed, sometimes colloquial use of English quite different from the account's writing. The IP editor also got the account's name wrong (miscapitalized) which could, of course, be a bluff, but the most obvious explanation is that he/she was not well acquainted with the name. There are also various other details such as this edit, contrasting with the clear impression that My very best wishes has a high opinion of the book. Apart from posting about this book, I don't see any significant overlap in the editing between the account and the IP address. Everything looks to me much less like block evasion than like an editor who saw the controversy over the book, got interested, searched further, found that there was evidence suggesting that the book might be a more reliable source than had been realised, and decided to raise the issue.

I am pretty close to unblocking, but I have put the unblock on hold, to allow you a chance to comment before I make a definite decision.

That's fine, James, I don't object. Thanks for looking into it. I suspect off-site collusion, but these things are hard to prove. I agree with unblocking the IP. Bishonen | talk 13:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

Yes, off-site collusion is certainly a possibility, but I don't see any hard evidence for it, so I don't think we can really assume that there is any. Anyway, thanks for answering my query.

talk

) 15:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No I haven't had any off-site contact with MVBW and hadn't had any contact with him at all until this incident. It's a pretty odd theory. If MVBW wanted to keep editing he wouldn't have had to use such subterfuges. He could have just refrained from asking to be blocked in the first place. The level of ABF that I see toward him is appalling. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. It never occurred to me at any time that My very best wishes would have requested a block as some kind of "subterfuge". Of course he didn't. He wanted/needed to be blocked. But he might change his mind afterwards. Considering all his changes of mind in the days before I placed the block (most of them removed, but see the history of this page), it seemed far from unlikely. He's a wikiholic. He's not in bad faith. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I have read your requirements for self-requested blocks, and I think I meet them. Can you block me for 24 hours, starting as soon as possible?

Just 24 hours? All right, I can do that without asking you why or insisting on any waiting period. Done. Have a good whatever you'll be doing! Bishonen | talk 09:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC).

is back.

Thanks. Blocked per quacking. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC).

And thank you, enough time wasted with that one already.

talk

) 18:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Ms. Shonen - and yes ma'am, I completely agree. It served a purpose in the past; but that day, like the essay, has passed into history. Hope all is well with you and yours. Hugs, — ChedZILLA 03:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello there ChedZilla, I hope you and your sockmaster are in the pink. This is very strange. I don't feel obliged to reply any more, having said my say, and I hope nobody else does either. Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby for chrissake, not medieval torture. (Not that I have any objection if people want to reply. Tastes differ.) Bishonen | talk 20:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

False dichotomy; see Self-defeating personality disorder "chooses people and situations that lead to disappointment, failure, or mistreatment even when better options are clearly available " NE Ent

20:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Master not happy. He give up good food because new doctor say bad. Not happy about health insurance .. he say so much talk is bullshit. But he have new doctor who help him, and he doing much better. He say he never ever get upset over wikipedia again - he say real life mean more. He think too many people on internet have emotional, social, and intellectual shortcomings. Not "bad" people - but not able to sort out things on Internet ... so he kind of not care anymore. He like you and family bunches though ... Master say to say hi to NE Ent too. Master think Ent a good one. Master miss you. Me miss the great real zilla too. wish all best things. Little Gerda user always be nice too ... me like her. Good little user. — ChedZILLA 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerda sees her name, blushing, sad, maestro died, and more loss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at Launchballer's talk page.
Message added 14:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Launchballer 14:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bish. Would you mind taking a look at Kvenland since there, for the umpteenth time, is a new editor there (BoArnezzz) who is edit-warring to get thousands of bytes worth of fringe theories into the article (an article that is fringe enough already as it is...). I have reverted twice today, and have left messages on their talk page, but he/she seems hell-bent on getting it into the article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the topic area, nor about the editors in it, but from the dimmest reaches of my memory I have pulled out the citation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven, which may or may not help at all. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Brad, never disparage your memory, that was great. The problem is obviously chronic. It looks like semiprotection hadn't yet been invented at the time of the RFAR? I think a long, long semi + quick blocks of disruptive users as they appear would be appropriate. General sanctions obviously hadn't been invented either. Should somebody apply to have sanctions instituted for related articles (groan, not me) or should I just begin a reign of terror? Mind you, I don't know anything about the topic area either. What about Yngvadottir? Let her suffer.

Checking out BoArnezzz's edits in February 2013, btw, I got to reading the history and noticed what a lot of tendentious editing there was altogether round about then. Is it any use to try to get these articles into shape, or keep them so? What do you think, Brad, considering the obscurity of the subject, the existence of zealotry about it, and the anybody-can-edit principle at the heart of the project, perhaps we should formally declare Kvenland another Indian village, and just let it fester? It's only one of many rubbish dumps on Wikipedia, after all. Sorry, but I'm having grave doubts about the usefulness of wikis these days.

Compare MastCell's Cynic's Guide, point 19: "Wikipedia's processes favor pathological obsessiveness over rationality. A reasonable person will, at some point, decide that they have better things to do than argue with a pathological obsessive. [See also the "re: it's useless now" thread above.] Wikipedia's content reflects this reality, most acutely in its coverage of topics favored by pathological obsessives." Bishonen | talk 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

This lies just outside the area of my competency in history, so I haven't watchlisted it. And I was unaware of the ancient wiki-history, but it doesn't surprise me too much. I got a quick reminder of the national-ethnic tensions concerning Finnish-Sami topics in the mess over King of Kvenland; note that the edits I made to Kvenland were basically making the same fix to the material on Charles IX of Sweden. However I did rewrite Sitones, where the edit history shows conflict with an IP editor who was pushing a contentious theory derived from Kalevi Wiik (I've debated adding refs to that article; I found some condemnations in JSTOR), and this culminated in an attack on my talk page that you may recall, and my successful petition to have Amanbir Singh Grewal officially banned. All of which is to say, the article doesn't look too bad to me so I think a reign of terror would be best :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For the Canine humor contributions. Jag ska hålla mig borta från denna ytterst viktiga officiella sida. Hafspajen (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Woof! Och vov! Bishonen | talk 15:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC).

Arrogant-believes, his arguments and references are best, Illogical- he cant digest logical evidence- still trying to get the biology definition in Math book: Eg; has written about khatris origin from Dashrath Sharma on Rajputs book, idiot- cant understand references and read them, revert other persons changes without any reason (arrogant) and think he is always right.

Left the whole panjab chief's article blank.

Edit as per his choice, Khatri article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OP blocked for a week. Sitush, feel free to remove this section if you like. Other people, please leave it alone. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

Re your message: That would be IPhonehurricane95. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That was quick. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

Supposing editor A appears to have violated the interaction ban with editor B. If editor B is not allowed to bring such behavior to anyone's attention on-wiki, what's the solution? E-mail? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, email an admin you trust, but such email complaints better be well-grounded. Anything speculative, frivolous or vexatious will be frowned on. Plus, I should think many other people will be keeping an eye out, at least in the immediate future while Jarndyce v Jarndyce is fresh in memory. I'd be surprised if there turns out to be much need for the three of you to complain of each other. And, not least, I'm sure none of you are going to violate the interaction ban. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Right. I have nothing to report, I just wondered about the mechanism should it become necessary. "Jarndyce v Jarndyce"? I don't know that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The court case

Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Bleak House, "a byword for an interminable legal proceeding", here applied to the combination of this ANI thread and this subsequent AN thread. Compare [27]. Bishonen | talk

01:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Oh, I see. Good comparison. I was never much for Dickens. In school I only read the Dickens stories they made us read, and Bleak House wasn't on the list. I typically refer to any interminable story as a megillah. [They told us that Dickens typically serialized his stories in the newspapers. Basically he was paid by the word, which explains a lot.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You said something about posting the topic bans permanently (or "indefinitely"?) on my talk page. Would I be in violation of any interaction ban if I post the contents of those bans myself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What topic bans? The only ban that had consensus is the interaction ban that I posted in green letters on your page. Not sure what you mean by 'posting the contents of those bans'. The "contents" of the interaction ban are that green text. Do you mean, will you be in violation of the interaction ban if you follow my suggestion and move the green text to the top of your page..? No, of course not. If anybody objects to such a move, they'll be rankly wikilawyering, and had in any case much better RFAR me for admin abuse in "enabling" you. But don't do anything else with the green text, change it or discuss it or anything. Or post it on some other page. (Perhaps that was what you meant. Absolutely don't.) Bishonen | talk 01:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Baseball_Bugs_topic-banned NE Ent 02:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know nothing about that, NE, I'm only the facilitor for the interaction ban. I'm not sure what instructions came with the Manning ban, but common sense suggests there's nothing to stop Bugs posting them at the top of his own page. After all, the reason for posting it would be that you're anxious to be able to remember its exact wording, right? As well as to be transparent to visitors on your page about your bans. But as I say, that's only reasonable provided you weren't told different by the body that placed the ban. And if what I say here is gamed in any way, you'll be in trouble, Bugs. The Manning ban is absolutely not for breaching experiments. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Wasn't implying any responsibility, just answering a question I likely knew answer to based on prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Editing_restrictions#Anchors_question NE Ent 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

[Too late for that. /me has already started to stick straws in her hair and stare vacantly. Burned out! Mutters: blocks… bans… violations… three little wards of court… must save 'em! Help me, mr Jarndyce!] For he on honey-dew hath fed, and drunk the milk of paradise! Bishonen | talk 03:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

If that's a quote from Bleak House, it looks like maybe I missed out on something. Yes, I'm referring to those other topic bans also; and yes, it's to remind myself to watch out, because 2 or 3 times recently I've gone too close to the edge of a violation. Subconsciously, I've had a problem with part of one of them because it's based on a false premise. So, better safe than sorry. Also, the next time (if any) that a troll tries to make a big deal out of a topic ban, I can remind the troll that they are already displayed for all the world to see, so what point is the troll trying to make? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Kubla Khan actually. It was Coleridge you missed out on. --Person from Porlock (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Or all the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Or Rush! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WK, I hope you have a much older brother. If not, you got old long before your time. Signed, N. Peart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.40.38 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

[Reading Rush!] The concept of "summer capital" blows my mind. I wish we had one of those here, way up north with the 24 hour sunlight, indeed why not in Sarek (ping MastCell from below). And we could have the winter capital in southern Italy and sit in the plazas and drink latte all day. [Loses self in daydreams and twee anecdotes.] Bishonen | talk 21:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

I take it that "Xanadu" song has nothing to do with the roller disco movie of the same name? And anyone can have a summer capital. Anyone who can afford to own more than one house, that is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

... you went weak in the knees at Sarek's "cultivated macho glamour". Although considering that he's a hardcore Wikipedian whose username bespeaks a deeper-than-usual immersement in the Star Trek universe, these are obviously meanings of "cultivated", "macho", and "glamour" with which I was previously unfamiliar. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

[Blushes. Twirls.] Aha, but did you look at the talkpage?[28] Even more analysis of my dreams and fantasies there, and of the other user's ("Many of us are "rugged and beautiful" as Bishonen has it, but we don't all hog the limelight to prove it."). The edit summaries, laid end to end, are a pocket roman épistolaire. [Shyly displays her tailfeathers. Bishzilla , not to be outdone, displays hers.] Bishonen | talk 19:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Would you please be an absolute sweatheart and use you magical powers to undelete this image [29] which some fuckwit has deleted. Then secondly see if you or any of your friends know how to use the original image here File:Firenza Palazzo Pitti.jpg which helpful soul who has clearly never been there has decide to change from it's natural pink stone glowing in the sunset, to something resembling a grey mental health institution - clearly reminding them of home. Any advice greatly appreciated. Oh yes, and I had a great Christmas and skiing period, and I am now fully returned so fuckwits beware as I am tidying up some old pages!  Giano  21:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The admin who deleted it

keeplocal

}} tag on it at the earliest opportunity if 'Shonen can do the undeletion.

The Commons image is a tougher one to sort out. The source file is still available at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsc.06452/ and I've downloaded a high-resolution copy, so I can upload of version of that over the "colour-corrected" version, but we'll have to defend that from the zealots who have never seen the palazzo. Wish me luck. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done the deed on Commons - let's hope it sticks. At least the caption at Palazzo Pitti makes more sense now. --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your faith in me, Giano sweetheart, but I've never yet managed to help you with an image, have I? Rex, the un-colour-corrected one, the way the Commons image looked before 2009, is incredibly pink — that's not the one we're going for, is it? I don't know if I can indeed do the undeletion — does that possibility go back as far as 2008? Anyway, I must run, I'll look later, most likely it'll have to be tomorrow, in fact. Bishonen | talk 23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

• The deleted image is this one:File:FirenzePalazzoPittiPiazzale.JPG and is present on Commons. Giano, you originally uploaded it from Italian Wikipedia, but it was later transferred over to Commons; hence, the reason it was deleted here. Risker (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good detective work! Thank you, Risker. --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Chère, my inclination is always to defer to Giano on matters of architectural aesthetics - did you read File talk:Firenza Palazzo Pitti.jpg? The image is a color photo lithograph, and is possibly deliberately tinted - as the caption in the Palazzo Pitti suggests, or it may be an artefact of the process. Either way if that's what Giano wants, then he has it. If somebody else wants a grey version, they can always re-upload the "colour corrected" version under a different filename and folks can take their pick. --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all, now isn't that nice pink image so much more attractive showing the pink sunkissed stone. The Medici owned many prisons, but they tended not to live in them. Thank you Risker too, I just wanted to know what the deleted image was, one can't trust these people not to delete something important - it's always best to know.  Giano  10:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, RexxS could you please have a look here too [30]! Quite why Wikipedia has to dumb everything down to the level of a dust hovel in Boisse is beyond me.  Giano  10:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Excellency! Would "Rear facade of Palazzo Pitti" be acceptable for the category name? --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rex; the garden facade or the south eastern facade will be a vast improvement.  Giano  15:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, Excellency. I went with commons:Category:Garden facade of Palazzo Pitti in the end. The Germans persuaded me that it's a universally understood identifier. It really is quite pink isn't it. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about this one, Rex, the 2006 thumbnail. Anyway, I must be getting stupider and stupider… is there still some button I need to push..? I thought it would probably all get done if I dallied, and [pleading voice] it has, hasn't it? Bishonen | talk 15:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

Oh that is clever of you; I do wish I had a brain like yours, but then one can't have brains and beauty. No doubt you've been missing me. I have just returned from a fortnight in a health spa, in a attempt to recover from my very traumatic Christmas. Never again will I accept an invitation to Christmas in Sicily. I don't know how Giano puts up with that dreadful woman he's married to - everytime I approached with some much needed advice on child rearing or staff management she became a manic schizophrenic; by New year it was obvious to me that she was developing a drink problem; then when I informed her that I was extending my visit - she began popping pills, so obviously she's a drug addict too. When I told her she'd feel better if I redecorated the house in more relaxing colours - she just reached for the phone and ordered a taxi - I said to her running away won't help you, but avoiding any reason, she then became abusive and had her gardeners manhandle me into the taxi. Well, I call that very rude - no wonder those children are all running riot, not to mention the goats everywhere. It was such a relief to be back in my beautiful tranquil room at Champneys. Now I am now thoroughly refreshed, invigorated and raring to go. You should try Champneys Mrs Bishonen; I'm told their weight loss program is very good for those that need it. So nice to be back. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you would be sitting pretty if you had a brain like mine!

Bishounen are never fat, I thought everybody knew that. [Swedish accent growing more thickly Swedish Chef-like with every word:] I tell you a Swedish joke. A woman much like your daughter-in-law said to her departing houseguests: "It was so lovely having you, welcome back soon! The new trees in our garden don't look much yet, but I hope they'll have grown to forest giants the next time you come!" Bishonen | talk

20:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

Marvellous! I now know two Swedish jokes. The other being where a man goes into a Swedish chemist's shop and asks to buy deodorant. The chemist replies "Certainly, sir. Ball or aerosol?" -- "Neither" comes the reply, "I want it for my armpits." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS2N1mBsEdM --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I never knew that - thanks for clarifying. GiantSnowman 19:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bish, I was somewhat surprised at your vehemence against Alan. I've been glancing at the BLPN thread for days between grump and bus stop, and I wasn't sure if bus stop was being antisemitic or pro-jew, nor if grump was the polar opposite. I didn't like the language being used, mostly on the part of grumps "Jew tagging" so I didn't follow it too closely. In any case, I suspected someone was misbehaving, but they were off in their own private Idaho so I didn't want to interfere. My point is, it was confusing, so perhaps you should cut Alan a wee bit of slack? Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I read the ANI debate, and Alan hasn't made any proper attempt to read what Andy wrote at any point in the thread. It's clear that a dislike of AndyTheGrump is what is motivating Alansohn, and they should step back. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both for coming here. TKOP, I didn't think the BLPN confusing, but I see now that it can be, perhaps especially if you don't take account of the hyphen in Jew-tagging (I notice you yourself leave out the hyphen), and I'll admit the hyphen may be a subtlety, especially for younger speakers. Jew-tagging, to me, is formed on the pattern of NPOV-tagging or civility-tagging, classic concepts in Wikipedia talkpage discourse. (For the grammar and the hyphen, see further User:Drmies in the ANI thread.) But altogether, I'm afraid I agree with Luke's impression that Alansohn isn't trying to read but merely casting his post as negatively as possible. That impression is certainly reinforced by Alansohn's characterization of this post by Andy as a 'rather lengthy rampage'. Andy's post is 123 words long… a good deal shorter than Bus stop's post that it's in response to, and about half the length of Alansohn's own post on ANI. It's not a big point, but to my mind it illustrates the way Alansohn is lobbing attacks at random. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

• My name is Dries and I approve of Bishonen's invocation of Drmies's comment on the hyphen. Indeed, it may be subtle, but it's important, and I'm happy to see someone thinking carefully about grammatical aspects before insulting someone--because it was, of course, intended as an insult. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Tablet devices aren't very kind to the hypen-inclined. I rather suspected that Andy was on the "good" side of things, but he was also being intentionally inflammatory. Ok, I had my say and am done here. Thank you for your feedback. Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bishonen. For some time I have been considering possibly adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Before doing so, I thought it might help to see what a few of those already in the category think about a few matters. I should be grateful if you would give me an idea, via either talk page or email, of your ideas on the following questions.

