User talk:Bishonen

SPA crossing the line

Hi Bishonen, hope you are fine. Wish you a very happy & prosperous new year! Deep singh kumawat has been involved in slow edit warring, trying to promote the communities (Kumhar & Kumawat) using unacceptable sources and mostly trying to remove sourced content from the article on Kumhar, see 1, 2, 3 & similar ones (in spite of warnings and discretionary sanctions alert on their talk page)! Now, after the recent revert, Deep singh kumawat is trying to threaten me saying they have admin friends in Hindi Wikipedia and some higher authority will 'prevent' me 'from getting promotion' (God knows what they mean)! But this is not the problem; the problem is when I reverted this edit along with a proper edit summary here, they have reverted my talk page edit (here)! I guess Deep singh believes that they would decide what I should allow on my talk page! Please intervene. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too, Ekdalian. I've posted some advice for the user. Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC).

Thank you so much, Bishonen! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian,You are misinterpreting my statements.If you find my article threatening, I am willing to make corrections, that is, I will rarely write like this again.I was asking you to be a compassionate person like my admin friends.From which you have taken inappropriate meaning, perhaps,I am obliged to say sorry to you.

@Bishonen Ji

I had given a government reference in place of the removed reference to increase information/knowledge.

@Ekdalian has not given a proper reason for undoing this.1 I am not promoting any caste or community, I have just tried to publish the reliable information I get about them. Despite this, if you feel that I am wrong somewhere, please write with discretion. दीपसिंह 10:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Westall

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Need input.

In the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam article, I removed 4 as they did not had the WP:RS and WP:OR sources. First one: Nargis, in her article I cant see any info regarding her conversion to hinduism in fact opposite "she expressed her wish to be buried following the Islamic rites, Sunil and Sanjay eventually offering the Islamic funeral prayer" in the Personal section.

Another is Khusro Khan, his Religion section explicity states that "Barani's narrative is unreliable, and contradicted by more reliable sources. Khusrau Khan wished to be seen as a normal Muslim monarch, and had the khutba in the mosques read in his name." Hence including him on the list severely violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:Fringe.

Another case is of two brothers, Harihara I and Bukka Raya I, both articles explicity state that their early life is "unknown and most accounts are based on various speculative theories" the same paragraph that conjecture their religion. So we need stronger and more WP:Reliable sources to make them in the list.

Can you please see if the revert did not violated Wikipedia's policies. 182.183.11.100 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Guidance

Dearly platinate, please accept wishes for a cool and fruitful year. I wonder if you could take a look at Neri Oxman and recent edit streams there, where it seems hard to maintain proportionality. I don't want to spar with the ornery, as it feels like care is warranted, and would welcome your perspective. – SJ + 17:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

About the plagiarism allegations? Man, what a lot of editing. I suppose people basically agree that the plagiarism issue should be in the article, and that Business Insider is an OK source for it? The question is if it should be in the lead. I'll keep my opinion on that to myself, since I intend to protect the article. Daniel Case has semiprotected; that I don't understand, since there's an edit war on, not IP disruption. I've upped it to full protection. A good year to you too, little user! (Oops, that was Bishzilla getting into my head.) Bishonen | tålk 18:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC).

<laugh> Yea, it seems a combination of PIA-fringe and politics is spreading to a range of academic articles this season. It's mainly a question of how quickly and prominently media cyclones propagate allegations into biographies. A wordy section with five separate BI cites is generous to news tails that may wish to wag article dogs. And here (as with the Rufo articles on Claudine Gay) the news outlet was making the news, not reporting on it. That feels like a different role than the one we usually evaluate in considering reliability. – SJ + 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You're a sensible person, so I'm sure you agree with me on the lead-thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Need your expertise

Hey Bish! I've been looking into some Indian weirdness (lots of spam and UPE) but I'm coming across lots of weirdness that isn't what I'm looking for. Any chance you could have a look at this hyper-focused editor and decide if their contributions are good, bad, or indifferent? They're not what I'm looking for and I don't deal with Indian subcontinent topics. Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Very focussed - either the subject or an acolyte. I am not bothered enough to start checking the sources, but if they do check out I suggest it should be left alone. It might not get the traffic of a minor anime character, but it might be a more worthwhile subject in the future. (yes, I do nose around India sub-continent issues - mostly ensuring that caste or religious affiliations to not overburden an article). LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks, little LessHeard. I would figure an acolyte, for myself. Some of it isn't sourced at all, other than to Pattanaik's own words. You need my what, Harry? Honestly, it's true I've found myself somewhat pulled into Indian subjects, but it's not exactly because I understand them. Little talkpage stalkers? RegentsPark, Abecedare, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff? Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC).

  Why would one of your (very many) acolytes be editing this article..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Aha, it's probably Bishzilla! Bishonen | tålk 17:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC).

  My guess would also be that this is an acolyte, possibly with a COI, but the low rate of edits and long time frame suggests to me this isn't UPE. I suspect this individual is notable, but substantive coverage is sparse, and someone will have to dig for reviews of his books to write a neutral article. I'd suggest a p-block from the page until they answer questions about their COI, and taking it from there. The page is full of puffery but I'm not immediately seeing a clean version to revert to, it may have to sit under a tag until someone else musters the energy to fix it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Pattanaik is definitely notable but the article is weird. Having ruffled a lot of feathers, he gets a lot of criticism from both sides of the ideological spectrum and all that is clearly missing. That said, I'm not sure this would be UPE, more like a fan's edits (we get that a lot). Compare this article with Pema Khandu and this would even look like a candidate for a Pulitzer! —SpacemanSpiff 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Zabriskie

Hello, Bishonen. Do you think you could revision delete the latest contribution on the talk page of User:Peterzabriskie, labeled "redact"? It was me erasing my real name from several of his comments after he ignored my request to keep my identity anonymous after we go into a debate some months ago. Thanks in advance. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not ignore any of the comments. 174.240.160.251 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Peterzabriskie, Well, you clearly did to my request not to use my real name. Also, why are you using an IP? Don't you have an account? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I am just responding to your pursuit 174.240.160.251 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

ps your timing is coincidentally curious: I no sooner hit submit to The US Copyright Office to register past works of mine. Making me possibly less "not noteworthy " but your resurrection of this ancient dispute surfaces again. Lol. 174.240.160.251 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reworded response: That is a coincidence indeed. I'm not sure how you think I would know that you did that. And I did not resurrect it and am not making an attempt to continue it; I simply transcribed it to my Wikipedia page because I believe conversations pertinent to Wikipedia contributions should stay here. And there is no "pursuit"; I didn't even intend for you to get involved. Maybe we could carry this conversation to my talk page? Though I would prefer that it just gets discontinued, especially if we are both content with the way things turned out. Also, you didn't answer my first question. Just curious why you aren't logged in? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The name appears already in this edit, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, and in every revision from then onwards, so I'd have to revision delete pretty much the entire page history. I'm not sure that's reasonable, and there's also the risk of a Streisand effect. As for you, User:174.240.160.251 / User:Peterzabriskie, you can either log in to your account or get lost from this page. If you act again to make your doxxing more prominent or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 22:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC).

Didn't notice that. Good point. Could you make time to read that transcript of mine? Of course you don't have to but I find it rather amusing. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lost. Where is it? Bishonen | tålk 22:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC).

In any case, it'll have to be tomorrow. Bedtime here. Bishonen | tålk 22:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC).

Here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The email mentioned below wasn't Zabriskie, was it? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, no. Something completely different. I hope you have now received my reply, Ritchie333? Bishonen | tålk 02:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC).

I did, and your advice was acted upon. I have dropped a penny in the Bishzilla charity box. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Haha! [Bishzilla eats the penny. Politely:] Fine flavour! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 10:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC).

You've got mail (unless the courier has lost it)

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Page blocked user

Hi Bishonen.. you had page blocked the user Vishwabrahman52 from the article on Rathakara! How can they still edit the article? Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my bad! They were page blocked for six months; hence they are back now doing exactly what we expect from them! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Right. I've warned. Bishonen | tålk 11:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC).

Thanks a lot! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sarthakhereluck

Is there a reason you hardblocked Sarthakhereluck? The main account is probably affected by the autoblock. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Someone who's wrong on the internet. I wanted to stop them from creating further accounts, but thinking about it, you're probably right that autoblocking wasn't the best idea (even though the main account isn't exactly behaving like god's gift to Wikipedia). I've changed it. Thanks for your vigilance! Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

No prob! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That works

Thanks for cutting the Gordian knot of my own design, Bish. I was about to routinely block them, but then got myself caught up with wanting to avoid the appearance of INVOLVED, and then that developed into paralysis about whether it was worth making an AE report...this is a much simpler solution. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I enjoyed it, Writ. Bishonen | tålk 19:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Temporary protection request

Can you temporarily protect the article Nilathingal Thundam Perumal temple? User:Sudarshanazhwan has the habit of deleting paragraphs in that article.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.16.100 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, IP. Sudarshanazhwan has been indefinitely blocked, so there shouldn't be any need for protection. Feel free to come back here if there should be more disruption at the article. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC).