1. Why do you impose a list of requirements, rather than just saying "I will block you if you ask me to"? (I am not disagreeing with you, just wanting to know your thoughts on the matter.)
2. In your experience, how often, if at all, do you get such requests?
3. Do such blocks ever cause problems of any sort, and if so, how?
   talk
   ) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

Hi! I wanted to make sure that I didn't misunderstood you in the Grump proposal.

when you wrote

"If anybody feels they can summarize it better, do please feel free, because I'm not particularly confident about this four-barelled proposal"

I took that as permission to add my option 5 as allowed in

Hi, Guy. Since your addition came rather late in the proceedings, I suppose the perfect scenario would have been if you'd shown option 5 was added later, not just by a note further down, but by signing and dating your addition right in place. But that's a small point, you understood me perfectly fine. The user who removed your addition apparently didn't and doesn't, and seems surprisingly pleased with himself for screwing up the !voting in the name of principle.[31] Apparently he doesn't see any virtue in my invitation to add a signed note in the place where he'd removed the material, either. Well, these things happen, not much I can do, and he's in general a good guy. Perhaps you should re-add the option yourself, with a note? Though it's getting even later, of course. Another boatload of people have commented while option 5 wasn't there, so the issue is probably fucked up beyond repair. :-( (P.S. I wish I'd thought to propose option 5 myself, it's a good one.) Bishonen | talk 01:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Thanks! I think we can put this one to bed. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Bish, haven't we already learned over the last few days how bad an idea numbered options for topic bans can be? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WK, do I smell a faint whiff of Bish-tagging criticism here? Be careful, whippersnapper. Moosezilla doesn't take kindly to them kinds of words. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

He's a cheeky youngster, but on this occasion I took him to be referring to the Jarndyce v Jarndyce lawsuit, with its infamous Option 2, over which shoals of admins stubbed a toe. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

What would be the best way to institute a ban on the 54-subnet, Amazon-based IP-hoppers? It's clear that their sole purpose for being here is to criticize other editors. Individual blocks aren't accepted by the AIV page, and they don't do any good anyway. I'm thinking an interaction ban could be the solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

[Blinks.] An interaction ban on a disruptive IP-hopper? The idea that they would abide by a ban sems mad, are you quite well? optimistic, and does credit to your faith in human nature. If we could usefully block them, we would have done it already, so there are no sanctions we could give them for violating an interaction ban. You reckon this is the kind of character that would abide by an unenforcable ban out of pure good will?

No, I think the only way would be to appeal to a rangeblocker with superskills. I already tried that, on AN, and got absolutely no response.:-( (On January 20; there's no diff, as it got caught up in a revdel spree, but anyway, nobody answered.) I'll have another shot at it, e-mail a few people. Meanwhile, have you seen any more of them, besides the original 54.242.221.254, 54.224.35.46, 54.224.206.154, 54.224.53.210, 54.204.117.139, 54.196.70.85 ? Bishonen | talk 23:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Just my previous list plus the one today. Maybe if I bring up this subject every time one of his socks posts, someone will catch on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has latched onto the term "Jew-tagger" and used it as part of derogatory personal attacks on multiple occasions for well over a year, including this edit from last January where he calls Bus stop " an obsessive Jew-tagger". The term was intended as part of a personal attack and is used as a slur. There's this June 2012 edit referring to how "the Jew-tagger in chief turns up". Of course, there's my favorite at this edit, where AndyTheGrump opines that "Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot. There are two types of Jew-tagging bigots in the world. The 'pro-Jewish' ones, and the 'anti-Jewish' ones. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart. Wikipedia would be a lot better off if it told all of them them to fuck off elsewhere."

I am more than familiar with the use of "-tagging" as a suffix. The problem is using "Jew-" as a prefix. This article in The Forward offer's a professor's perspective on the use of "Jew" as a pejorative adjective, noting that "To 'Jew someone down,' as in bargaining, has made its derogatory way as a verb, and a 'Jew store' turns the proper noun into an offensive adjective." The article

"Jew-tagging" is far from his only problem. AndyTheGrump's edit history shows a lengthy pattern of abusive personal attacks and a block log almost as long. There's this edit from late October where AndyTheGrump says "I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you... ", with the helpful edit summary of "fuck this, I've had enough of this imbecile". Or go all the way back to July for an edit summary of "fuck off" on top of other personal attacks. My identifying what appears to me and several other editors to be borderline hate speech is blockable in your world, but AndyTheGrump can do nothing that is sufficiently over the line to merit yet another block for even this latest set of egregious offenses.

As seen from his block log and based on your close interactions with AndyTheGrump (see here, for one of many examples), it appears that you may well be too deeply involved with him and that it is likely that you have been blinded to his consistent pattern of vicious personal attacks in general and his use of what I and many other editors perceive to be his continued use of racist code words here. I can't go into his mind and figure out why he is using these slurs, but the weight of evidence is that the usage of "Jew-tagging" constitutes a thinly veiled religion-based attack, regardless of his unknowable internal motivation for repeating these "Jew-tagging" attacks ad nauseum.

It has been made clear to AndyTheGrump that the term "Jew-tagging" is offensive, yet he has persisted in using the term as part of a slur in his personal attacks. In the edit that brought Bus stop to ANI, with the summary of "I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll", AndyTheGrump drops the Jew bomb not once, or twice, or only three times, but on four separate occasions, five if you count the edit summary, calling Bus stop "a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll", "I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll", "Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls" and "your Jew-tagging agenda is contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia." In your mind that's OK. In addition to the sources listed above, Sol Steinmetz in Dictionary of Jewish Usage: A Guide to the Use of Jewish Terms defines the usage as "derogatory" and in American Usage and Style, the Consensus, Roy H. Copperud makes clear that using "Jew as an adjective is now derogatory". No one who has any understanding of the use of the word "Jew" as a slur can approve of this usage of "Jew-tagging", but you support AndyTheGrump here.

As he himself indicates in this edit and this one too, AndyTheGrump believes that other people should be blocked for bigotry. It's well past the time that the community push away those editors who have been enabling him and impose the lengthy ban needed for AndyTheGrump and his repeated use of what are widely recognized as religious-based slurs as part of his personal attacks. I look forward to your thoughts on the ample published sources showing that the use of "Jew" as an adjective in his manufactured term "Jew-tagging" is derogatory and your explanation for defending AndyTheGrump and his repeated use of "Jew-tagging" as part of his lengthy series of personal attacks. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Jew tagging", see Mark Bernstein Wikipedia And The Jews: [32] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump, seriously? I've offered two published books, a newspaper article written by a professor and Wikipedia's own definition as evidence of your usage as pejorative / offensive, and you offer some blogger's self-published post. You've had no problem stating without qualification that "Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot", a member of one of the "two types of Jew-tagging bigots in the world" as you define it, but why is it so hard to see that the reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate that your usage is patently offensive, putting yourself in one of your two well-defined classes. I fail to see how your calling someone various versions of being a "Jew-tagging troll" on about a dozen different occasions is not using the term as a pejorative, and I'd love to hear your very strong defense of your persistent attacks above an offhand mention in a blog, one that postdates your usages. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your quotes from Forward and Copperud etc are irrelevant, Alansohn, they simply don't apply. It makes no difference how reliable and "verifiable" your professors and published books are, since your application of their grammatical analysis is… well, it's faulty. To put it simply, "Jew" in "Jew-tagging" is neither an adjective nor a verb, it's a noun. To refer to the use of "Jew-tagging" as "dropping the Jew-bomb", as you do, is either bad faith wikilawyering, or

WP:CIR incompetence on your part. I don't know you well enough to be sure which. I had a feeling you might try to play the "involved" card, and I'll address that point when I'm more at leisure. Andy, please butt out here. I don't want the two of you arguing here, or, preferably, anywhere. Alansohn, I presume Andy was addressing me in his brief post, with this being my page and all, so please don't start another Argument Clinic with him. Bishonen | talk

21:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Alansohn, you have offered no evidence whatsoever that my use of the term 'Jew-tagging' in the context I did is in any way antisemitic, racist, or antireligious. Certainly the word 'troll' is insulting. It was intended to be. The phrase you object to was descriptive - Bus Stop is obsessed with applying the term 'Jewish' to anyone he can, often on the flimsiest of evidence. He is also obsessed with describing people as Jewish by religion on even flimsier evidence - even, in Ed Miliband's case, when the person in question has expressly stated that he is an atheist. That is insulting, both to Miliband, and to the readers of Wikipedia, who expect us to report the facts as verified from reliable sources, rather than presenting falsehoods based on the obsessions of a tendentious and biased contributor. It is also totally at odds with the policies of Wikipedia, as Bus Stop is fully aware - and if 'trolling' isn't the best word to describe his endless advocacy of offensive and misleading policy violations, it is certainly a good approximation. Should I have used the phrase 'Jew-tagging'? Probably not - with hindsight, it was clearly capable of being misunderstood - though I have to suggest that this 'misunderstanding' seems to be based largely on wanting to see the phrase in the worst possible light. Having said that, I find your apparent suggestion (if that is what it is) that I should have used the term 'Hebrew-tagging' instead somewhat baffling - not only would it be archaic, but to mind more capable of being seen as offensive - I am unaware of any context where the term 'Hebrews' is currently used for Jewish people, other than on fringe websites where antisemitism is explicit. Would 'tagging-people-as-Jewish' have been acceptable as a description for Bus Stop's obsession? Or would you object to that too? Or are you actually objecting to me pointing out exactly what Bus Stop has been engaging in for years - the marking/tagging of individuals as 'Jewish' in a manner which implies that this is almost their sole defining characteristic - something that they are born with (Bus Stop of course cites Halachic law whenever it suits his argument in this regard - though he'll ignore it if it doesn't) - and something entirely beyond the control of the individual concerned. If one wishes to look into the dark and dismal roots of antisemitism, such pseudobiological determinism is of course deeply embedded - such determinism assert that 'the Jew' is always 'a Jew' and nothing 'the Jew' says or does will make him anything beyond the one-dimensional stereotype. Such thinking has no place in Wikipedia, or one would hope anywhere in a world that had seen the horrors of the 20th century. That is why I object to Bus Stop's endless insistence on 'tagging' - because regardless of the motivation, it is promoting the same dehumanising pseudobiological determinism that has blighted so much of humanity in recent times. As a committed anti-racist, and as someone who has in the past been fully prepared to physically confront the resurgent antisemitism of British neo-Nazism, I can do nothing else. Evidently my words could have been better chosen, but my intent - and my actions - were driven by motivations that were the polar opposite of those you persist in accusing me of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I was composing the above while you posted - and as I've made clear on my talk page, I see no reason - short of a two-way interaction ban - why I should not defend myself from Alansohn's recurring accusations of antisemitism and racism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, on second thoughts, I agree. I was asking you on your page to give Alansohn a wide berth on the assumption that he would respect my warning, and he isn't. Alansohn, you have repeated your offensive language ("thinly veiled religion-based attack") above, after my warning. I'm not going to block anybody today, though, considering that you've ratcheted down your rhetoric somewhat and made an attempt to explain your case, even if in somewhat offensive terms and with a lot of references to sources that don't support you. I have to go to bed now... no time to block anybody today. Meanwhile, to both of you, would you freely accept an interaction ban? Because I can't unilaterally impose one, it would have to go via ANI (GROAN). But if you're both agreeable, we can formalize it between the three of us, once I've slept. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

You reached out to me on my talk page with a threat and I reached out to you on yours with details chronicling a persistent multi-year pattern of vicious personal attacks by AndyTheGrump, variously with and without the use of malicious foul language and / or code words based on religion. I'm not sure why AndyTheGrump thought that it was his place to jump into my conversation with you, so I'm not sure who your proposed ban would effect. The repeated use of "Jew-tagging" remains utterly unacceptable, despite AndyTheGrump's rationalizations. If Bus stop had been tagging people as LGBT or African American, substituting the corresponding slurs and appending "-tagging" to describe his actions would not have been treated quite as charitably. I'm not the expert in bigotry that AndyTheGrump is, but when you say that "Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot" after calling him variants of a "Jew-tagging troll" on about a dozen different occasions, you have crossed a line into using religion for the worst possible kind of personal attacks. There is nothing that Bus stop could ever have done to justify these attacks and there were plenty of ways without these vicious provocations to address the issues with him.

WP:NPA, but that doesn't seem to apply to AndyTheGrump, only other people. Alansohn (talk

) 23:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So now the word 'Jew' is a slur? Utterly ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn, it's not necessary to repeat ad nauseam everything you've said on ANI, I've read it, it wasn't impressive the first time. As for "I'm not sure who your proposed ban would effect", please don't give me that. Did you think I meant an interaction ban between you and Jimbo Wales? Between Andy and Barack Obama? What's the doubt here? See you tomorrow, and then I'll lay out exactly what you need to do to avoid a block. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, you're deeply involved and nothing is happening here. If you had a shred of justification for a block it would've happened quite a while back in this conversation. As much as I would enjoy the show there's nothing here other than ignoring AndyTheGrump's vicious personal attacks, and I'm just the one who's calling out the pattern of abuse you so blithely ignore. As AndyTheGrump has said so eloquently and so often, what you need to do is "fuck off elsewhere". If that classic from User:AndyTheGrump didn't merit a lengthy block, it seems hard to imagine that anything anyone has ever said or done could justify it. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Alan, if you're merely concerned about INVOLVED, I am not in the least involved and I will happily own any block Bishonen gives you for continuing to falsely claim another user is anti-Semitic (or is behaving in an anti-Semitic way, if the distinction is so important to you). I really hate to block a prolific editor such as yourself and would far rather you just stopped making this offensive and wrong-headed allegation. There are real issues here with the two users and I hate to see them obscured with a non-issue like this. It's your call now, and I won't give further warning beyond this and what I've already said on your talk page. --John (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Like John (talk · contribs), I'm happy to own any block that Alansohn is given at this point, and I will block him myself if this behavior continues. This isn't a matter of an "involved" admin abusing her authority. This is a matter of many people telling Alansohn to knock it off. It's gone on long enough, and needs to stop. Ideally, it will stop without blocks (perhaps it already has). MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• For reasons I cannot comprehend, User:AndyTheGrump is apparently unblockable, no matter how despicably offensive his personal attacks continue to be. I've called a spade a spade, and I've provided multiple encyclopedic sources showing that his repeated use of the adjective "Jew" in "Jew-tagging troll" is patently offensive and derogatory. I can rest assured that if AndyTheGrump is unblockable for his calling another editor "a Jew-tagging bigot", that I have absolutely nothing to be concerned about. I've more than made my point, so I'm finished, but I'll offer all of you three AndyTheGrump options to choose from: "Put up, or shut up" or "fuck off elsewhere". Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I can't believe it. Don't you read or reply to anything anybody tells you, ever? "Jew" is not used as an adjective in "Jew-tagging troll". The grammar of the thing matters. Talk about

IDHT. Time to take your bad faith off my page. Go embarrass yourself somewhere else. Shoo. Bishonen | talk

21:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

A spade???? As Alansohn is clearly referring to Andy using an offensive term for a black person, they should be blocked for personal attacks. NE Ent 23:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Applying even a tiny bit of thought to Alansohn's assertions reveals the elephant in the room: Andy's comment was reported at ANI and within a short period the discussion turned to topic banning the person bringing the complaint, and an insignificant number of commentators supported a sanction against Andy. There are two explanations for the discrepancy between the facts at ANI and the assertions by Alansohn—either the large readership of ANI are antisemitic or stupid, or Alansohn is completely wrong. It's fine to be wrong occasionally, but it is irritating to see it accompanied with such arrogance. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Amen. Everything Alan writes makes my assertion look more and more accurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• @John: Hi, thank you. When I saw your post above, I was just typing up a double-barrelled ANI proposal for blocking Alansohn or alternatively placing a community interaction ban between him and AndyTheGrump, reluctantly, because I'd rather not blow up the ANI thread further and waste people's time with another round. I'll thankfully take you up on your offer instead. You're welcome to take over the actual blocking, too, if the attacks should continue. The examples Alansohn has offered of me and Andy being cosy are pathetic IMO, and morally I wouldn't hesitate to block him, but it would no doubt lead to another Argument Clinic chapter on ANI. @Alansohn: You seem very entrenched too, but I can't believe you'll continue past this point, after all the explanations you've been given. Please stop with the baseless attacks, and we can all go back to more useful work. In any case, I won't argue with you further, because your put-on incomprehension of my good-faith suggestion of a voluntary interaction ban has finally disabused me of the notion that there's any point in it. Thank you too, Johnuniq and Lukeno94, I appreciate it. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

My view Alan's long post about "Jew" being used as a pejorative, be it noun, verb, adjective resonates with me. Watching this spat unfold on BLPN, and not knowing the history between these two, I wasn't sure if bus stop was pro/anti Jewish. And Andy's use of "Jew-tagging troll" was and is unpleasant to read. I will assume he wasn't being antisemtic, as Alan should have done, but I'm certain he was being confrontational. I found the overuse inappropriate, in the same manner if referring to the character from Huck Finn as "Nigger Jim" more than once in a literary discussion would be inappropriate. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In the same way as that, really? I don't see it as being within shouting distance of that. Andy wasn't using "Jew" as a pejorative, he was using "Jew-tagging" as a pejorative. You've posted twice now on this page about how you basically don't see the difference; I'm sorry. The way I look at it, Andy used the word "Jew-tagging" very repetitiously in that post as a meta-comment on the thing he was complaining about: Bus stop's massive and insistent overuse, for years of the various "Jewish" category tags. I thought it was rhetorically effective, but YMMV. Andy acknowledges in his long post above that "with hindsight, it [=the word "Jew-tagging"] was clearly capable of being misunderstood - though I have to suggest that this 'misunderstanding' seems to be based largely on wanting to see the phrase in the worst possible light." I too think it's largely based on that, and I think Alansohn is making it very obvious on this page that that's what his reading is based on. I don't believe that's the basis of your misunderstanding; I think you're going out of your way to be fair. But nevertheless, you do misunderstand. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

Cullen sums it up nicely on ANI. I have a thick skin for the most part, and I personally wasn't offended, I coud easily see how some people could be, sorry to be a nag. Have a nice weekend.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if Alansohn wants to call me involved--I like to think I'm involved with Bishonen, though thus far it's a purely platonic and long-distance affair. (Note the hyphen in the next-to-last word, a compound used adjectivally.) I also don't know if another editor is needed to support Bishonen's grammatical analysis (I only happen to teach advanced English grammar, as a byproduct of being a medievalist) but it is accurate. Alansohn, you can jump high or low but your version is simply incorrect. One might object to the word "Jew" being used in the first place, but that's neither here nor there. There is no evidence to support the claim that Andy is being a bigot, and calling him that is a personal attack: I trust that we won't see it again because if we do, the ownership of the block won't matter as much as there being a block in the first place. If anyone wants to go digging for diffs to support that Andy and I have a relationship, you'll find me saying on ANI, more than once, that I have on occasion disapproved strongly with their language; I may have threatened or supported a block once or twice. Now, I hope this is the end of it. I'll leave you with a picture of a real troll. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Platonic? Bishonen | talk 19:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC).