Thank you. 31.200.16.100 (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Caste warrior

Hi Bishonen.. can you please take appropriate action against the user Elizabethhistoric77. Please check the revision history of the article on Das (surname) to get an idea of the kind of persistent vandalism by the user in spite of all forms of warnings! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ekdalian Sorry, it's too late for Bish to do anything. Done and dusted. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Doug Weller. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Testing

This section is for testing. Bishonen | tålk 21:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC).

Can I test too? Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you will fare better, Floq. I was trying to test a script. No luck. Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC).

..○○oo00OO(testing 📣📣📣📣📣📣📣📣📣)---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary Edit War

Bishonen . . . In November, I made an attempt to update the Herod the Great page. I made factual changes. I supported the changes with credible sources. And the changes were summarily reverted, and so quickly that it is difficult to believe that the changes were considered for credibility. As it happens, all the changes that were undone were either changes to remove biased and derogatory disparagement of the Bible, or to remove incorrect statements that attempted to champion an uncorroborated hypothesis supported by an academic minority. A hypothesis that is not in agreement with scholars of renown, like Theodore Mommsen, Emil Schürer, or Alfred Edersheim.

The person who reverted the changes was condescending, rude, and belligerent. I stood up for myself. I was considered "rude," and he was not. I was blocked from the page. He wasn't. And I got the distinct overall impression that some favoritism was taking place.

While I absolutely appreciate that a lot of hacks come onto this site and make ridiculous changes, and the content certainly has to be protected from people who would pollute it with disinformation, I have been researching the topic of Herod the Great and related New Testament history for almost thirty years. I'm not a hack. I do know the information of this topic, and probably better than most. The article in its present condition is rife with biased points of view, blatantly incorrect statements relative to the known facts, and minority conclusions generally dismissed by the academic majority, while the opinions of the majority are virtually non-existent.

I would like to edit the article with credible changes, based on credible sources. I would like to do so without having to fight with the self-appointed watchdog over the site. I can be a quality contributor on several articles surrounding this and related topics. I have a lot of years and a lot of knowledge to share. But there's no point if the changes are going to be summarily undone. I spent a great deal of time carefully wording things and looking up sources the last time, and the first change was undone before I finished the third. It was ridiculous. I won't spend time trying to provide the internet community with valuable information if that time is going to be wasted.

Furthermore, I would like to appeal once more to have the Matthew comment amended. The only relevance Matthew has to the topic of Herod is that Matthew is the source by which Herod is both famous and infamous. The integrity of Matthew's account is not germane to the topic of Herod the Great, only the existence of it. I was not the first person to try and amend it. I won't be the last. The content as it exists serves no purpose other than to disparage the Bible. That, "Herod is most famously known from the Bible's Gospel of Matthew," is as much as is relevant. The addendum that, "most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred," only exists to discredit the Bible. It adds nothing to the Herod article, and the credibility of Matthew in this case is an opinion besides. I was told I couldn't add opinionated content (which I didn't actually do; I provided direct primary sources). And it's still an opinion, even if it's an opinion from a published book. Additionally, it is offensive content. And Wikipedia states that it is inclusive. If the content is offensive, not germane, and not established by any facts whatsoever, then it shouldn't be there.

Some guidance on these things would be appreciated. I would like to contribute without harassment, and since concise statements with quality source citations are apparently not adequate, I could use some help in understanding what I need to do to make changes that won't waste my valuable time.

I wanted to message you privately, but I couldn't find an option for that, so my apologies for airing this in public. AlexFrazier (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, AlexFrazier. In public is fine. I'm a little taken aback to see that being blocked from Herod the Great and its talkpage in November 2023 has meant that you have edited nothing since. Is Herod your only interest on Wikipedia, really? It seems unfortunate to me that you haven't used the time of your block to edit in other areas and make yourself more familiar with the culture and the policies here. I'm afraid your opinion, shown above, that the text "most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred" only exists to discredit the Bible, and is offensive, suggests to me quite strongly that Wikipedia may not be the place for you. The Bible is not considered a reliable source here. Yes, as you say, you provided primary sources (such as the Bible) and drew conclusions from them. That's not how it's supposed to work per our policies: articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. Drawing your own conclusions from primary sources is not allowed; please, if you read nothing else that I link to, look up Wikipedia:No original research. That Wikipedia is "inclusive" does not mean that you're free to ignore our rules and policies.

To summarize: if you expect me to rein in tgeorgescu and let you edit the article without anybody objecting or reverting, that's not going to happen. (Indeed, I couldn't do it if I wanted to.) Since you seem quite resistant to our rules, I do fear that you would in fact be wasting your time by going back to editing Herod the Great, and/or arguing about it on the talkpage. I don't like to tell anybody they're not a good fit for Wikipedia, but, well, since you appear to actively dislike our principles... I'm sure there are websites out there better suited to your work. You probably know more about them than I do. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC).

Are you suggesting that because I find unnecessary anti-Christian comments offensive that Wikipedia isn't the place for me? Am I understanding you correctly?

I haven't edited anything else because it seems to me that I'll run into the same problem.

Also, I didn't use the Bible as a primary source. I used reliable secondary sources, and they were ignored. I don't expect anyone to protect a page on my behalf. I just want some fairness.

But truth be told, you answered in such a biased and unrelated manner to my post that it's obvious the favoritism I suspected appears to be accurate.

If you folks care more about playing favorites and protecting garbage scholarship because heaven forbid someone should cite an actual primary source (which is what your secondary sources are using to form their "original research" conclusions), then you're probably right. This may not be the place for me. I sincerely thought this was a place where those who had the knowledge could contribute to make a great online encyclopedia. But with the way this is, you might as well just plagiarize a few books and be done with it. AlexFrazier (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Theodore Mommsen, Emil Schürer, or Alfred Edersheim—they lived and died how many years ago? Stick to mainstream Bible scholarship published in the past 20 or at most 30 years. And we have a low opinion of those who try to give the lie to relatively recent works of Bible scholarship published by WP:CHOPSY. We're not Sunday school. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I came to him, not you, to resolve a problem because I feel I was treated unfairly. Your rude and condescending input wasn't needed. Nor did you say anything of worth. Secondly, Theodore Mommsen is a renowned scholar, responsible for numerous volumes of the CIL, the IG, and other volumes of epigraphy and Roman and Greek History, in addition to writing The History of Rome. He was educated at an Ivy League school. Emil Schürer was likewise educated at an Ivy League school, and has numerous publications. I read the rules. They don't say they have to be in the last twenty years or so. The topic concerns history from two thousand years ago. Their educated works have weight. Thirdly, I'm not treating this as Sunday School. There's no reason for you to insult me. I even kept your name out of my communication to keep it neutral. So do me a favor and just leave me be. AlexFrazier (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Bishonen is a she. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• shrug* k AlexFrazier (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you mean that Wikipedia as a whole favors relatively recent WP:SCHOLARSHIP from WP:CHOPSY: you're right, this is not a level playing field. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked you to leave me alone. I have no continued interest in what you have to say. AlexFrazier (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Then why are you pleading here, if you're not interested in your opponents comments and responses? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That person is consistently condescending and rude to me. I don't want anything to do with them. And I didn't plead to that person. I came here to contact the admin for advice on how to be able to participate when following the rules resulted in being blocked.

The answer I received said enough. This site is a joke. AlexFrazier (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Firstly, no, I'm not suggesting Wikipedia isn't the place for you because you find unnecessary anti-Christian comments offensive — not at all. I'm suggesting Wikipedia isn't the place for you because you find the text "most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred" to be anti-Christian. Secondly, it's not for you to try to shoo tgeorgescu off this page — my user talkpage. They're welcome here. Bishonen | tålk 21:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC).

Indeed, we seek to refrain from offending Christians needlessly. But we still have to call a spade a spade. Actually, liberal Christianity made peace with that since long ago.

Anyway, that the WP:RS/AC from 150 years ago trumps the WP:RS/AC from this year is a ridiculous argument. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

CU blociked. Doug Weller talk 08:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Caste crap

Sorry to bother you, Bish, but this looks beyond the pale. Perhaps, a final warning is in order. Also, see their t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nah, 3 months partial block from talk page and article. I didn't check, do they need an alert? Doug Weller talk 11:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also see [1]. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug! TrangaBellam (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bish.. Sourin666 and Aceofalljackofnone are caste warriors; I have warned both of them multiple times on their respective talk pages. You may please check i) this, Sourin666 initiating a new section along with legal threat, ii) Sourin666 recently saying that three editors (including me) are "nothing more than goons" in this edit, iii) Aceofalljackofnone supporting such a personal attack here! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action, Doug Weller! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Doug. I guess you changed your mind about a 3-month block, as you actually blocked for one month? Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

Ouch. My bad. Still, we'll see what happens after that unless you want to change it. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nah, let's leave it. They're bound to be indeffed soon in any case. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

They're doing a little venting, and their new userpage is ... interesting. I'm interested in what they do next. Acroterion (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ha. The userpage is amusing. I find it hard to believe that they wrote it themselves, actually. AI? Bishonen | tålk 13:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