MadisonGrundtvig (talk · contribs), claims to be 14, is asking troubling questions about pedophilia. Rather than dragging the user to ANI, I thought bringing it here would be at least a little more discrete. And maybe you can come up with a more diplomatic notification than I might be able to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - I saw that too. Definitely needs diplomacy, and that ain't my strongpoint right now... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(Oh, what are you talking about, Andy?) Whereas I of course am famous for my tact? (You might as well ask Bishzilla.) I'm rather busy IRL, but I'll take a look when I can. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

Done. I really hope we can avoid ANI, it's not a popcorn issue. Bishonen | talk 12:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

I deeply apologize for all of this. I'm sorry that I got carried away. I'll try not to let it happen again! (I didn't know it was going to be this serious. I only thought I was asking a question.)

Anyway, I hope we can drop this from here. I want to keep working on Wikipedia now.MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, happy editing. Bishonen | talk 14:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

Use this section to register that this user has threaten to block you with his witty comment-section created by rico25new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rico25new (talk • contribs) 18:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but are you sure you didn't mean

powerpuff? Bishonen | talk

21:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

• +1. Bish has threatened all my powderpuffs. I don't know what she has against powderpuffs, but she sure likes threatening them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• ALL YOUR POWDERPUFFS ARE BELONG TO US. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I could make a good anthropological case^* for the powderpuff being a highly effective weapon to threaten the all-noise-and-bluster alpha males that cause so much of the trouble around here with.^** A clear challenge to their masculine identity, far more effective than threats of blocks, or even threats of being beaten around the head with a volume from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.^***

^*Anthropology is useful for this sort of discussion. You can use it to argue almost anything.

^**That sentence needs sending to the Language Reference Desk I suspect. Up with such convolutions my readers' shouldn't have to put...

^***The eleventh edition is recommended, in that it is now in the public domain.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• A powderpuff? Sounds quite lovely actually. I'm jealous that Bish hasn't threatened me with one.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Be sure to stick with the conventional variety, and keep your distance from the dreaded Killer Powderpuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, me too. There's nothing I like better than a good powderpuff when I'm feeling a bit down. Deb (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Eh,

"powder-puff" ????? Hafspajen (talk

) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dah i just got carried away with my page being deleted and others telling me it was marketing ;/ neways sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rico25new (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite all right, Rico, don't worry about it. You may blank this section if you want. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Editors matter? Incidentally, while I agree in general, there is simply no other adequate term than Diva for some users. NE Ent 21:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Just look at this [33] don't you think that's completely disgraceful? Never again will I give Wikipedia a single image! Bugger them.  Giano  08:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we go start a fork of the encyclopedia where content contributors are welcomed and crazy people are banned? Here it's the wrong way around. Jehochman ^Talk 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons wants closing down. Comes here, thieves images and then insults those who uploaded them. It obviously couldn't give an 'F' about copyright only how many it can acquire.  Giano  09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha, drama at Commons! Popcorn! Dear

Blue Code of Silence on Wikipedia too (fresh example here), but Commons does seem to make it bit of a specialty, I'm sure you remember other cases, where the problem was the opposite (i.e. admins who shall remain nameless insisting on deleting your self-created architectural photos on equally puzzling grounds). Sorry I wasn't around, not that I could have done much—I'm pretty green at Commons, too, and don't have tools there. Great work by Nikkimaria, RexxS, and PumpkinSky! And did you see Fæ's comment about how straightforward the desysopping process is at Commons, unlike Wikipedia? Interesting. But straightforward or not, it's probably not worth the bother. Bishonen | talk

14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

Yes, Rex, PS, Nikkimaria and DrK did a good job. Well we shall see how easy a desysopping is there, and if any of that site's editors care enough about it to put it to the test. It seems that Admins there do not have to have basic English and that tools are dispensed on request like lollipops. In the meantime, until it puts its house in order, we must all stop uploading images until that thieving place is told it can't take them, delete them here and then insult the original uploaders. Just once in a while, a little bit gratitude to those creating this project would not go amiss. What really makes me angry is that one can edit a wikipedia page [34] only to find it's not a Wikipedia page, one's IP is exposed (because one's logged into Wikipedia not Commons) and then one's blocked by some adolescent on Commons for doing so who is talking to you on you inadvertantly shown IP page [35] How can they explain that? It's nothing more than a common con, suppose I had been editing from my office or home? as it was their geolocate gave a false bloody location - where the F is Chinnor? Other editors must be warned about it.  Giano  14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've always found the ostensible Wikipedia image pages which state "this is a file from the Wikimedia Commons" and which often don't actually exist as Wipipedia pages to be rather unaccountable, and certainly unmanageable. Good job it wasn't an important IP that was outed. When I think about it, darling, you should have a unified login or whatever it's called. I don't understand these matters, but I'm sure some hint hint kind talkpage stalker does. Somebody asked me on IRC if I wanted one, I merely replied "yes, why not", and now I'm logged in wherever I go — Commons, Danish Wikipedia, WikiNews, anything. If I look up a word in Wiktionary, there I am again, logged in. Looking in my preferences, I'm told that "Your account is active on 52 project sites." Ha! :-D Not bad! You could be, too! Bishonen | talk 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

SUL.
 — Berean Hunter (talk)

15:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean, but it looks kind of complicated. The beauty of the process in my case was I didn't have to lift a finger, or possibly merely tick a box or sign somewhere when the kind IRC person told me to. No reading m:Help:Unified login or Special:MergeAccount was involved, thankfully. Oh, hey, in case, somebody fixes this for Giano: Darwinbish would also like a unified login. She gets around. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

I never intend visiting the filthy place again, so it's not necessary, but I would like them to oversight this page [36] which I was tricked into editing by blatent dishonesty.  Giano  16:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In the Darwinbish account, choose Preferences and the link Manage your global account...it should be easy from there. I can't see the options that lie beyond that since mine is already done. @Giano, you may want the SUL because it prevents someone else from usurping your name on any of the wikiprojects and not just Commons.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Good God, just look at lies this Amdmin tells there [37], can you beleive it? That loathsome site will do anything to keep an image, even if it doesn't have the copyright. It really does need closing down, and is he desysopped yet? - I should bloody cocoa.  Giano  18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: Jcb was previously desysoped (a previous attempt was not successful) and just had his tools returned in 2013. Эlcobbola _talk 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting, Elcobbola. Wow, that undeletion request and the way it's phrased would have been wikicide for an admin if it was here, but I know little about the internal workings of Commons. Here is where we all mumble "different culture" and look away. Or, well, in a way Jcb's frank vitriol is refreshing when one is used to the ubiquitous mealy-mouthed Wikipedia passive aggression. (I believe that's something we do to encourage more female contributors. Yep.) Bishonen | talk 19:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

P.S. I see Giano has taken this to Jimbo's page now. Good idea. Not that it's Jimbo's bailiwick, exactly, but he may be interested, and it may get more eyes that way. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

Well I just feel sorry for poor Eva Rosebery, while I would never have died my hair that shade of red (all though it might suit you Mrs Bishonen), it was bad eough for the poor woman having to have her lovely home sold up, without loads of rabble gawping and photographing the spectacle - probably one of those dradful brothers of Giano took the photograph. I'm surprised Giano posted it in the first place, but the dear boy always tries to please everyone, but I truly blame James Callaghan and his bolshevik principles. I said to him (Giano that is), tell dear Mr Wales about it; he will come with his shining sword upright and helmet aplombed and solve the problem. How lucky we are to have a true knight in shining armour amongst us. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 2:32 pm, Today (UTC−5)

• Thank you elcobbola, so let me get this straight, this disreputable project has an an admin that it knows behaves in this fashion - desysops him and then five minutes later hands him backs his tools and is now sitting idly by doing nothing while he behaves in a similar fashion. The temptation is to sit on one's hands and let him take this foul, thieving project to its ultimate conclusion.  Giano  20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, approximately two years is rather longer than five minutes, but the point remains that this user has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of competence. As Fae mentioned, the deadmin process is clear and open to everyone; that might be a more productive course than hand sitting. I might recommend dispensing with the "disreputable" vitriol. A volunteer's actions are at issue here; comments about a greater project unnecessarily (and detrimentally, if you seek not to alienate) antagonize the wrong entity. Besides, en.wiki has been (and is) equally careless. Эlcobbola _talk 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, not me; I'm staying away from the place and so will everyone else with a grain of sense. But it should be made clear when one is editing here and when one is editing there. There currently seems to be a very fine line between Heaven and Hell or should that be Sodom and Gomorrah.  Giano  21:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Turn the spotlight on

I have just been over to Commons to see if they have dealt with their wayward Admin, and do you know, it's quite extraordinary; they think we have imagined his previous misconduct and desysopping - naturally, I have informed them otherwise [38]. However,I am suddenly reminded of Wikipedia six or seven years ago, ruled by a clique on IRC - do you remember you were a .... (I won't repeat the term) and I was even worse (although, at Commons, I'm allowed to be called a liar). Basically, anyone not in the clique was victimised, anyway, we solved that. But what seems now worse worse, at Commons, they fail to see that if it were not for people like us, they wouldn't even exist; I think this needs to be addressed - what do you think?  Giano  08:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

[/me nostalgically recalls what she was called on IRC. Ah, the old days!] You mean as in doing work? :-( I dunno, honey. It was shocking, but perhaps not more so than this very recent Wikipedia case. Or perhaps a little more, in that the newbie-biting aspect was absent in the Wikipedia case. But you notice the similarities, such as the shoring-up involvement of a second admin. And, significantly, there was a lot more attention and indignation on Commons; very few people commented in the ANI thread. Knowing the ropes here, I know there won't be a desysop unless and until there's more. Not knowing the internal workings of Commons, I'd be inclined to defer to Fæ's advice here: "should problems with their use of sysop tools arise during 2014, a de-admin vote is quite likely to be created and this case will not be easily forgotten by us". You'll recall that Fæ was very helpful throughout. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

No one is denying that some have been helpful; what does seem a pity is that there seems to be no action taken against he who have not been helpful, or indeed any censure at all. I think you are forgetting that I was blocked there, and had I not complained here would have remained blocked there. This convinces me that Commons, if it's not to be closed down, Commons needs to be ruled from here not there. After all, if it were not for us, Commons editors (do they edit?) would have no images with which to amuse itself.

However, some good has come of this - I am now alert to the problems and in a frame of mind to tackle them, and that's good news! That we can be fooled into thinking we are editing pictures on Wikipedia (when we have uploaded those pictures to Wikipedia) when we are, in fact, editing Commons cannot be acceptable practice. Especially, bearing in mind the Amin standards there, and management fall very far below what is expected of acceptable.

We also need to have the 'Keeplocal' template made inviolate and a new template forbidding re-uploads to Commons at all - this will give the uploader, who is kindly donating (let's not forget kindly donating) his work a choice of to whom he wishes to donate it. This at present we don't have. I think this will do for a start.  Giano  16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

talkstalk sez... Giano, although I'm not as familiar with the image-upload-procedures as with the prose of articles, my understanding is that the copyright-license-selection cannot be tweaked in the way you suggest. There are plenty of people who (a common case over the years) have wanted to upload imagefiles and/or textdata which is "for non-commercial use only" ... but this restriction is incompatible with

WP:NFCC which only applies to enWiki and not commons, but not that much wider. I don't think a special "license to only enWiki not commons" license-option will fly. In any case, sorry to hear about your bad experience, it doesn't sound like a picnic. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk

) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think 74 is right here. The license that one requires to donate things to Wikipedia prevents license-based limitations on reuse, such as "Don't put this on Commons". As an uploader, you can ask for nobody to upload your donated image to Commons, but given the license you released it under (which enables free modification and reuse as long as it's attributed and placed under the same requirements as the original), you would still be "allowing" them to do so. Anything else would have to be uploaded as a non-free fair use file, which has its own issues. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Nonsense! It's quite possible to give something/anything to a body without signing over all rights. President Obama dishes out photographs of himself to the good, great and faithful for display in their living rooms, but the copyright does not go with the photograph. This debate is all becoming a little fractured - I have posted my thoughts here [39].  Giano  18:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Of course it's possible for you to release it, but Wikipedia wouldn't accept that release as an image uploaded freely, and would have to apply
  WP:NFCC to it (meaning, among other things, it has to meet all the non-free criteria, minimal use, a separate rationale for each page it's used on, no use outside the main article space allowed, etc. etc.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔
  18:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• These 'laws' are not engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. Without us, there is no Foundation - never forget that.  Giano  18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• True, the WMF depends on content-contributors (which includes image-uploaders), and volunteer editors/admins/artists/etc. But wikipedia is for the ages.
  Wansui
  . Digitized prose does not rot. Digitized imagefiles do not decay. Freedom to use, modify, share, and so on: those freedoms matter. Permitting proprietary-imagefiles on enWiki only-when-absolutely-needed is a judgement call; NFCC is meant for corporate logos. If we were to allow the places that want to retain commercial copyright-control over imagefiles to start uploading whatever they wanted tomorrow, would we have a lot more imagefiles? Sure! Same situation: if we were to allow spammers that want to upload whatever they wanted tomorrow, would we have a lot more articles about products, BLPs, and organizations? Sure!

  In the second scenario, would all the spam hurt the encyclopedia? Yup. Along the same lines, in the first scenario, would the loss of freedoms hurt the encyclopedia? Well, that's a bit of a tricky question. So cut to the chase: would accepting proprietary-imagefiles en masse, and thus losing the freedom to share/mod/remix/use/etc those imagefiles without explicit permission from the

WP:OWNer

, hurt the readership in the next few years, and in the next few hundred years? Absolutely yes; more images, in exchange for less freedoms, is a bad trade. Especially when the images are gonna be *elsewhere* on the internet, so in fact the trade is more-conveniently-centralized-images for less freedoms. HTH.

  p.s. That does not mean we should give up on fixing Commons; we *should* fix Commons, and I have some ideas. All I'm saying, is that we need to fix Commons without compromising the freedoms of future generations of our readership.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm convinced that calling out admin abuse can only make the relations between admins and non-admin content contributors ("peons") less fraught, not more. Is it OK you're one of my personal heroines?! I'd like to think you'll be around WP for a long, long time. (Please wash your hands frequently, I hear there's 'a false dichotomy' goin' around, and I think that requires stomach surgery.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to a true

dickotomy?—Odysseus1479

06:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

[/me blushes, plucks at her skirt.] Thank you, Ihardlythinkso. Good one, Odysseus. Bishonen | talk 11:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

That's silk, isn't it? Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. It's much appreciated.Zabadu (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for the edit to my talk page (Kumioko). Its no big deal, if someone wants the satisfaction of being the one to add the banned editor template to my talk page they can have it, its not that big of a deal at this point since its a sure thing. 67.237.217.106 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: I'm moving this section down to pole position and will shortly reply to Livingengine1's recent post. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC).