Slightly tangentially, I just blocked the morning crop of spammers that showed up in edit filter 499, and a lot of them have an AI feel to them. I foresee an avalanche of one-off camelcased names spouting five paragraphs of prosy AI-speak about rubber band importers. With a thoughtful spammer and the right software it could become a real problem. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's really tough to believe they wrote it themselves! Ekdalian (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Self-requested block

Hello, per your page on this, could you please block me until 0:00 1 March 2024? I would like to enforce a wikibreak, and I don't trust myself to not break my account if I use the user script. Thank you! Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 16:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, please do wait 24 hours before blocking (as your page says); I don't want to autoblock my entire school. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 16:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thriftycat, hehe, always fun blocking whole schools! Kidding. I will block you as requested, starting in 24 hours (or a bit more in case I'm AFK). But I'll make it simply "one month" — fitting it to a particular time of day is bothersome. Not sure, either, whether the software counts February as a proper month. Please let me know if you care about those details. Bishonen | tålk 17:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC).

Great, that sounds good. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Enjoy! Bishonen | tålk 17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC).

User talk:Healthandfitz

The user was blocked by a retired admin - you may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Cahk. Bishonen | tålk 09:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC).

Hello!

I just started using Twinkle, so sorry about the unnecessary 4th warning. I seemed to have issued the warning right after you banished the user. Is there any way I could have did better? AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You did fine, AlphaBetaGammsh. Your warning and my block have the same timestamps, so, even though I was probably a smidgeon earlier, you couldn't very well have seen the block before you warned. I didn't mean to blame you by removing your fourth warning — I just thought it didn't look right on the page, just below the block notice. Thank you for warning vandals! Bishonen | tålk 14:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC).

Deletion request

Dear Bishonen, can you please DELETE this account Melrorross (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Melrorross. I'm afraid accounts can't be deleted, as such. But it looks from the conversation on your talkpage as if what you want is to get rid of the account — to immobilize it, so to speak — and henceforth to use only the older account User:Melroross (note the different spelling). That would be a good thing, since one person isn't supposed to have more than one account. I can take care of it by blocking Melrorross and blanking its userpages, or redirecting them to the Melroross pages. Would that suit you? Please respond below. Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, yes absolutely. Many thanks for that. Melroross (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, done. (I redirected the pages to your active pages.) Happy editing! Bishonen | tålk 00:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC).

Minor but annoying mystery

I'd appreciate the help of a wise and crafty Wikipedian at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#19:09,_12_February_2024_review_of_submission_by_Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And it still doesn't show up on Google, Mr Fröding. (I wouldn't have known, as I use DuckDuckGo. Use DuckDuckGo, don't get tracked!) But you're after a wise and crafty Wikipedian. I'm pretty sure I've got some of those watching this page. Also, might not Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) be the best place to ask? Whatever the problem is, it's surely of a technical nature. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC).

Usedtobecool tried something (turn off and turn on again), we'll give it awhile and see what happens. The mission is to get the WP-article to appear above her entry on wikifeet.com in a search like this:[2]. I'm now considering adding that site as an EL, just to see how long it lasts. Maybe in early April. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"How to" question

You have been recommended by a friend as a fount of all wisdom on Wikipedia - or at least someone who might know the answer to the question "how do I turn off a peer review request?" I have tried to remove it twice, and it has been replaced both times by an editor who says I can't do that. Do you know the secret handshake? If so, please tell me! The article is History of Christianity. They hated the middle section and I am having to redo it, so it doesn't need more reviewing at this time. Or am I missing something? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jenhawk777, everything to do with peer review is terra incognita to me. Maybe ask on the page itself? (Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive1.) I see the talkpage for that hasn't been created yet, so that would probably be a dead end. Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC).

Thank you for answering. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing block on User talk:2600:8807:4C83:3E00:A038:E81D:8056:B389 added

I assume it was an oversight as you announced, but did not block the user. Fixed. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me, Alexf. Actually, using Twinkle, I ticked the "Block the /64 instead" box, which I generally like to do, and in this case there was also similar vandalism from other IPs in the /64 range, which had been blocked before very recently. (Hence my 72 hours.) See the block log for the /64. Bishonen | tålk 22:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC).

Capo Geezy

Hello Bishonen, me again. Do you think you could take a look at what's going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capo Geezy? And also the edit histories of User:Iamcapobroquard and User:Iamcapogeezy? You should be able to understand what's going on but if you need explanation then I can give one. Sorry if it's a lot of reading but I really do think it needs attention ASAP. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Partially handled by Isabelle Belato; User:Iamcapobroquard has been blocked but now there are two new accounts, User:Capogeezy90 and User:Dantecolombo4. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Aha, two obvious sleepers, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse; created some time ago, but only began editing today. I'll block them, but I think we need an SPI and a CheckUser to look for more sleepers. I'll try to take care of that. Bishonen | tålk 18:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Wasn't as hard as I thought! Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamcapogeezy. Bishonen | tålk 18:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Already dealt with by Spicy, quite a sock drawer found. Bishonen | tålk 19:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Lovely, though I definitely wouldn't put it past them to keep this up. I suppose I should sock strike all of Capo's comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capo Geezy? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also this IP raises suspicion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, strike them if you like. I see OwenX has tagged a few with {{sockvote}}. There are more that Spicy caught, so feel free to tag those as well. Iamcapobroquard, for example, and Capogeezy90, and the IP 130.18.104.156 (partially blocked from the AfD by Isabelle Belato). And since you mentioned the possibility of an SPI, why not add a note + link for that?

So, an IPv6 removing the AfD template? Yes, that's interesting. Maybe give them a little more rope, since the SPI is closed anyway. Bishonen | tålk 21:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Regarding a particular username

Hi Bishonen, hope you are fine. Can you please have a look at this username, TheLazyBot! Does it violate our username policy? Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ekdalian. Well, according to WP:MISLEADNAME it's not a good idea, but the user has been getting away with it for some time, and I find it hard to get worked up about. Perhaps we can go with WP:BADNAME: "If the name is not unambiguously problematic, it may be sensible to ignore it." Bishonen | tålk 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Thank you! Ekdalian (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Manny Cid

Hello Bishonen, sorry to bother you again so soon, but maybe you could look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Cid, especially the talk page? I don't know if I sound overzealous and I don't think it's really a big deal yet but something doesn't settle right with me. May be a lot of reading again, though you don't have to read the whole AfD, but MEAUSA's and LadyBugFlorida's bits may be worth reading. Any input would be greatly appreciated. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Well, looks like Schrodinger's jellyfish may have it under control. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, AllTheUsernames. Yes, the warning from Schrodinger's jellyfish seems about right. LadyBugFlorida is obviously someone who has read the somewhat paranoid blog about how Cid's page was "suddenly" put up for deletion, and who is unfamiliar with the culture here. So they express themselves poorly and say the wrong things — no surprise there. I'm actually more surprised at the experienced editor who accused you of "bludgeoning". And I notice even the OP, who is on that person's "side", disapproves. If you read WP:BLUDGEON, it's downright ridiculous. But it's not something that requires me to say something adminny, I don't think. It makes a poor impression, which is surely worse for them than you. (Mind you, if people don't want to engage, it's better not to ping them repeatedly.) Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC).

And now I notice LadyBugFlorida has been indeffed. Oh well, I reckon it makes little difference either way. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC).

New days, new problems

We have a not-much-of-a-newbie deleting impeccably sourced content from atop a moral high horse (or perhaps, T-Rex). There's some highly charged rhetoric about "pro-pedophilia apologists in online circles", etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, TrangaBellam, may I please be excused from involving myself in the Aisha nexus? It makes me so tired. WP:ANI? Bishonen | tålk 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

Ah, that is understandable - no worries! With 20/20 hindsight, it was mighty stupid of me to wade in though the section stayed almost unperturbed for a year. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Bishonen :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather not, thanks. Bishonen | tålk 09:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC).

That's completely fine. I hope you have a good day, regardless. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Re [3]

That was indeed a mislick. I should probably install a confirm-rollback script since I tend to misclick a lot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a confirm rollback script? Not that I need one, I don't rollback much, nor use a touch screen (the horror). But it does show that we have scripts for everything. Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC).

A pie for you!

Hi, Bishonen, I just mentioned your name somewhere. So I thought to drop some wiki love here to acknowledge your efforts in dealing with sock puppets. Happy editing! Regards. Maliner (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks delicious! Bishonen | tålk 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC).

February music

Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday - for sweets, scroll a bit in the places -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Aahh. Lovely, Gerda. I love this one. Bishonen | tålk 21:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC).

story · music · places

good choice - a few more, and the memory of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day (fish soup), - and Aribert Reimann remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The COI and AI

[4] I had the same hunch, but not strong enough to comment on it. The amount of text, the surprisingly quick reply, etc. How does one "know"? Do we some EARWIG-like AI-detector around, and if we don't, can we get one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

See [5] Doug Weller talk 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Bish, @Doug Weller, I tested the above AI-checker by pasting [6] into it. "We are highly confident this text is entirely

human". That's good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång LOL. I should hope so. I'd hate to think you were just an AI. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bish, @Doug Weller and @AndyTheGrump for all the helpful and uplifting input. I'm keeping the AI-tools. To quote Doug's tool, "This result should not be used to directly punish students."