Hello. Can you respond at his talk page? I have a little inquiry about the rationale behind this one-sided block. --Pudeo' 15:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bishonen, I am still waiting for an explanation from you for your accusation that I am "POV pushing", and that you will act against me on this basis. Can you explain what you mean by saying I am "POV pushing"? I don't think I am doing any such thing. Also, please stop accusing me of sockpuppetery when you have no evidence for this. I am asking you to stop your harassment and threats. Livingengine1 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't you tell the difference between an accusation and a civil question, Livingengine? Yes, I did accuse you of POV-pushing here and here, see below. No, I did not accuse you of sock-puppetry, I merely asked whether an IP who posted on your page fuming about Roscelese and my block (favorite themes of yours) were in fact you. It seemed worth a question, especially since you had already posted from different IPs here and here, without any acknowledgement then or later. You don't seem particularly careful about logging in.

As for the POV-pushing, I'll give you a couple of examples of misuse of sources. But note that I'm not going back to your page and entering into further argument with you, at least not until you actually read in good faith a few of the policies you keep referring to, and make some attempt to benefit from the advice of more experienced Wikipedia editors.

1. Here, you introduce for the first time a statement that you subsequently edit war to keep in the article: "Breivik has since confessed that he is a neo-Nazi, and that his atrocity was designed to discredit the counter jihad movement." The source you give, respected Swedish anti-racist magazine Expo, describes a letter that Breivik sent from prison to several international media. Google translation here Swedish original article here The Google translation is naturally pretty confusing — wasn't there anything about Breivik's letter and his supposed "confession" in international media? (As a Swedish speaker, I could supply a clearer translation of the sentences from Expo you apparently rely on, but that of course would be my original research.) Anyway, the distancing scare quotes round "counterjihadistisk" and "ethno-nationalist" are in Expo's original text, and are only one of the ways in which the magazine distances itself from Breivik's prison letter statements. The source by no means says that Breivik has confessed anything — that's your own addition. Expo does not adopt Breivik's claims and relay them in the magazine's voice. But you want Wikipedia to do that? To speak uncritically in Breivik's voice and pass on his supposed confession, unmediated? You're referring to a reliable source, the magazine Expo, but you're abusing it.

2. You have also several times removed the second part of the sentence "He [Breivik] cited Spencer's writings 64 times and at length in his anti-Muslim manifesto, and he wrote that he was inspired by Geller" (the bit after the comma), as well as the citation to Heidi Beirich's essay "Hate across the waters",[40] (thus incidentally leaving the statement about Spencer's writings, which is also in Beirich, unreferenced). In edit summaries and later on your page, you offer the justification that the source, "contained erroneous material, Breivik inspired by Geller. This is not supported by citation offered, and is in violation of WP;NPOV, and WP;BLP". In other words, you argue with Heidi Beirich's essay and its statement that "Along with Spencer, Breivik also drew inspiration from anti-Muslim blogger and close Spencer ally Pam Geller" and offer in its place your own reading of Breivik's manifesto — if I understand your arguments on your own page rightly. I don't see you actually quoting Breivik's manifesto anywhere, maybe you're going by what you've seen somebody else say about it, I have no way of knowing — shrug. Please just try to grasp my main point: you yourself are not a reliable source, and your readings of primary sources such as Breivik's manifesto do not trump Heidi Beirich's.

The harassment: My harassment? You're scattering attacks and assumptions of bad faith around you like a lawn sprinkler. Better adopt a less confrontational tone before somebody blocks you for

personal attacks, another policy I recommend you to read. Bishonen | talk

19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC).

Adding a P.S. "Nevertheless, Roscelese enlisted the aid of WP admin Bishonen to have me blocked for edit warring." Nice attack there from the lawn sprinkler, Livingengine. How did Roscelese "enlist" me, pray?

Echo notification (you can see how I link Roscelese above, to make sure she doesn't miss my request for whisky), or by a little FYI note on their pages. Please consider it. Bishonen | talk

22:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC).

• Yes, whiskey will be fine, with or without that "e". Drmies (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Our messages crossed. I wish our dinner plans did. Also, I'm crushed, I just learned. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh I was crushed again. I tried, but I just don't know Wikipedia well enough. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, frequently maligned and abused. Or, maligned because of the abuse, since what's being done to the lowly but honorable batata in order to concoct sweet potato pie should be punishable by law. But allow me to break a lance for this tuber, with two suggestions.

a. roast it. Roasting makes Brussels sprouts almost edible, and cubed and roasted sweet potatoes are just real good eats.

b. steam it and mash it with butter. Make two batches: one for the kids, with brown sugar and cinnamon (see "abuse", above), and one for the adults, with (chipotle) hot sauce, the hotter the better.

Much love to you, and much hate to cabbage, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

re: [41]. Ah, I see. I did look at the edit history but I think I must have gotten confused, I thought it was added by someone else. Fair enough, if s/he wants that template, it's her user talk space, indeed. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't mention it. :-) Of course it was added by an IP... It's certainly confusing, but that was K. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bish, today was kind of interesting. I shall sleep very well, thank you, but I was surprised to learn about an interesting world of heretofore unknown discretionary sanctions. No hard feelings toward you, just letting you know that. However, a side issue that popped into my mind during the drama on my talk page was that we may have a situation where someone might very well be valiant in dedication to confronting and challening truly fringe topics (creationism comes to mind), for which they might rightly be commended. Yet, at the same time, in their zealotry and extreme dedication to a pure form of belief (such as calling psychoanalysis a pseudoscience) they might also go over the top enough in their advocacy and promotion of their viewpoint (however accurate) that maybe they should quietly be advised by their friends and supporters on ways to dial it back a bit and not be quite so quick to go on the personal attack. Perhaps they do not see their own behavior as bullying?? As my own involvement today (and your view of my involvement) indicates, such actions tends to draw the same type of energy back at them. Are they truly that surprised and hurt that their actions were seen as such, or is their shock and outrage an expression of mere crocodile tears? (theoretical question, you don't need to answer) For me, that user's attacks on Ched/Chedzilla were really over the top, the comments they drew from Olive were simply accurate statements of what was going on at the time, and it concerns me that this doesn't seem to be acknowledged or understood. Now, perhaps there is more to this individual than I know, and there may be circumstances that are no one's business on-wiki that may nonetheless provide some grounds for the compassion and vigorous defense of him that I witnessed today, (I do not think it appropriate for me to seek any answer to that question as the individual wants me to leave him alone and I am attempting to do so by chatting here) but nonetheless, there is a toxicity afoot that I quite sincerely believe emanates from said individual, and tends to be directed with unneeded vitriol, exaggeration, and distortion towards me or those I support. It troubles me that such battle lines were drawn. I sincerely view this individual as I do due to my own observations and experiences. I am likewise surprised that one of the nicest and most sincere people I have ever met on wikipedia is viewed with such a jaundiced eye as some sort of antichrist. I feel, personally, that recent wikipedia decisions, notably from the old Arbcom, learn toward the bullies, who win too often, and that innocent scapegoats are being created out of what truly are very minor "sins" of caring about a topic. Something just feels very, very amiss here. I'm curious to better understand your thoughts on the matter, though if you don't care to discuss further, we can also just shake hands and part friendly. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot more ways to be wrong than right, and Wikipedia is a sitting duck for every crackpot on the planet to push their favored view, from bigfoot (not much lately, but in the past, editors have even pushed that) to cold fusion (any day now, free energy will gush from a breakthrough that rewrites the fundamental laws of physics). There are a never-ending stream of "good faith" editors who can easily cherry pick factoids to promote a fringe view—try resisting that for a couple of years and consider how you might react. By the way, the problem with infoboxes is that those who favor them honestly cannot see the other side's point of view—that is a genuine dilemma where some good editors like them, and some good editors do not like them on certain articles. Arbcom cannot resolve that because there is no solution other than to arbitrarily choose one side and thoroughly piss-off the other. Fringe stuff is a different kind of problem because the alternatives are to firmly reject non-evidence based editing, or to give in and let junk peddlers take over the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure that the superficial problem with infoboxes is that those who abhor them honestly cannot see the other side's point of view - and the underlying problem is they can only see the issues as "like them" or "do not like them". In addition, I'm absolutely certain that I can see both points of view - but then again, we all believe that, don't we? The solution is actually to debate the issues in good faith with the intention of finding a consensus, but that's not an option for anyone so invested in their position that they are afraid of "losing the debate". Now ask yourself who's trying to encourage debate and who's trying to stifle it? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh trust me, Johnuniq, I've been here since 2006 and even in my normal corner of horse land, there are plenty of whacky things I'm sick of (just the Exmoor pony thing today, one more person claiming their breed is the "pure since the Ice Age" one -- probably ridden by Bigfoot too!); plus a regular drumbeat of creationists at the horse evolution article and a herd of animal rights activists often popping by assorted rodeo and horse racing articles. I DO get that part. You are right about crackpots. But this wasn't an infobox drama, it was a different drama - it's all collapsed on my talk page with links, if anyone is interested enough to look at it. My point here is not to support fringe editing (the situation giving rise to the drama was clearly a fringe editor), the problem was when it started getting personal - I got myself sucked into that vortex, but I am over here chatting about it because I still am shaking my head about the inconsistency that was applied, one individual was allowed to attack others, but I and another person were not permitted to respond, plus I was warned and threatened in a manner I considered vastly out of proportion, which was extremely weird. The only tie-in to the infobox issue is a similar concern that one side was labeled, while the other, who behaved, in my view, with even greater bullying and unkind, un-AGF behavior, was patted on the head and allowed to continue their ownership behavior. The inconsistency does bug me. Montanabw^(talk) 07:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a universal human trait that our own bullying smells of roses, I suppose. That's what the proverb about the mote in your neighbour's eye is about, that you recommended to Wolfie yesterday. A good example would be your wild accusation, also yesterday, that he was blocked for outing. You didn't retract or go check when he objected, but instead hinted that you were probably, somehow, still right-ish — that he must sort of have been blocked for outing. "OK, the exact wording of the one thing was 'IRWolfie is indefinitely banned from speculating in any way upon the real-life identity of any editor in the transcendental meditation area, broadly construed, except that concerns about such may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee.' A bit later, you were blocked for three months."[42] Talk about spreading "toxicity". I hope the note in the block log, which I put there, makes it quite clear that Wolfie's only block ever has been self-requested. Please take a look before you go flinging any more mud about it. (If you hadn't seen the log entry yesterday, may I ask how you knew he'd been blocked at all? Some vague yet instantly convincing gossip from a trusted chum, that didn't happen to mention the "self-requested" part?) How can you talk like that and not apologize when you get the facts? (Here you got them.) It's fucking baffling. To save you

changing the subject away from yourself and on to the misdeeds of others again, let me say that of course Wolfie's attack on Ched three months ago was over the top and very nasty. Since you cherish the diff for that incident, you may have noticed I told him so at the time.[43] So did Drmies.[44]

That said, I can totally understand how it happened that Wolfie finally snapped, or exploded, under Ched's over-the-top block threats, piled as they were on top of Olive's campaign. Admins are in a position of power and need to put some sharp thought into how they use that position, and to look at the facts — being well-meaning is not enough. Also, Wolfie's explosion was three months ago. Your own yesterday posts were just yesterday.

Let's part friendly by all means, if by that you mean you don't post on my page and I don't post on yours, at least for the present. I don't think I'll be in the mood for it for some time. In the interest of "friendly", perhaps you won't mind removing the comic template I wrote — the Shakespeare insults — from your edit notice. (It doesn't work there, anyway, as I expect you've noticed.) And if the above was your best shot at leaving Wolfie alone — cannily referring to him as "said individual" and talking about toxicity, vitriol, exaggeration, distortion — you're not doing a great job of it. Try not discussing him at all. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC).

Olive's campaign? Bishonen you have no idea what is going on. None. I have no campaign, no agenda, no hate for anyone. My fault is that I too took to long to see what was happening to me and to others. Will I retaliate, no. Maybe some day the whole story will be known, but until then I am trying my best to make sure that other editors, whether they deserve or need bans or not, will have some voice no matter how feeble. While I think the editor Wolfie was looking to sanction indefinitely on the recent AE was not innocent, I thought also there was precedent being set for wording in sanctions that had no basis in policy. I did not address Wolfie and in fact agreed with him in my very short request to clarify and delineate the language describing the reason for the sanction not the sanction itself. What I got back was a personal attack and a deliberate muddying of the water about me and my motives. How you or Sandstein can't see that is beyond comprehension. Also, since Wolfie brought up topics which I am not allowed to discuss, had I said anything in front of Sandstein to try and defend myself against Wolfie's comments mentioning those topics, I'm sure there would have been an effort to have my sanction extended as there has been in the past.

I have always wanted to apologize for jumping when you came onto my talk page to complain about an award I'd made. I overreacted but was feeling a bit raw from the recent AE nor was I in a place to explain why I had done what I did. And truthfully your sarcasm was pretty surprising. I realize that from your comments here you are entrenched in your view and I have no desire to try and change it. With time I could put together a case to support my comments but who really cares and I have no time to spend on constantly trying to combat the false narratives built up about me nor the actions taken against me; dwelling on them poisons life. I will not post here again. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC))

By "part friendly" I just meant that we can drop the stick, bury the hatchet, or whatever. You are free to post on my talk page if you wish. Other than your last post yesterday, I have viewed our past interactions as productive, and I believe I even received holiday greetings from one of your small ankle-biters. I love your insult spout and it generates fresh insults at initial load, but if it's a problem for you on my edit notice, I shall respect your wishes and remove it from there. But humor on wikipedia is in startlingly short supply; You may also recall that I was a strong supporter of your WP:WADR project as well. Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the rest, I acknowledge I made an assumption that Wolfie was blocked for his attempts to determine another user's identity (which he was warned against somewhere) and I erred in not checking his block log. That's fair enough, and I shall be more careful in the future. That said, I guess we simply must agree to disagree about "said individual;" it appears that we will not convince the other. So in the spirit of AGF, I'll drop it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, you have probably overlooked this, but Bishonen specifically asked if you would mind removing the Shakespearean insult generator template that she wrote from your talk page. This seems like an entirely reasonable thing to ask, especially when one of the bitey things in her sock drawer could simply have done it for her. Since it seems to be important enough for her to ask, it would be a nice gesture for you to remove it. —Neotarf (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, Neotarf, she asked I remove it from my EDIT NOTICE, noting that it didn't work quite right there anyway. And I did. It's also been on my talk page for months, I love it, I think it's hilarious. Oh, and Bish, I forgot to mention that I was aware Wolfie was blocked because yes, someone mentioned it somewhere... Then during the recent AE drama, he himself noted it, commenting that he couldn't have been baiting the fringe user he reported because he was blocked at the time. Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so sorry, I still don't see the edit, but if the Bish tribe is happy, then I'm happy.

That said, I do think Sandstein is within his rights to ask for diffs in this particular situation, and I don't think your link to a closed discussion quite qualifies. As far as requiring such a thing to be posted in advance, I'm still scratching my head on that one. If the AE requires more information to process an action, or if for some technical reason the request is not formatted correctly, I should think they would have the courtesy to request the missing information.

—Neotarf (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW...I protest that we are still caught up in the 20th century denialism over the existence of Bigfoot! I see him everyday dangnamit!--MONGO 19:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... does he ride a unicorn normally? --

talk

) 20:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No! He rides Shadowfax!--MONGO 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, according to another drama from yesterday, I think Bigfoot rides the Exmoor pony, which, as someone tried to claim, has been "bred pure since the Ice Age".  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen

Anonymous users are again vandalizing this

Best, Borek. Borek 9 (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Borek. I've semiprotected for a month. You certainly didn't do anything wrong in asking me, and I was around to take care of it, but another time you might get quicker attention if you post on the

Requests for protection page. It's more regularly watched than individual admin pages. Thanks for looking after the article. Bishonen | talk

11:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC).

.