Andy, you're now on my wall:[7]. Best I've heard since "I'd also add from an intellectual standpoint that I'm not really sure how we should deal with people who's claim to notability comes from us not considering them notable." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And the response to your complaint about AI-text was more AI-text. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There are many AI detectors, though I've also read somewhere a rather depressing test of how reliable they are (not very). Anyway, I didn't use one, I just thought it was completely obvious. Now, I've tried this one at random from Google's various suggestions, and it says Pedro's first post at WP:COIN has "100% AI content". Doug is using another one. And note that Pedro says to me, or his chatbot says, that he uses it because it makes his text better, so his use of it improves Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

• Doug has indeffed, good thinking. And Pedro, just before that, got in a complaint about AndyTheGrump telling him to fuck off. I've responded with the obvious. Anybody else? Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

This made me spit my Earl Grey all over the keyboard. Thank you for the guffaw. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A philosophical question arises. Is it even possible to make a personal attack on a chatbot? I've have to say no, since a bot isn't a person... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point, Andy. Also, when I complained about Pedro's use of AI, he told me "I want to clarify that my use of AI tools is solely to enhance my text, leveraging it as the valuable resource it is". A similar argument applies to your use of bad language (and mine): it's solely to enhance our text with a valuable resource. I mean, we could have said "go away", but we chose to enhance it. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

Aargh! 'Leveraging'! Management-speak flinflam at its most odious. Give me a lever and I'll gladly beat the binary bits out of the server node or whatever that generates such gloop... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you will use best practices to realize the strategic leveraging of synergistic assets? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am reminded of http://wisdomofchopra.com/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Now there's a bullshit-bot, if ever I saw one. Though per stopped clocks it must get things right occasionally. After many attempts, it cam out with this gem: "Making tea imparts reality to personal molecules". Indeed. I rarely feel more real in my personal molecules than when I've got a steaming mug of tea in front of me. And then, the tea and I become one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Careful, enhance is a word to watch these days. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Update: A fitting end. We finally get to hear Pedro's own voice, because I don't think ChatGPT wrote that. Bishonen | tålk 19:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC).
• Ah, quite a fascinating read. How many policies can one account violate in just two weeks? I count COI, PAID, copyvios, use of AI, CIR, and possibly a few more. I've spent a lot of time lately trying to remove corporate-speak from what is now a 10-page document (it started out at 19), and I loved the way you leveraged the language of heightened concern. Risker (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, Risker, long time! And thank you. Bishonen | tålk 22:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

Now I understand. I always suspected you were a bit more than just an administrator - you are actually a "self-called" administrator! Going forward can I refer to you as Self? Pretty please? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, provided you condone with me, JoJo. (Condole?) The user had some reason to be uncertain of their English, which was presumably why AI seemed like such a boon to them. You too can sound like a corporate drone! Bishonen | tålk 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC).

Indef required

Sourin666 waited out the block and has returned to being a IDHT-SPA. I think we need an indef. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe you, TrangaBellam, but it's all so complicated! @Sitush:, are you there? @Vanamonde93:? Bishonen | tålk 16:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

Well, they're insisting that text needs to be changed without recognizing that they need to support that with RS. But they're not engaging in PAs any more that I can see. I'd suggest a little more rope, but an indef could be justified on the basis that competence is required, and they don't have it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd say they have half of a legitimate grievance buried in there; the cited source clearly supports what's in the article at present, but it also says that they (like many other Dalit groups) attempted to claim a caste identity for themselves. I don't really want to do a caste warrior's work for them, but the movement at least seems worthy of coverage, even if it's hasn't had the results they'd want. And it doesn't obviate the untouchability claim, of course. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Vanamonde, I love you. Bishonen | tålk 16:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

I live for the mighty 'zilla's love. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Ofcourse, their movement is worthy of coverage but Sourin666 seeks that our article (1) stop using the term 'Pod', (2) mention the caste as a Kshatriya, and (3) remove the fact of the Pods/Poundras being historically subject to untouchability. I can perhaps see where they are coming from — though with some skepticism in light of increasing attempts by certain political factions to downplay aspects of a deeply unegalitarian past — but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Also, I am also reminded of Janaki Nair's incisive essay (p. 243 - 246); esp. the third challenge. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, am I? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But you are (kind of) opposing an immediate indef, meaning that the time-sink goes on ... TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Not for much longer, it won't. I have weighed in there. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely! Just another caste warrior, not here to build an encyclopedia, but only agenda is to promote this particular caste! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Sitush, I love you also! Caste-warriors just waste too much time. I've indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

وزارة العدل العراقية

Just what I need An official government agency trying to use Wikipedia for its propaganda social media outlet.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And for their achievements achieved throughout the year. A real pleasure to block that one, Fritter. Well, a pleasure tinged with anxiety: I'm not used to having to trust Google Translate quite so blindly. Suppose the Arabic merely meant something like "yo, motherfucker". Bishonen | tålk 03:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC).