	Happy Valentine's Day
	............................................................................................................................................................................ Hafspajen (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Awwwwwww! That hit my sweet tooth like a nuclear warhead! Bishonen | talk 07:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC). Hafspajen (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of a short semi-protection at Arvind Kejriwal? It is a contentious BLP article and, per my note here, we have a news situation. A few hours should be sufficient because we'll likely get TV interviews with him by then. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? I don't see any problems so far. It's true the edit summary "I'm reliable sources" was a little worrying… but I see on talk it was an accident. :-) Sorry, I'm a little dubious about semi on the present showing. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Kind tps, you too, please! Bishonen | talk 17:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

Hi, in response to your question, admins are not normally authorized to impose non-block sanctions such as interaction bans on their own. Bans can normally only be imposed by the Arbitration Committee or the community, see

Thanks. The paperwork surrounding DS could be one reason so few admins venture into it. But in this case it's admittedly easier than seeking consensus in an ANI discussion, because that's work. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

You probably have seen

I was just checking it out, Doug. That post is very offensive — "ask what administrative rule may I invoke to pervert truth", forsooth, besides the repeated accusation of vandalism — but it was the user's first post after your NPA warning. So they may well not have seen the warning until after they saved, and the notification came up. Their second post on ANI came after they must have seen the warning (or certainly have had a good opportunity to see it, anyway), and, despite the "encyclopedic style nazis" and "objectively vandalism", it's not as offensive. In the second ANI post, the guy reasons, and has possibly taken on board the warnings ("objectively vandalism" sounds a little like an explanatory response to your warning). So, no, I'd hold off if I were you, and keep a lookout (as will I). Possibly theyre learning the local culture, and they're more likely to turn into a useful contributor without the shock of a block. Bishonen | talk 10:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, well, it didn't go well after all. I've blocked the user for 48 hours, see ANI.[46] Bishonen | talk 16:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

On the bright side, I got to watch Charlotte Kalla's remarkable come-from-behind win. The NBC commentator pointed out that it must be nice for the Swedes to stick it to the Norvegians, but I am sure that such vindictiveness is far, far from common among the generous Swedes. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Half the pleasure is how pissed the Norwegians are! As for your last-chance warning on ANI, that Bbb23 mentioned, [/me puts her dukes up, dances], c'mon, you want a piece of me, Drmies? You want a piece of me? [Whistles for Bishzilla.] Bishonen | talk 18:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

[Sssht! Message me on Facebook! Not here!] Haha, yes, and they are pissed, from what I understand. It's like the Dutch not winning gold in the 1500 meters (well, for boys). Oh, wait, we didn't--by 3/1000 of a second we lost to a Polish guy. The nerve! Drmies (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

More Swedish gold in the relay! Det var mycket bra! Drmies (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't, I'm bitter. I realized too late that I'd have to have TV3 to watch that stuff, which is pretty much the only sort of sports that I actually like to watch. :-( (Even alpine skiing leaves me cold.) Bishonen | talk 00:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

Sorry. Well, it was kind of exciting. Right now my kids are hoping no one beats Bode Miller's time in the Super-G. Amazing--three skiers behind him within 9/100 of a second. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha, Kjetil Sumpin-sumpin from Norway beat him. And they're better than y'all: in Norway it's on TV2, apparently. Not 3. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have somehow gotten myself involved in an edit dispute over the "Public image" section of the Amanda Knox artice and the article all together. I simply reverted user Overagainsts edit were he removed the entire section. Pointing out that he perhaps could bring it up at the talk page for consensus before removing a section which has been part of the article for a long time. I then stated that I was not taking a position for or against removing the section but simply wanted Overagainst to bring it up at the talk page. The user proceeded to basically asking my upfront what my opinion was and at that time I stated that I think the section should stay. A few other users has agreed with me but user Overagainst seems to really want the section or the entire article to go. I really do not care that much about the Knox article and I really do not care for endless meta-debates and I know that you are good at these kind of situations :) I might be totally wrong and the section should go but I want someone else to decide that. Atleast take a look, the discussion has also been brought to the BLP noticeboard by user Overagainst were for some reason the user has diminished user Mosfetfaser to some tabloid writer... Its a mess :). The bottom line is that user Overagainst seems more interested in being right than discussing the issue at a level of mutual respect. I have left the discussion from this point on as I can not be bothered being harassed and diminished. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(Babba, I don't think your edit summary when you removed the section was entirely as polite as it sounds when you describe it above. I can see how somebody would bristle at it.) Has it really been part of the article for a long time? From the history it looks like Rodericksilly added it a mere 17 hours before Overagainst removed it. Maybe I haven't dug deep enough, and it was there at some point further back. But anyway, the section is really sleazy, IMO. As somebody pointed out, the subject isn't a "professional celebrity" of the kind that thrives on being drooled over, so I don't think that section is even close to being right w r t the subject's privacy and, you know, dignity. I wouldn't fight for it. But thanks for the compliment, I'm so glad you think I'm good with sleazy stuff. :-P Bishonen | talk 00:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC).Bishonen | talk 00:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

I presume you noticed that he reverted your edit (as is his right) with an edit summary "fasciust" (sic). And just off a one week block too. If I weren't a number one target of his I'd probably have blocked him.

Thanks. Yes, I noticed, as we do, because

Echo pushes reverts in our faces. Odd, as T and I haven't even met previously. Complete strangers, so how did he know that about me? Anyway... one can in fact turn off getting pinged about reverts, in the Notification prefs. (I'm thinking of doing that.) Perhaps it's not a really great idea that it's on by default — it won't exactly lower the temperature of the place, you know? "You got reverted! What you gonna do about it? Are you CHICKEN? Signed, Echo." Bishonen | talk

22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

Of course, I forgot. Actually sometimes I see a revert and realise I was wrong, that's always useful to know. Other times it's vandalism, also useful. But optin might be better.

talk

) 06:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha, he reverted you too.[47] You're not a fascist, apparently, merely rolled back. Well, depending on what the Amharic edit summary means, but heck, even if it's something about your mother, do you care? Lobbing furtive insults is below pathetic. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

At

The reason I used iff rather than if was that I didn't want b to be overlooked. I wanted to emphasize b, because it's the important one in the context of a comparison between the user being banned, versus "merely" being indefblocked. I suppose I could in logic have stated only b, but I wanted to set the scene for it by allowing the more wiki-familiar a a look-in first. I'll go closer to your propositions, if you like: "if she's able to convince an admin..., then she'll be unblocked" and "if she's unblocked, then it must mean she has been able to convince an admin…". Not elegant, but same meaning as my a + b. No? Hit me! [/me puts up her dukes, dances. It's becoming a habit, see above.] Bishonen | talk 23:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

Some people think, when confronted with a problem, "I know, I'll use temporal logic." Now they have two problems.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha, yes. Temporary logic probably safer. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

[Darwinfish is impelled to dig into his stock of clichés] O tempora, o mores! darwin^fish 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

How about some Japanese tempora - I find that tasty too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ai-ya! My brain was temporarily (or should I say, temporally) confused! That's what I get for trying to figure out logic when half-asleep (and @Casliber: I'd like some tempura right now too ). So, it should have been "If she's able to convince an admin..., then she'll be unblocked" and "If she will be unblocked, she is able to convince an admin...", the second of which is I guess equivalent to "If she is being unblocked, she was able to convince..." and "If she was unblocked, she was able before that to convince..." - what am I even saying. Heh. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

哎呀, indeed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Doc James correctly pointed out that a diff didn't match its description; hence, Errors in evidence corrected. Also of interest may be talk page discussion: Re: Outside view by Jmh649 (Doc James). regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A month old, I know, but it's the same one from before as the IP address is identical in its first seven numbers. Could we block now? --38.105.132.130 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I've blocked the small range 88.81.159.160/29 for three months. What did you mean by "you developers"? Bishonen | talk 21:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

I hope you don't mind, I didn't want to distract the discussion so I thought leaving this here would be better. Although you may well be correct that I am speaking from a position if ignorance, as I am not all that familiar with this editor outside of the Arbcom disussion. She could be the antichrist for all I know. I also admittedly do not share all of her views. I do however think the choice to indefinitely block her for harassing Arbcom was extreme (if it was for other reasons I suspect it would have stated as such). I do however think she has some good points regarding several elements of arbitration and DS's. I would also add that Nina was not the only one silenced from the Arb discussions. Every editor who criticised the Arbitration DS review were banished. Her, me and 2 or three others. So regardless of whether I am fully aware of all of the intimate details with her participation in the project, the scenario and details of the situation are...sketchy to say the least....and do not portray the Arbcom in a positive luminescience. At the end of the day, I really do not have a dog in this fight (to use a Michael Vick reference). I am barely editing anymore and I foresee the WP project collapsing under its own weight within the next couple years (not tomorrow mind you) if some drastic steps aren't taken to fix some of the problems. So it really doesn't matter to me what the Arbcom does or doesn't do or if they block every editor that makes comments they don't like including me. I just don't have any respect for the project anymore, which is a shame, because I was once a strong advocate for it and held the project in high esteem. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it was for other reasons; your suspicion is misdirected. The supposed "spam" was merely the last straw. But I don't suppose you've read this ANI thread, or my comment in it? Don't bother, I know facts are nothing but a hindrance to free and creative commentary. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

I did actually and I vaguely remember the Arbcom case although I didn't get involved in it. I still don't think that her actions had elevated to indefinite block levels. Maybe at most 30 days, but even then, its extreme given the circumstances. Anyway, I'm not here to ruffle your feathers, I just don't agree considering that everyone who opposed the DS review have been run off so the Arbs can have their secret discussion. The arbs are supposed to prevent this type of block to send a message behavior not advocate it. Its just more evidence that the project has lost its way. Anyway, have a nice weekend. I have to go start my Friday night rushhour, hour and a half + drive home. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You cretins should be ashamed of yourselves.

Yeah, maybe I should have left Talk:Stop Islamization of America unprotected, it was a great honeypot for open proxies. But my talkpage will do just as well. Keep going and I'll block them one by one. You too can help make the internet a little cleaner! Bishonen | talk 02:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

PS, dear stalking admins, feel free to assist, as I'm going to bed now. 3 months is a good block time IMO. Please semi if it gets out of hand. Bishonen | talk 02:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

<Cake collection moved to Bishzilla's pocket. She already ate most of them anyway.>

Think and be nice. Hafspajen (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• [/me stares, round-eyed, at the sumptuous display.] And here I thought I had a good collection of sweets on my userpage! For once, there's enough so I can actually invite the naughty socks to tuck in. No, not you, Bishzilla! Maybe kind Hafspajen will post a really big cake just for you on your own page, wait and see..! If I want to leave all those on my page (and I do, you know!) I suppose I'd better archive the stuff above them, so the poor unfortunate Americans with crappy slow connections can load the page. Oh, and the poor dear Chinese network sharing devices likewise. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

AW, thanks for your kind words. IT IS A DEEP HONOR AND FRIVILEGE TO OFFER YOU ALL THESE NICE CAKES. Please make sure that you are not eating everything at the same time. And edit please Alexander Roslin. These are beautiful cake they all look like they were delicious. The lovely cakes are inspiring. Do you offer training? please reply Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Training in cake eating? Yes, I do. I give a small class in Bishzilla's pocket on Saturdays. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

P.S. Bishzilla has now posted the study materials (=your inspirational cake gallery) for the course in a new fridge in Poet's Corner, and the class is underway in this cosy venue as we speak.[48][49] Everybody welcome! Bishonen | talk 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Sumptuous, pictured, thanks for the offer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Reall nice. I might make a corner like that for myself. Gerda Arendt what on earth is somebody commenting on our jokes on your talkpage (userbox-whatewer?) Hafspajen (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

'Ha, all this cakes and have some Pumpkinpie. This is the Pumpkinpiethis is the dog. Hafspajen (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good afternoon; how pleasant to find an old acquaintance in my dovecot. How have you been these months or years?

For fogeyism, that was small potatoes. Try this œuvre (and my comment or perhaps fogeyish counterfogeyism).

Toodle pip! -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it bizarre what strange folks Wikipedia is comprised of, and what pet peeves they have? NE Ent 14:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha. What could be more enjoyable than eradicating "comprised of" from the face of the earth?? (Except in quotes, of course. But that was just a mistake.) Go, go, Giraffe! Anyway, I like Joefromrandb, I hope he took that in the spirit it was offered. I like old fogeys altogether, if it comes to that. Dear talkpage stalkers, let's not start a thread about linguistic pet peeves, it can get murderously dull very fast. Please have some cake instead, and note your opinions of Hafspajen's offerings here! Bishonen | talk 14:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Not all who think the behemoth was a dinosaur are young earth creationists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.228 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, then I understand better why you changed "some creationists" to "some humans". But such a minimal change of one word makes the sentence absurd, you know. You'd need to recast the whole sentence, because with the small change you made it sounds more like some humans, as opposed to some howler monkeys or some earthworms, believe the biblical Behemoth to be a sauropod. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

No offense to 107, but the "some humans" got me chuckling; it's like something our wikipedical Behemoth might say while expounding her expertise on the matter. In fact this whole thing looks like a setup for a Bishzilla-related joke, possibly including the Bishapod/Sauropod connection. I'll wait to see how this unfolds. vzaak 00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(Darwinbish goes to create her own long-heralded sock, little User:Behemoth). Pretty baby! (Tickles it under the chin.) Eat the humans! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 18:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

For protecting my talk page last night. You were indeed correct that I couldn't do it myself - I had enough difficulty writing the message I did. I do appreciate it. Worm^TT(talk) 11:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome, but what an asshole, huh? I recently got myself a tablet, and it's good for some stuff, but I'd hate to try to perform a protection from it. The touchscreen keeps pretending I've touched some erogenous zone or something, and does a flurry of stuff I didn't intend! And that, mark you, is good and big (10-inch screen) compared to a phone. It's made me love my huge desktop monitor and keyboard the size of Michigan (I got it for Bishzilla) even more. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

Typing on this Dell XPS-10 is not as nice as a real keyboard, but when the interface is properly designed even a screen the size of a hand can work. Eventually the design work will be done. Sometimes I use a stylus. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A right pain in the arse. I was merrily checking my emails yesterday evening and someone mentioned that my talk page had exploded - was rather surprised. As for the phone, it's all well and good zooming in and out, but pretty difficult to get to the right place at times. The erogenous zone problem would explain all the buzzing at least! I've always wondered how Bishzilla types, with those tiny arms and habit of breathing fire when annoyed... Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bishzilla? No, no. She's got the firebreathing under control nowadays and only breathes lightly on little users in a spirit of fun, to curl their hair or impart a tan. But it's a true pleasure to see the armless little darwinfishes dancing around from key to key on the family keyboards! Agile little buggers. (I use a stylus for the tablet nearly always, Jim.henderson. Darwinbish clearly wishes she could handle one too, but what can you do. She laughs too much to hold it in her mouth.) Bishonen | talk 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

Giano and others, could you please continue this on for example User talk:Giano? I'd rather not have any more of it here. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Bishonen -

I wanted to point out that it may have been a good thing you were asleep when Ed removed Giano's TPA. After Ed did so, Roger redid the same block, and made it clear that it was still an arbcom block. Even in the case of bad arbcom blocks, if an arb has put in a place a block that removes TPA from someone, modifying it would've been grounds for problems. I'm not meaning to be antagonistic in stating this - a lot of arbcom's actions have confused me over the last week and plenty of them I wish I could've reversed myself - I just wanted to point it out, because I actively don't want to see you desysopped. Kevin Gorman (talk)

Nice of you to say so, but I regret being asleep. I've always figured I wouldn't mind being desysopped in a good cause, and this one would have worked for me. Anyway, I don't believe it. Ed17 removed tpa, not Roger. Roger merely made sure everybody knew it was still an arbcom block. The fact that he didn't actively revert Ed 17's action isn't quite like he, Roger, had taken ownership of removing tpa, because you don't see him saying "do not modify the block without arbcom's consent", do you? No, he says "do not unblock with ArbCom's consent" (... uh? Yes, he says with, lol, I only just noticed. But I won't pursue that red herring.) Anyway, we could all have had a field day arguing about my desysopworthiness. This farce needs another act, surely. I'm credibly informed that both you and Giano have invested in the popcorn concessions. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

bzzt, Bish, it's pöpcørn --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, well. Hafspajen (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a real issue at stake here. We elect Arbitrators to resolve disputes, not to re-create themselves as super-admins. There was no reason whatsoever that the block on Giano should carry any greater weight than any other block to prevent edit-warring. What makes some of that crew so full of themselves that they think they get to impose blocks that may not be touched just

"because-we-say-so". Sod 'em; they need their noses rubbing into their mess so they realise how inept their high-handed treatment of others has become. --RexxS (talk

) 21:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally, Rex. I agree with you completely, so much so I most likely wouldn't have merely restored tps, but unblocked Giano, if I'd been around in time for it. That's what I meant when I wrote on Giano's page that the block was done in a provocative manner: it provoked probably not so much him (G is cooler than you may think) as me; it made my unblock finger itch retrospectively. If it had been made clear that GorillaWarfare meant to undo the block herself as soon as the case was closed, I guess I'd have left it alone even though the superadmin "consent" thing angered me; but it was, foolishly, made anything but clear. To quote myself: when the blocking admin doesn't let on what it'll take to be unblocked, "indefinite" doesn't in practice just mean "could be any time, who knows"; no, it smells to high heaven of "to be unblocked if and only if you apologise, admit your mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that you understand why exactly you were blocked and how right it was that you should be, and show remorse". So I might have unblocked, being as I am well aware that Giano wouldn't care to do even one of those things. To no practical advantage, of course; G would have been re-blocked and I desysopped faster than you could say Jack Robinson and perhaps even faster than I'd have a chance to warn Floquenbeam that he must recuse in the matter of my desysopping, lest it be seen as prejudicial that my sock has cybered with his. (Oh, Bishzilla! Oh, Floquenstein's monster! Bad freaks!) Anyway. I slept and it's all speculative. I missed my chance to go out in a blaze of glory and to put poor Floq on the spot. By the way, GorillaWarfare hasn't so far taken her chance to respond to me where I addressed her directly on Giano's page, so maybe not to either you or me here, either. But then she hasn't edited today, so perhaps we shall see. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

Is "to cyber with someone" really a verb now?

I was about to go all NYB on you, and talk about how I would talk about things in the general case but didn't want to get into specifics about a fellow Arb's actions. But GW seems capable of handling constructive criticism, she already knows that, contra Giano, I generally respect her judgment, and I dislike the thin blue line theory of Arb'ing. So, since you've pinged me (or is it pung me?), I'll comment and constructively criticize.

I'm not going to argue with a block of some kind; I wouldn't have done it, nor would I have tried to redact one insult out of the 50 that are still there, but I think I understand why she did it (out of a feeling of fairness, I presume), and it wasn't out and out wrong. If you edit war with an Arb, on an Arbitration page, you can't realistically expect not to get blocked (although there are apparently no consequences when you block one?). However, I would really have liked to see it made clear at the time that the block was intended to be temporary, and intended to be lifted as soon as the case was closed. That would have been de-escalating, whereas the simple "indef block" approach was escalating. But so many people were escalating things yesterday, it seems unfair to single out one person. For example, "stupid woman" was pretty disappointing.

I go back and forth about the benefit of "don't unblock without ArbCom's permission". It's hard to know what would be the bigger risk of escalation, adding that phrase, or omitting it and dealing with the drama if someone had unblocked immediately. Maybe the sting of that phrase would have been taken out if it had been made clear it was a temporary block. I don't know. I'm pretty sure that even if I weren't an Arb, I'd take the position that maintaining order on an Arb page is ultimately an Arb's call.

I'm more concerned about ed's revocation of talk page access, seeing as how involved he was in the case (I can't bring myself to do the time-honored ALLCAPS version of involved). But contrary to Kevin's comment above, I'm fairly sure that even at the time he did it, ed said somewhere that another admin could undo that, so just undoing the protection wouldn't have been undoing an ArbCom-only sanction.

My recusal on this may have been a mistake, but "taking back" the recusal would have (if possible) made things even worse. I would, of course, have supported a desysop of Bishonen ... so that the tools could be given to Bishzilla instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But only because Floquenstein's monster would have made you do it, I know. "Is it a verb now?" [/me imitates the squeaky voice of young master Floquenbeam. ] You'll make the monster ashamed of your ignorance. Even Wiktionary has it. Cyber: Verb: cyber (third-person singular simple present cybers, present participle cybering, simple past and past participle cybered) (slang) To engage in cybersex. "Wanna cyber?" Anyway, congratulations, the Bradspeak is coming along nicely. Bishonen | talk 01:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Oh. That's disappointing. I was trying not to Bradspeak. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Take comfort, you're far from perfect at it (yet!). I was thinking of one particular sentence. Never mind. I've taken onboard your comment about GorillaWarfare; clearly you know her better than I do. Maybe she's not having a really good day today, because I'm a little underwhelmed by what I see of the "handling constructive criticism" thing on Giano's page. As I've just said there. But it's always easier to carp from the sidelines, and she's in a difficult position. As will you be if we continue this line of talk. Take it to e-mail if you prefer. Or, well, not, because I'm pretty much talked out on the subject. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

There are significant consequences to blocking a sitting arbitrator [50] -- worse than an ANI thread, RFC/U, and desysopping combined -- we elect you to a future committee! sucker NE Ent 02:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't get the outrage, is it because this happened to Giano or the circumstances of his block? Because I see regular editors indefinitely blocked every day, sometimes with no justification at all. I see IPs declared to be "socks" and indefinitely blocked even though they aren't submitted to an SPI and it's based only on suspicion (and it doesn't seem like it takes much evidence to meet

WP:DUCK

standards). It boggles my mind when I edit on a daily basis and see the amount of indefinite blocks given out, without warning, without a limited block first, they are given out casually every day without a second thought, sometimes with no block notice or explanation of how to get the block lifted. It goes 0>90 mph, sometimes within a few hours. I can only imagine how dazed and confused the editor is when they return to Wikipedia and find that they can no longer log in.

This is where someone else on your talk page says these are damnable statements and I must present diffs or retract my comments. But I'm not saying any particular admin is responsible, it's the environment of WP that these blocks happen without comment or objection. The editor must have done something heinous, right, or they would never have been blocked...such is the circular reasoning on Wikipedia.

I'm not saying being an admin is easy, you all have to make some hard calls. But I think the impact on a person when you shut down their ability to contribute to WP is severely underestimated. It's being silenced. Admins have that power and don't even have to be accountable to anyone. I'm not crying "admin abuse", I just find it puzzling how appalled some folks are with arbitrators when I'm sure every admin has made some bad calls that had much more impact on the affected editors than this temporary block had on Giano. Sorry for this tangent, Bish, but this is where I found the conversation happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is just me, but here's what I find to be the hardest part of being an admin. About 80% of the criticism you get is poorly thought out, abusive, or divorced from objective reality. But 20% is genuinely useful constructive criticism—people calling you out for mistakes you've made. The problem is finding the signal in the noise, and taking on board the genuinely thoughtful criticism while ignoring the nonsense and not letting it get under your skin. I think a lot of admins eventually take the very human shortcut of just dismissing 100% of criticism. (After all, they're right 80% of the time, which is passable in some lines of work). Anyway, that tendency may partially explain the atmosphere to which you allude.

Here's another thing that's hard, at least for me. I feel like Wikipedia is a bubble and I'm a visitor from another planet. The way people talk on this website absolutely reeks of a total lack of perspective. If I spend too long here, it starts to seem like the greatest injustice that can possibly befall a human being is to be prevented from contributing to one of the several million websites on the Internet. I mean, most of my problems are first-world problems, but even I recognize this attitude as ridiculous. I can't walk out of my door onto the street without seeing a dozen injustices more profound, and more worthy of our time and passion, than anything that happens on Wikipedia. I will never, ever understand people who spend weeks or months (or years) of their lives and their discretionary time fighting to restore the editing privileges of some incoherent axe-grinder. Surely there are more productive ways to satisfy the universal urge to feel self-righteous. If we could harness a fraction of the effort that people devote to griping about administrative decisions on this website, and redirect it to—I dunno, name a worthy cause that actually addresses a societal need in real peoples' lives—the world would be a significantly better place. MastCell ^Talk 08:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if you are open-minded and prepared to change your mind when presented with new evidence, then you should pick up a fair bit of the other 20% of criticism. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz - here is something to put this into perspective. There is a cohort of people here who spend more time at AN/I and arbitration boards and do little editing. That in and of itself I have no problem with. I do have more of a problem when people who don't do much content work try and dictate to how those that do. Furthermore, many who dictate the Fifth Pillar (as if a Commandment handed down on Mount Sinai) are themselves not following the First Commandment Pillar. What is even more frustrating is folks who are unable to extricate a view of the 'pedia outside these pages, and them assume to opine loudly and repeatedly on what would be Good For Wikipedia. There is a lot of background here that will bring on reams of argument if we go into too much specifics. I don't really have the free time or energy to go into it ATM..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The concern wasn't the block so much as an arbitrator declaring special status for the block in the absence of any committee action supporting the block. NE Ent 10:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm getting tired of watching everyone going around and around in circles. Has ever so much been written across many pages on two sites? No change will come from any of this. The arbcom is never going to condemn or censure one of their own. All criticism is neatly deflected. for example: a piece of satire (pointing out that GW is a clever, tough cookie who uses enablers to achieve her much applauded ends) questioned why it took two Arbs and an Admin to make the block; that was turned into apparent sexual abuse - ridiculous. They are just going to protect each other constantly and fight dirty; so be aware and either ignore or laugh at it. I shall continue to laugh at them and point out their foibles Giano (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• PS: Come to think of it, it has never has been adequately explained why Ms Warfare needed another Arb and an Admin to assist her in blocking one ordinary common garden editor (me) or why she had my talk page access removed. I do hope that she doesn't think I have forgotten about this because she will be labouring under a severe delusion if she does. Giano (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Fine, but she didn't remove your tpa, Giacomo. See log for who did. If you have a conspiracy theory that implies she was behind that action, I really doubt it. The admin who performed the action is quite capable of doing it off his own bat. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

Since you have asked me to explain, I will. As The ed17 explained here, he removed your talk page access because of the personal attack you were making against me. This was not something I asked him to do, but I did not disagree with his action. I'm not sure why you consider Roger Davies' modification of the block rationale to be him "assisting" me with the block—it seems like a housekeeping matter to me, as the only thing he modified was the accompanying note. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@[[GorillaWarfare. Sorry? I'm confused. Where was the attack? Did you feel it was because I think you're stupid or because I refer to you as a woman? I really cannot retract the former. Regarding Roger, well I'm sure you were grateful for the help - blocking somebody must be awfully complicated for a 'person' with your experience. Giano (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Giano, must you be so constantly assholier-than-thou? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.136.242.1 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, but it really doesn't fit well anywhere in the section above.

Hi Bishonen. I've responded to similar points as those you've mentioned above at Giano's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean me in this editnotice ?

Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Er.. what? You are a flower, The Hafspaj, but I wasn't thinking of you with the young mandarin tree, no. I took it from Penyulap's userpage. Bishonen | talk 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

Well good then, there is plenty of soup for one of your part-time alter egos... . Hafspajen (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, could you salt this one as well: Top_world_news. I made an AIV report for six creations of the same promo article, but that may be the wrong place. vzaak 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as

JamesBWatson salted it a few minutes ago, it probably was the right place. :-) Me, I got the capitalized version from stalking your page. Useful place! Perhaps more to the point, I've indeffed the user. Just in case they think of more spellings, and more talkpage harassment. Bishonen | talk

21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at User_talk:Bishonen/Clueless_complaints_about_Sitush_noticeboard.
Message added 05:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 05:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dearest little Mrs Bishonen, as I expect you know my gundogs are the talk of every estate from Sandringham to Garganta. Only on Boxing Day, Her Majesty's head keeper was heard to say that he had never seen a Labrador catch and eat a pheasant as fast as that of Lady Catherine. In fact the dear Queen often suggests I leave them at home, obviously knows they will put her own to shame. Now you are doubtless wondering why am I here, talking about aristocratic pursuits and skills that someone like you can only dream of. Well! it's like this, the breeding of superior pets if a fine and precise science; it requires great care, attention and genetic study; but I have heard that Mr Floquenbeam has not been as careful with his pet as he could be. In fact, it's been escaping for shocking nocturnal activities and while, naturally, my own well bred pets would never look at such a common and unrefined creature, the same cannot be said for yours. In fact, there's a very ugly rumour circulating that Bishzilla has not been as chaste as one would hope. I only tell you of these distressing rumours because I'm your very dearest, dearest friend and it gives me no pleasure at all; quite the reverse, but I know you'll want to deny them. Assuming, that is, you can? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

[Evasively.] Who.. ? How dare you impugn Bishzilla's spotless reputation, you notorious old creature? Granted, she's playful.. [gathers confidence], but so are you, aren't you! Back in the day, and right now in your disgraceful old age! Bishzilla's little flirtation with Floquenstein's monster is hardly to be mentioned on the same day as your footman-chasing. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

I hope you are not suggesting that I have ever behaved with the anything, but the utmost decorum. I can only say that I am disappointed, but not surprised by your unladylike reaction. I have long thought that you probably had never been properly finished. Funnily enough, you may be interested to know that I am thinking of running a course for Wikipedia's young ladies to teach them how to acquire a sophisticated polish (that's the shine a sparkle variety not that nice Mr Piotrus). I will teach a little embroidery, a little French conversation and of course my speciality, flower arranging - my greatest skill which darlingest Giano mentioned earlier today I expect there will be quite a few of our young ladies interested dear little Mrs Risker and that Ms Warfare too; so I would sign up early if I were you. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I had to make this edit myself. Just because I'm not around doesn't mean I don't have feelings. I thought we were friends! Tex (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Tex! Thanks for offering. I didn't dare ask it of you, what with your milling offspring. Hey, maybe the Tex Babies can curate my page also? Bishonen | talk 15:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Ha! Baby 2 is in that stage that he will definitely tell you when he doesn't like something. He has an opinion and isn't afraid to voice that opinion even if he's not "talking" yet. Lot's of screaming and gnashing of gums, that's for sure. Hope all is well with the Bishpack! Tex (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh what fun; I insist on being his Godmother; you must send them him to me for a little holiday. I've had endless (I can't remember quite how many) babies and what laughter we had with them; I remember when I accidently left Iolanthe on a train; Nanny was so cross with me, but it didn't matter because Nanny eventually found her in the abandoned luggage department at Aberdeen six weeks later, and she'd had a lovely time - we think. Then there was my eldest, Hugo; we used to love to play hide and seek together. He eventually won that game when I sent to boarding school, aged five, and forgot the name of the school. Anyway, my advice is to just enjoy you lovely children and don't employ a nanny - they just spend their entire lives complaining and looking sour at one. Just look at my children now - all very rounded individuals, apart from Muriel, but she was always an odd, nervous and ungrateful child. I just can't wait for Little Tex to come to and stay with me. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• An honor to speak to you, My Lady. However, I have heard stories about the debauchery that often occurs in your midst. While I respect you immensely, I would rather not have your manservants corrupting my children. With all due respect, of course. Tex (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Pish posh, Tex. The manservants, especially dear Sven, are far too busy running away from Lady Catherine's lewd advances to be corrupting any nippers, so you don't have anything to worry about. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

• Mrs Bishonen, I do certainly hope when I become elderly I don't become as lewd as you in old age. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't eat all the cake by yourself and thank you very much for the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llsilver (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha. You can have some. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

This editor was blocked by you (and rightfully so), but is asking for an unblock. The first unblock request was rejected as being insufficient, but between the first and second unblock request they seem to have covered all their bases as far as expressing remorse for what they've done, and declaring that they won't repeat the behavior. I additionally asked them what they would do if unblocked, and while not as specific as I would like, they seem insistent that they wish to be productive. I don't know if this editor is simply telling us what we want to hear to get unblocked, or whether they're sincere. I'm generally in favor of giving an editor another chance, but not over your objections. I do find the editor's behavior leading to the block to be bizarre at best, and horrible at worst, but they've also been a productive editor since 2006 (their account is older than mine!) with thousands of edits, and as far as I can tell they have kept out of trouble until recently. So it's possible that there is a chance that they'll stay out of trouble again if unblocked. I wanted your thoughts first. -- Atama頭 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Atama. I'm not entirely convinced, especially considering Trueblood's

WP:IDHT style on ANI. It gives me pause that it took a block to get anything approaching responsiveness from them, and then that the block turned them into a lamb in the blink of an eye. But I don't object to an unblock, because as you say there has been progress. I suppose it would be churlish to complain that there has been too much progress to be credible! Do please unblock, but if I were you I'd warn them somewhat sharply that a relapse will have bad consequences. Bishonen | talk

22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

Definitely. I'm basically going to tell them that I'm giving them a chance to prove their sincerity, and that any repeat of the kind of behavior they had will lead to another indefinite block, and this one will be more difficult to appeal since they'll have demonstrated their untrustworthiness. Thanks for your response. -- Atama頭 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That didn't work very well. It turns out that Trueblood786 was socking, even during his recent block, and even created a new sockpuppet today. I've reblocked him, and his socks. Just thought you should know. -- Atama頭 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Atama, hope you're not downcast about it. You were right to AGF and right to unblock in that situation. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

No, I'm disappointed a little, maybe annoyed that I didn't know about the SPI before unblocking, but not downcast. I was downcast after this fun incident where I found that I'd wasted my time for two months enabling an operative of a political organization and trying to convince other people to assume good faith about him. This latest incident is nothing in comparison. :) Thanks for your support though, I really appreciate it. -- Atama頭 22:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You tell me please here and now what this user preferece stuff is everybody is talking about, but nobody explains that one can get it. What reader's setting determine the size of the image? Can images be different ? If one puts an image at one size how can this be different, I still don't gett it. Some people run around and upright pictures and the whole aticle looks weird, all kind of images of all sizes everywhere. Hafspajen (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at the very top of any wikipage. Registered users will have a link called 'preferences'. Click on it and explore! Specifically the 'Appearance' tab will have a section labelled 'Files' where you can change the default size of thumbnails, i.e. any image containing the |thumb parameter which doesn't have an explicit size set in pixels. The |upright= parameter allows the image to be set as a multiple of the default size you set in your preferences; for example |upright=1.5 would set the image 1.5 times wider than other thumbnails. --Shonen's Technical Support Services (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (affiliated with the Bishonen conglomerate)

Well, an intelligent ansver, thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thx for being a voice-of-reason (re 'fuck') 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well… I really agree with Jehochman that it's not a big deal. About

Fucking Åmål, a brilliant film title (at least if you've seen Åmål), I mostly thought the American censorship of the original title was interesting, not in a good way. If our article is to be believed, the Academy Award people were cowed by Variety magazine into exchanging it for one of the blandest titles in Hollywood history. But at least our article is illustrated with the Swedish poster and the original title! (Won't somebody think of the children!) Bishonen | talk

21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC).

I'm not big on foreign (for me, english) films, but you've piqued my curiosity, so I thank you for that - I'll watch it.

Back on topic, I was dismayed to see [51] - I undid it, [52] but am sorely afraid I'll be overridden soonish. Such is the state of things - and to be honest, I probably can't be that bothered to kick-against-the-pricks. I might RFC/U Jeh for stomping down so hard, because I think even the admin-cabal will have a hard time justifying that.

The specific issue is quite trivial - whether it is "F★CK" or "Fuck" for a day... but I truly believe the wider implications are...well, wider. And more implicatior :-)

Anyway thx, whatever comes of it. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Pee po belly bum drawers 88.104.30.86 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For the freedom fighters. Let's not give in for those who will keep us in the chains of mediocrity, who fight fantasy and colour. Hafspajen (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Hafspaj. Rather to my surprise Drmies and I haven't been reverted, blocked, drawn and quartered on sw wiki yet. Perhaps the small popes keep early hours. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

Oh, it sould be like two o'clock there soon. Hafspajen (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Dr Mies got blocked, anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Hey, ..........................................................................................................................Freedom of speach and pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I am on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Incident Hafspajen - my first time ever.By the way, The picture they removed was the picture of Jesus Christ, and I do love him, he is my hero. Also I am kind of religious, in a clandestine way. Now that made me pissed. at the Swedish Administrators noticeboard Hafspajen (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

An apology especially for Drmies and PaleCloudedWhite and you would't hurt. Hafspajen (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, sure, and thank you for the star, but an apology to me isn't indicated — nobody did anything to me. Presumably that was because I'm a long-time (though infrequent) copyeditor at sv wiki. <!--Unlike that troll Drmies HINT HINT.--> Bishonen | talk 15:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

• OK. If you are not hurt because they reverted your edits with no explications in the middle of this mess, desto bättre. Hafspajen (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bah, no, little pajen. You're getting mixed up with all the back-and-forth, and no wonder, but nobody has significantly reverted any of my edits on sv.wiki. Yger re-inserted Rex Sueciæ's comment on your talk, which I had removed, but that was reasonable enough (even though it was a pretty shitty comment). He left the rest. I reverted MagnusA's removal of Drmies' wikilove posts on your page, and my revert is still the last item in the history. Nobody has reverted me on Drmies' page either, where I posted a stroppy remark, still there. I think they may possibly know just enough of en.wiki to be frightened of Bishzilla. ROARR! Bishonen | talk 20:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

Bless, little bishen. Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

HM, I said that it is not right that they should have those blocks in their history pleasr remove it. And they say that is impossible to remove Drmies and Paley from the block log av tekniska skäl. Is this true? Hafspajen (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Listen, Bishy. I think that it is really best for me to leave that Swedis wiki as I said I will. I really don't think that this will go anywhere. We did not made any point, nobody apologized .

A Swedish administrators talk page, [53] full of pictures and Wikilove, but nobody removed anything from HIS page, pictures of carrots and wikilove, but nobody is terrorizing HIM to take those off.

Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum, Hafspajen. Do some calming yoga or something. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC).

• Thanks Bishy for you kind words. Also, did you see that they treat other editors very differently from the way they treat me? I can try calming down, but I am going to be supervised and folks will remove things from my discussion page just to assert themselves, and will go on partonizing me read this, read that, conform, please to our rules as I was a child, which I am not. I actually have several university degrees and I am working and also go on taking still more degrees as we speak. Have also my own business. And I have been on the Wiki since like six years, here. Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

.Hope you are not mad about that strykt. Removed that. ^{was definitely Not s t y r k t} Hafspajen (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the basis for claiming it's an open proxy? I'm not doubting that it's a justifiable block, but I didn't see anything about that IP at OPP. Daniel Case (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What's OPP? I shouldn't have said "open" on the user's page. It's a confirmed proxy server,[54] as I wrote in the block log. Also, as James points out below, all the editing is bad (I did check). And the unblock request I declined was ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

Being a proxy is not reason for a block, if it isn't an open proxy. As far as this block is concerned, it's not a very important point, since you, Daniel, and I all agree that the block is good. However, the reason I mentioned the matter is that I didn't know whether you did have evidence of it's being an open proxy, or if you thought that any proxy should be blocked, or it was just a slip, or what. Since there certainly are admins who think that any "confirmed proxy server" should be blocked, and I have no idea whether you are one of them, I thought it best to check with you, because if you are, then it was worth warning you about making the same mistake another time, when there may not be other grounds for a block. By "OPP" Daniel no doubt means

talk

) 15:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bishonen. I totally agree with your block on 198.228.217.150, here: in fact I have extended it to range block, since virtually all editing over the last month has been from the one person. However, the one thing I am not sure about is your statement that the IP address is hosting an open proxy. I can find no evidence of that. I wonder if you can let me know what evidence you have? The editor who uses the pseudonym "

• Errm, when I wrote that, I hadn't seen Daniel Case's message above. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "
  talk
  ) 14:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to thank you profusely for the rangeblock, but I know this isn't the only IP range that the vandal edits from, so I know it's not entirely over for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@

James: I like the way the block expands every time it's appealed. :-) Probably by now they're wishing they had just quietly sat out the modest 31-hour block. Bishonen | talk

16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen for getting involved in the whole Swedish debacle - your help and directions on Haf's talkpage helped me find all the exciting action of the day! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha, fun, wasn't it? I just posted at the Swedish ANI that I don't think either you or Drmies are too upset about having a Swedish block log. More of a colourful anecdote to dine out on, isn't it? Like having had a remote ancestor who was hanged for horse stealing. Mutatis mutandis. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

Yeah. New tones for them. Wish my ancestors were eaten somewhere in Kongo. Hafspajen (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I'm not fretting over my Swedish block log. I would have been concerned if the block hadn't been removed, but that's not the case. Anyway it was all in a good cause (Haf's Swedish talkpage—I think the ANI thread has been helpful there, unless I've misunderstood proceedings)), and I had good company throughout it all... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Editor Lalit Shastri should have been given some warning to explain himself before you blocked him. The crux of the issue is in the constant undos to Singahi Bhiraura page, which lalitshastri painstakingly created. A well researched article, he cited an inline published source for everything he wrote.

User Sitush who is rather heavy handed with the revert button edited almost all of it out. The whole thing escalated, and has led to this. With the result Wikipedia is a bit of a laughing stock amongst scholars. If you look at the early edits of the article there are all IP addresses from the BT server at the British Library. We have wifi here in the foyer and I know several academics who added bits to this article, however it was mainly Lalit Shastri who works in the archive who created it, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lalitshastri, where there is a possible explanation of why user Sitush was so keen to remove entire paragraphs of the article, he reduced an article of some hundreds of words to a stub.

The evidence is there in the history of the Singahi Bhiraura page. The town itself is an obscure little place of no importance with half the people barely able to read and write. However Lalit Shastri researched the History of the lower caste people who were its first settlers along with Muslims, he cited original sources as well as published material from the extensive records and books here at the British Library.

But the Upper Caste Hindus of the RSS are busy distorting Indian History to fall in line with their own fascist agenda (google and do your own research) and leading Indian and foreign academics have written about it. This is what Sitush who vandalized the article did not like, history as it was, without the distorted RSS version. That the Muslims and India's lower caste Hindus co operated in this town. That the Muslims did not discriminate against the lower castes. That The Rajputs in the 18th century took away the lower caste freedoms in this little town

RSS fascism in India pretends all Hindus are united, they try and hide the dark underbelly of the horrors of the caste system. India's own slave period and shame. Muslims are demonized what user Sitush could not bear was that the history of the town as researched by Lalit shastri told the truthful tale of Muslims and untouchables cooperating. And the fact that Muslims treated the untouchable as an equal

This is why a little article on an unimportant town has produced this controversy, this is why we as academics take an interest here, we have seen these subtle distortions in the historical narrative if it goes against the ideology of the RSS (try googling RSS Fascism, or Hindutva fascism or Modi fascist).

In Wikepedia the most active and the most committed often get through their point of view. Many follow the RSS ideology in India. Its a middle class phenomenon and the RSS cadre is committed and evangelical, the views of this group often prevails. many in India subscribe to the Hindu nationalist ideals.

Wikepedia does have the same problems, with the Palestine page, the Israel page, the US tea party page and countless other pages. But a common consensus is reached with both sides adding to a controversial article. But user Sitush every time something was added or repaired, he did a undo, (see history of Singahi Bhiraura a page, Now all of us are new to wikipedia some of us have not even a user name, maybe we made mistakes in tackling user Situst who is a experienced wikipedia editor but not a good one as I have looked at all his edits from the past.

I hope Lalit Shastri is not too put off with the ban and will be able to restore his Singahi Bhiraura page off course with plenty of inline citations from published sources and user Sitush will not keep undoing his work

I hope you understand the issues from our side.

Rakeshvasishth (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

| 12 = User Sitush who is rather heavy handed with the revert button edited almost all of it out.

| 13 = This is what Sitush who vandalized the article did not like, history as it was, without the distorted RSS version.

| 14 = Muslims are demonized what user Sitush could not bear was that the history of the town as researched by Lalit shastri told the truthful tale of Muslims and untouchables cooperating.

| 15 = But user Sitush every time something was added or repaired, he did a undo, (see history of Singahi Bhiraura

| 16 = maybe we made mistakes in tackling user Situst who is a experienced wikipedia editor but not a good one as I have looked at all his edits from the past.

| 17 = I hope Lalit Shastri is not too put off with the ban and will be able to restore his Singahi Bhiraura page off course with plenty of inline citations from published sources and user Sitush will not keep undoing his work

What a god-send for the generator, huh? Priceless. You couldn't make this stuff up. --RexxS (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Rakeshvasishth, I'll have to reply to you later, sorry, but I will reply. I'm awfully busy in real life right now. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

• OK, finally, sorry about the delay. You're mistaken, the crux of the issue is the
  here, and I've blocked you as a sock in that sense. Bishonen | talk
  15:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. I just noticed your name has been mentioned at the main dramaboard, and you have not yet been notified! The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Multiple Vandalism. Love the new complaint generator, by the way. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. [Obsessively:] Perhaps you'd like to make a clueless complaint about Sitush? I have to say it's a little disappointing that the dedicated board hasn't been used yet. You, Diannaa, are one of only.. uh.. a few users who have been granted access to the exclusive Extra Drmies option! Artistic new button design by the well-known RexxS now makes clicking for new complaints an almost sensual pleasure! Bishonen | talk 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

I have to admit those buttons are hauntingly beautiful and I clicked them many times, both the standard complaint and the Extra Drmies (I did not realise that Extra Drmies was an exclusive offer! such an honour). But I think the actual clueless complaining should be left to the official Independent Wikepedia investigators who have the time to conduct an investigation on all his Wikipedia edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We all mangle our English from time to time but "As the saying goes to exercise power without responsibility is the pejorative of a harlot." is an absolute classic. Is there any way to get that in the generator without seeming to be mocking? - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As an example of mangling that is closer to home, I had to take my mum to hospital yesterday and, as happens when they get older, it was a lengthy day. On the way home, six hours later, she announced that she was "shackered". Obviously couldn't make her mind up whether she was shattered or knackered. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't be done, unfortunately; I don't see any way of doing it without mocking the English. Actually I copyedit the Generator quite a bit for language, as here. That said, the pejorative of a harlot is a real classic among malapropisms. :-) I hope your mother is doing better! Bishonen | talk 13:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC).

It reminds me of what Dorothy Parker said when asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree. I have no idea what was meant by "pejorative of a harlot". But it sounds amazing. Risker (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably a malaprop of “prerogative”. Still seems rather a non sequitur to me, so I guess it’s a mixture of half-remembered sayings.—Odysseus1479 06:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at user Maxx Fordhams name changes of several Olympic topic articles. Such as the Winter Olympic Games. The user also throw tantrums at talk pages calling users "crybabies" :). He has been warned and blocked before for similar behaviour. In my opinion atleast you do not change article names of several major articles without talk page discussions first. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given the user a strong warning. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank you. He now responded to your warning. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Erase this if you like. But hey, I guess you don't have an alert to new material on my talk page. Can I alert you here just like when someone else writes on my page, without being blocked?

babba Seems to think that while there's something supposedly "wrong" with my writing on his/her page, it's still "okay" for her/him to throw tantrums on mine, falsely accusing me of "throwing tantrums," and acting as if he/she were an admin when he/she is obviously not (because he/she has to ask you for help with her/his bidding). Now where is the "balance" in that?

Will you please warn babbaq into not vandalizing my page, and block him or her if s/he continues?

Oh, also, please read what I wrote about the accident I had on babba's user page and why I blanked it (but should have just reverted). OK?

"Maxx Fordham"

I find it sad to see that you still do not get what Wikipedia is all about Maxx. You take everything so personal and you react with tantrums instead of responding in a respectful tone. Now please move on with your Wikipedia-life and start doing edits correctly and stop wasting Bishonens time with these kind of comments. And please start signing your comments. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, still not reacting with tantrums, dude. And yes, I DO know what Wikipedia is about. It's about trying to clean up articles without messing them up, which is what I understood that I was doing.

Also, if you expect someone else to move on (especially since you are not an admin), then you need to move on too. Hey, now you're vandalizing bishonen's page. If you can consider what someone else does as "vandalism," then I can think the same thing about what you do, can I not?

I'm not wasting bishonen's time requesting that you not vandalize my page. If you can request it and get it, then I can too, can I not?

And how do you get notifications of talking on someone else's talk page?

I did not ask Bishonen to block you. I asked him to look at your edits which I personally find to be inappropriate. He agreed with me and gave you a warning. I really do not see your point. Anyhow I am off this discussion you are unwilling to even show even the lowest level of decency towards other users sadly. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have Bishonens talk page at my watchlist since a while back :) And also it is very easy to follow your trail of indecent comments towards other users at their respective talk page. So there you have it my friend. I will not respond further ... not into feeding....--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, then you complained at launchballer for what you falsely called "vandalism," then, and he/she threw that warning. I guess I should have asked him/her for that service also.

Where do you get the idea that I'm supposedly "still" making so-called "indecent comments"? I'm only now doing what you were doing, calling your writings on my talk page vandalism and tantrums just like you were doing on mine. So you want to be implying that your responses are indecent too, then?

Well, I have to respond to outright lies. I have not contacted Launchballer about you. Please provide the link to that comment. I only contacted Bishonen. :) Perhaps you should focus more on why Bish and Launchballer warned you independently of each other, than me contacted Bish about your behavior. You have recieved warnings for a reason. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have responded on Maxx's page. But please note, Maxx, that your very header to this section is a personal attack. Please stop. (And, no, you can hardly blame Babba for calling your blanking of his userpage vandalism. It sure looked like it, although I accept the explanation you later gave.) Keep this on your own page from now on, please. It's merely confusing to spread a conversation over several pages. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC).

We'll continue on my talk page, BISHONEN (not babbaq), but for the record here, it doesn't make sense that it's "okay" for him to say that I was "vandalizing" his page and not be considered as giving a personal attack if you call it a "personal attack" when I called what he was doing vandalism. What's with the double-standard, man?

Okay then, babbaq, so the "Launchballer" just suddenly "came out of nowhere"? How would he have known about my responses on your page and wanted to consider them the same lame false term as you considered them if you hadn't said something to him?

Bish please post this message at Maxxs talk page instead. I do not want to see a response from him ever again at my talk page. Hope you understand. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Do go for a walk or something, Babba. I said on your page that I would post the warning on Maxx's page as well, and I have. I explicitly told him not to respond to it on your page. I've removed your paste of my warning above, since I think it was kind of confusing for other people — with my sig on it, it looked like something I had myself posted here. Anyway, I'm going for a walk right now. Nice weather in these parts! Bishonen | talk 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC).

Enjoy your walk. I am enjoying a huuuge sandwich :)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Made a comment earlier today at user Mark Millers talk page. As he mentioned me not responding to that person anymore once again while I already had agreed to that 20hrs earlier by you and Acro. Also mentioned you in the post so I guess I better notify you about it as well. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Coincidentally, I just saw Mark Miller's ping of you on Maxx's talk, and wrote him a rather strongly worded comment. Mark pinging you in that manner was really baiting, calling you back to that page when you had already disengaged, but I'm sure he didn't do it on purpose. See my comment to him. I'm glad you resisted turning up there to respond to him, well done. I suggest you disengage from Mark's page now as well. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

I agree with you Mark did not do it on purpose. But he took Maxx words as the truth and wasted time by not reading through the previous posts apparently. Anyway, back to disengaging from the situation :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Bishonen,
I appreciate your intervention at Hpj's. My reason for removing that post was just as you commented in your edit summary, but perhaps you realised that. I take a fatherly interest in this charming editor who works so passionately with this project not in his first language. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I know! Yes, he's passionate, and it's a shame his fire was snuffed out at sv. You may help yourself to a few of Hafspajen's cakes at the top of this page, Gareth. Yet another Swedish weirdo, 11:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

I will! Thank you. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The banana split Charlotte was my choice. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Good choice. Incidentally, tomorrow's Saturday, the day I give a class in cake eating appreciation in Bishzilla's pocket. You're most welcome to join. Learn all about the deliciousness of cakes! (Trying to imagine the fate of such a page, or even such a sock, on sv.wiki. I suppose we are kind of silly on en.) Bishonen | talk 12:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC).

All good fun. Long may it last! Thank you for the link. It is now on my Watchlist for future notice, but with the three international games tomorrow (Six Nations

Rugby Union final day) amounting to six hours of non-stop television ... well, I am sure you get my drift.
Have a great weekend! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard

| — 12:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you've sent this question to all the endorsers (or most? never mind.). My endorsement was a while ago (one month); I checked diffs at the time but I'm afraid I'm not willing to go back and do in-depth research at this point. The topic I was thinking of was acupuncture. I remember I was pretty disappointed with the lists of ANIs and ANs you supplied as evidence for QG's disruptiveness since they go right back to 2007 and stop in 2011 — that's effectively no evidence at all, you know, and creates the impression that all you have is old stuff. (I'm thinking of going to the RfC and saying so). Anyway, since it was recent evidence, I looked with particular interest at the thread "Rate of serious adverse events" from

WP:MEDRS, and in that thread you insist on using a source from 2004 in preference to the more recent reviews you say it's consistent with. I'm sorry, but to me your own posts in that thread give the very picture of a POV-warrior refusing to yield an inch. Further, my impression is that you have a conflict of interest as regards acupuncture. Bishonen | talk

19:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

The problems have been continuing for a very long time at acupuncture. The latest problems are being discussed at the talk page. I don't think the discussion on the talk page is helping to improve the article much. For example, I can't seem to get the other editor to understand that there is copyright violation currently in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh god. I agree with you, QG, but I'm afraid I can't see my way to getting involved in an admin (or other) capacity on that page. I just don't have the time to go deep, and it looks like that would be necessary. I wonder if there are any more "views" on the RFC I can endorse? ...no, it seems not. But I'm if possible even more convinced that I did right to endorse the ones I did. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

How came that

All our mealtime articles are messes. People keep putting OR into them, on the lines of "but this is how we do it in Sundbyberg, what are you talking about?" "Tea" as a meal is a particularly slippery concept, especially indeed British usage itself, the shades of which are imbued with social class. There is no way you can inveigle me into commenting on any meal article, or any meal, except the cake orgy in Bishzilla's pocket. Thanks for livening the talkpage there. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

Quite so!! mess Hafspajen (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's

Bear Dish, I have a little question. I can't find, here or on the sv-wiki, an article for Boda--that is, Boda the village, the parish, the whatever (there's Bodahamn and Bodasand, if I remember correctly). I'd like to at least have a proper red link for "Vikens betydelse som hamnplats för Böda socken kan knappast underskattas", which I'm about to stick in Grankullaviken, written in honor of <redacted>. Tack sä mycket! Drmies (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Never mind--stupid umlaut.
  Parishes of Sweden, but that links to sv:Svenska kyrkans församlingar, not to their sv:Socken. Drmies (talk
  ) 03:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Parishes of Sweden is so simplified as to be no use for this. Having read sv:Socken, an Utmärkt Artikel, I think you should keep the word socken, with quote marks when it's on its own, because socken and församling aren't the same. I thought they were, but there you are. sv:Socken#Sockenindelningens användning i Sverige idag is quite interesting, especially this bit: "På senare år har det framförts krav från flera riksdagspartier, myndigheter och organisationer att socknen, och inte Svenska kyrkans församlingsindelning, skall utgöra den minsta enheten i folkbokföringen. Dessa krav har motiverats dels med att Svenska kyrkan numera är skild från staten och folkbokföringen därmed bör vara sekulär, dels med att Svenska kyrkans allt snabbare och mer omgripande församlingssammanslagningar innebär att en månghundraårig indelning av landet hotas, då församlingarna alltmer sällan överensstämmer med socknarna, särskilt i storstäder." (Translation for talkpage stalkers: It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the house-tops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness. Through one of the obscurest quarters of London, and among haunts little loved by the gentlemen of the police, a man, evidently of the lowest orders, was wending his solitary way.) Grankullaviken is a delight, congratulations! Bishonen | talk

10:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen for removing the uncalled for reference to me above. It's great that you take a stand against experienced users unable to move on. Lets leave it at that. Luttrad (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You're a fine one to talk about moving on. I'm sure there was no intention to poke you, but only a jocular reminder to me (as a Swede) from Drmies that he's interested in Sweden and Swedish subjects, despite not being credited with being a constructive content contributor on sv.wiki. You hardly come here — as far as I, or Drmies, knew — and there wasn't a

ping. When I saw that you had in fact seen your name — being apparently more interested in my talkpage, or in Drmies' contributions, than I had dreamt — I thought it best to remove it. Nobody has any wish to tease or twit you, you know. Please do leave it at that. Bishonen | talk

20:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

The dear Drmies will just have to come up with new jokes if he wants to keep it interesting. Natti natti. Luttrad (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Take a hint already. Don't post here again. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

I just wanted to point out that I found Drmies's spoonerified greeting at the beginning of this thread quite evocative, and, what with all the talk about "Socken", I'm picturing another member of the Bish.family Inc. (the poor creature wouldn't last long, but whatever, I liked the spoonerism). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Rats. I was trying to pretend I hadn't seen that. Now Bishzilla will have to eat him. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

• I don't like it when my carefully misspelled and thought-out talk page comments are messed with. Who turned my "sa" into "så"? Bish, thanks for the kind words. I really shouldn't be messing with socken; if you don't mind, can you look over those articles (Böda socken, Grankullavik, Grankullaviken, Trollskogen...) to see if I got it moderately right? Drmies (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, later. They're beautiful, but I'm a little worried about "marks Öland's northernmost point", you may be being over-literal there and making it sound more paradoxical than it is. I mean, Ölands norra udde is a name. Incidentally, who said ""Vikens betydelse som hamnplats för Böda socken kan knappast underskattas"? You know it's a solecism, right? A mixture of two expressions, as if one should say "hook, line and barrel". (Should be "kan knappast överskattas".) Sorry about the "så", I've fixed it. And after I'd just corrected "the" back to "teh" in RexxS's Wikipedia:Randy in space and everything![57] Bishonen | talk 09:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

• Well, looka here, I claim sv-1 on my user page, so don't get smart with me (cause I'm kinda dumb). "Ölands norra udde" is really a weird(ish) name for a lighthouse, but hey, to each his own. I don't really trust a people that vary the pronunciation of the perfectly clear, straight, rock-solid k depending on the vowel that follows it--I mean, that's just mean, man, and it made me look like a moron in the middle of Skane's flatland. But...but...feel free to tweak, in space or out of it... Drmies (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

	Happy Saint Patrick's Day
	WE......DON'T ....... know if this really is for sure a Saint Patrick's Day guy, but he is green, no doubt. Hafspajen (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, B.

Given your reminder here, would you consider advising one of the parties involved that comments like this in reference to this thread and comments like this where my use of the word policy is criticized 7 times, twice screaming, within one thread, are problematic? I'll file this elsewhere if you prefer (do consider it a formal complaint which allows me to mention the other user's edits), but I think the interaction ban has been working quite well, at least for me, and I'd really rather it de-escalate, instead of escalating.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hmmm, well, I didn't see any of those, but I did see TRM's edits to the ANI thread, and have given him a warning (as the first edit is more or less stale at this point, and I wasn't aware of any other violations, I didn't think a block would've been helpful, though I was seriously considering it). If Bish or others think a stronger measure is necessary, I wouldn't be inclined to disagree; certainly if it happens again after this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hmm, well if the disruption to the ref desks continue, then someone should man-/woman-up and do something about it rather than just ignore it. Frankly, it's an embarrassment that this has been allowed to continue for so long. Still, Bish and Writ, you continue to do "the right thing", and allow the disruption, the fallacious comments, the ownership, and block one of the few people who actually tried to give a shit about it. That'll make Wikipedia a better place after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is still a problem or not, the interaction ban should have made it clear by now that it is not your problem, so just drop it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'll just sit back and watch the carnage continue. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) If it's up to me, please don't block anyone on my testimony. I do think the issue is incredibly asymmetrical. There's recruiting of other users and admins against me and against various other users. There is no such recruitment or solicitation or unending assault by me. I hope, at this point, mere notice and documenting of the trends is sufficient. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• How kind of you to stalk this, Writ Keeper. I'll support any action you find suitable. I'm tired of adminning bad-tempered conflicts, and especially of involving myself with the rebarbative The Rambling Man. (A word I take to mean "pushing his beard into one's face".) I'm writing an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

Why is this new guy running around putting speedy deletion templates on talk pages? And Shakespeare plays? [58]Hafspajen (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AThickclearCovering

That's not a new guy, that's a sock. No idea why, unless to amuse themselves. The user has been indeffed by Ponyo. I've rolled back a few edits, including the strange comment you linked to. They appear to be an experienced user; for instance they added a {{checkuserblock}} template to their talkpage themselves, immediately after Ponyo blocked them. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

They make life exciting. Hafspajen (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Bishy, sorry to be naughty about this, now this was indeed a weird expression in English, the heck versus häck. Hafspajen (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen, perhaps you can help, or one of your many stalkers: there is no way the links to other-language wikis for is:Framtíðin are correct... Drmies (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's truly amazing, little Mieszilla, what a post here can achieve.

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Addshore#Addbot_mistaken_about_Q241555_in_Icelandic

There's the source of the problem.Now fixed until the stupid bot puts it back again. --Rexx Rexxssson 19:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, already fixed, and before I had a chance to post the valuable reflexions I just typed? Darn. (I thought it might be frat humour, since the article seemed to be about a fraternity or thereabouts, in an Icelandic school.) Bishis Bishzilladottir, 19:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC).

Nah, the Framtíðin college publishes a school newspaper called Skinfaxa and that seems to be sufficient to make the Skinfaxi and Hrímfaxi link, etc. on Wikidata. --Rexxson Rexxsonson 19:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And I'm sure, Rexxson, that you'll have translated that school article by now. Who is this 'zilla you're talking about? I'm positively warmblooded, and I can count past four. Dr. Cornelisson Mies (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

All of us theropods are warm-blooded. Some might say even hot-blooded. --T-Rexxson (rawr) 20:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Just big old chickens AFAIC, some more obviously than others.—Odysseus1479 06:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Odysseus! I see Dinoguy2 has already created an article about Anzu wyliei, named after a feathered demon in ancient Mesopotamian mythology. Hmmm... The chicken from hell might make an attractive sock for somebody. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC).

• Aargh! Is Böda kronopark an sv:Ekopark or a sv:Kronopark, or both? Drmies (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• And one more thing: can you figure out how big Böda kronopark is? Does it occupy the entire "top" of the island? Drmies (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes dear Mieszilla, it's both kinds of park. Kronopark means it belongs to the state,[59] Ekopark that the owner has undertaken to protect it. I don't see anything against a park being both: thus Böda kronopark belongs to state-owned sv:Sveaskog, which has turned it into an Ekopark by undertaking to protect it. As Sveaskog says on their site: "För att bevara och återskapa den unika mångfalden i Böda har Sveaskog valt att göra området till ekopark. Genom en väl planerad naturvårdsskötsel kommer vi att skapa mer ängstallskog, ädellövskog, våtmarker och lyfta fram fornlämningar och kulturminnen."[60] If you click on the English version under "Ladda ner broschyrer" on that site, you'll get a nice pdf, even though I can't figure what the direct link is to the pdf. That pdf has a quite elaborate map, with the names of a lot of separate little nature reserves inside the kronopark, and unfortunately without any very clear boundaries as to where the kronopark begins and ends, which is what you were asking. All the maps I've seen on the web are really coy about that, sorry. But my impression from Sveaskog's pdf map is that yes, it's the entire top of Öland, barring the sandy beaches in the extreme north-west. Reasonably, since Sveaskog is only likely to own skog. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC).

Thanks! ('zilla? who dat?) Yes, why can't they just draw a line around the damn park? Or why can't they define what they mean with "forest" in "Although the hunting park was closed in 1801, the forest remained crown property"? (On page 2 of the brochure.) One day I'll tell you the story about how my maidenhead was almost ravished in Bodahamn. It involves an ant bite and a husband referred to as "the moose". (She did divorce her husband, I think, and now lives in Borgholm, according to various Googlings.) Oh, the PDF: right-click the link and select "Copy link location". I think these things used to be simpler--where Acrobat simply gave the URL. Thanks so much, Drmies (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.sveaskog.se/Documents/Trycksaker/Ekoparksmaterial/Ekopark%20b%C3%B6da%20eng.pdf (Macs don't have right-clicky buttons) --Rexxnog the Nog 23:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your suggestion in

No essay, but feel free to do it per common sense. :-) There's never anything to stop you changing your own comment as long as other people haven't responded to it. If you had done the proposing, you couldn't change that now, but certainly you can change your support. Just leave your original comment visible ( f ex by striking through) with its timestamp and date, and make it really clear what you're doing, for example by writing something like "I've changed my mind, I'm supporting bla bla instead". But you'll notice how I supported the topic ban as well, as second choice. It's safer to do that, otherwise the person toting up the consensus may merely count your comment against consensus for a topic ban, and I don't think you'd want that. The siteban suggestion I floated doesn't look like it'll get consensus anyway. Bishonen | talk 05:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

It might not, but I find it worthwhile to make a clear stand and send a signal that this kind of editing is unacceptable. Thanks for your advice. (Illogical fallacies are amusing: "you support banning me, so you have proven not to be an objective admin". Ah, yes, the heathen admins and their witch-hunting on AN/I,

hic sunt dracones. ) Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing

12:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking they were belabouring the obvious. Are they likely to think somebody who wants to indef them is being objective and neutral?[61] They might have saved their breath and the ANI space. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

Denial is often endemic. A case for

WP:WER this is not. .. The circular reasoning reminds me of my ex-wife, just ^4 here. Good riddance to her. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing

13:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bish, it looks like we may have another report that should be directed to WP:AN/S soon, if the comments today by Shvrs at Talk:Raju are put into action. That said, I've gone an entire week without being mentioned at ANI & I'm starting to get withdrawal symptoms. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN/S shortcut. NE Ent 13:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Boo, hiss. Seems you have attracted the attention of the wikipolice, Bish ;) Forget the Sheriff and support your local Content Creator, perhaps? I've no idea what the rules are for shortcuts but, hey, enough admins have used this one and/or seen it already, including at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

C'mon Ent - you know where

WP:MfD is. See you there? --RexxS (talk

) 23:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not MfD actually, Rex — there's a separate board for redirects,

WP:RFD. Just as there's a separate board for Sitush complaints for administrator attention, you know.:-) Bishonen | talk

21:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

Actually,

WP:MfD specifies ""Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, and the various Talk: namespaces. One can see that Wikipedia:AN/S is definitely in the Wikipedia: namespace. I agree that it's also a redirect ... BUT MfD is also for "Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue". So as soon as you dispute whether a page should be at MfD, it automatically qualifies! --RexxS (talk

) 23:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd rather not, Ent. What's the problem exactly? It's far from the only userpage with a Wikipedia shortcut, indeed there's a Category:Redirects to user namespace. But tell me what you don't like and I'll take it under advisement. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

• There is a category. (I did not know that.) My concern is that a general user coming across a link with an AN/ prefix would expect it to lead to a non humor page in Wikipedia space: see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:AN/. (Three of those actually go to the same Betacommand page -- they must have really annoyed people). NE Ent 10:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, be serious. Where's the "general user" going to come across that shortcut and be misled by it? Not on Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:AN/, a page which only dedicated Wikipediacruft anoraks ever see. It's scarcely used at all, because people think it's funnier to use the full name. Sitush has been known to use the shortcut to point the group "users of extreme cluelessness complaining on his page" (this is in my opinion a group distinct from the group "general user") to the dedicated noticeboard. Do them good. Anyway, none of them have posted on the Sitush noticeboard yet (which is frustrating, but that's by the way), nor even complained on its talkpage (which would perhaps be more likely), or complained about it on Sitush's page. This to me suggests that they're in the main too clueless to even click on the shortcut. For these reasons I'd rather not delete it.

• If you still think it needs deleting, I'll tell you the story of this deletion discussion and the rather unexpected things that happened after it, and I'm sure nobody wants that. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

While I think it's humorous to have a noticeboard devoted to complaints about Sitush it is confusing to have editors referred to that page in AN/I discussions. For a while, I thought the noticeboard was actually going to be in use because people were being advised to go post their complaints there. I don't think it is a problem that it exists but editors who come to AN/I with problems shouldn't be directed to that page. I know there are a ridiculous number of unwarranted complaints against Sitush but being clear to users who are probably new to AN/I is more important. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you be very kind an undelete this image File:Brymptonboat.gif which some over zealous idiot has deleted. It's from Granny Giano's family album and used in a couple of page I've written. Thanks sweatheart. Giano (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see conversation here. I'll e-mail you as soon as I have a moment. (You know diabetics need to eat every 30 minutes, right? To the fridge!) Bishonen | talk 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank you sincerely, for your efforts, but I have better things to do with my time than rescan and reupload images that I have already uploaded because some fool chooses to call me a liar. If Wikipedia does not want my efforts, it can stagger on without them. Most historians and publishers would give their eyeteeth for my photographic archive, and frequently do - only Wikipedia's motley crew of uneducated admins are so stupid as to throw things away. In the meantime I have discovered something far more interesting that the idiots so keen to call me a liar have missed. Enjoy your meal. Giano (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ants?? It is

Caramba! Recordeli pour Studio Garage De Garbage. Hafspajen (talk

) 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That looks like straining at gnats and swallowing camels. I mean, the quality of referencing in general on sv.wiki isn't so great.. not that I mean to boast of the referencing here on en, indeed (don't get me started), but at least we have a careful vetting process for Featured articles (leading to incredible referencing pedantry, but then similar pedantry is surely somewhat what the suggestion to mark translated references as special (as.. inferior?) is in aid of, isn't it?) There's nothing like that for Utmärkta artiklar, unless the process has changed a lot since I last looked. And also, as I saw you arguing at sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Källhänvisningar#Praxis vad gäller ursprungskällor vid översättningar från andra wikipedior, why would the references added by a furriner be any worse? Is this the Hederlig Svensk contempt of the morals of the rest of the world rearing its ugly head? Plus, the idea of referencing is that it's supposed to be transparent. That anybody can check. But I hope you don't want me to weigh in at the discussion, because I can't face it. I don't know why it is, but trying to discuss stuff on sv has always felt like I'm shouting into a high wind. It's like everybody else is more interested in winning than I am. Or it could be just that I'm (ridiculously, I know) not any too used to writing in my mother tongue. On the third hand, it's just struck me I hate contributing to discussions altogether.. I tend to put everything I've got into my first post, if any, because I can't stand the thought of making a second. Oh god, date linking..[62] Now I'm depressed. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not one to encourage those conscientious

Wikipedia is not your mother is usually spoken in the sense that the 'pedia doesn't love you and won't take care of you, but it's also true in the sense that it's not your ailing mother that you have to take care of. (It's just ailing, that's all.) Did you see my new edit notice? Step away from that dike and click on the link on the left and get your daily affirmation instead. Nobody deserves the compliments and flower bouquets better than you do! Bishonen | talk

16:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

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

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

I feel that this thread [63] would very much benefit from prompt attention by an admin. Accordingly, I am posting this message on here - I shall do the same for other admins who appear to be currently online. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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