Capo Geezy once more

I hope you don't mind me bothering you with this again, but I think I may have found another Iamcapogeezy sockpuppet, Bobbyjean97, who has a similar username to many of the blocked sockpuppets and recently created Draft:Gianni Broquard, which is an essential copy of the deleted article. I would open an investigation if I were remotely familiar with the process. What do you think? Also, some recent activity by User:130.18.104.156 at Capo, one of the IPs that spammed the AfD–not sure that this matters though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Aha, that guy. Thank you, AllTheUsernames. Blocked, and draft deleted and salted against recreation. Do you use scripts at all? This is by no means something you need to feel you have to do, but if you install User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js, you'll be amazed at how simple it becomes to create SPI reports. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC).

Thank you, I'll look into that. On an additional note, I found this casepage from December 2023. Apparently some of the accounts go back to early 2020. There's also the account Capogeezyinc, which is probably a sleeper as Netherzone said, and Jreidray, which is less suspicious but recreated Draft:Capo Geezy a little while ago, which has been deleted 7 times. Do you think that's worthy of salting? Not sure if there would be sufficient evidence to block or not. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There's surely evidence, but they haven't really been active. As for salting Draft:Capo Geezy, Oshwah creation protected it in August 2023, though only limiting creation to autoconfirmed users, which seems a little weak to me. But it hasn't in fact been recreated since, so I guess I'll leave it at that. Bishonen | tålk 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC).

Not affiliated with Capo Geezy, but I will say he is the type to create multiple accounts. Willing to verify however possible. Jreidray (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Also will say, 130.18.0.0/16 is Mississippi State University's network. Both he and I are students there. Jreidray (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Jreidray, if you have nothing to do with Capo Geezy, I'd be interested to know how it came about that you created Draft:Capo Geezy (now deleted) in August 2023. Bishonen | tålk 18:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC).

I am a student at his university and he stands around promoting his self and his fame and I thought it a shame he wasn't on Wikipedia. The printouts he handed out said he had tons of listens and followers so I trusted that and other sources. I wouldn't say I have nothing to do with him, we've spoken, but he also has to the thousands of passerby who will stop for a second to let him spill about himself. 130.18.119.125 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That 130.18.119.125 reply was me. Sorry, totally new to this. Thanks. Jreidray (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

TheNotoriousSildeSoiler

Hi,
On 17 March you indef blocked TheNotoriousSildeSoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a vandalism-only account. It appears that this editor is evading the block with a new account YouCantDefeatSlideSolier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Besides the name similarity, the new account has vandalized the same article that the previous account edited. CodeTalker (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not really trying to hide, are they? Note the change from Silde to Slide, though. Thanks, CodeTalker. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC).

Yeah, I noticed that. They also changed "Soiler" to "Solier". I don't know if these are deliberate changes or if they just have poor spelling skills. Thanks for handling it! CodeTalker (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, they are now CU-confirmed (you can tag em if you like) and also otherwise impeded. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, but I don't think I'm supposed to tag using any of the "CU confirmed" tags, such as {{blockedsockpuppet|username}}. A CU should do that, is what I've been told. (I already tagged with the "suspected and blocked" tag.) Bishonen | tålk 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC).

Done. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access???

Hi, Bish. Do you think TPA should be revoked for User:Nkienzle after this comment they added to your block statement? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, the statement is located at the very bottom of the page. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hard to miss. I was just thinking the response was predictable and TP access is on borrowed time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I marked the page on my watchlist to see what would happen. Hope Bish replies ASAP. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No huge hurry. This is a hit and run user. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Welp, the personal attack was removed. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh... well, thanks for the thought, NoobThreePointOh, but I can't say I care. Venting against the blocking admin is something I tend to allow, at least when the blocking admin is me. And I see somebody has reverted it, too. I'm going to bed now; if the venting is too persistent, I expect I'll wake up to see some other admin has revoked TPA. Good night, guys! Bishonen | tålk 01:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen Alright then, goodnight. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Krish!

I didn't know that he left Wikipedia after your block. He created so many featured and good articles. After the DBigXray episode, there is a bias in favor of editors such as Tranga Bellam Tayi Arajakate, and Venkat. All these CIVIL POV pushers are more problematic. Tranga Bellam has less experience in how film articles are edited. Tranga Bellam's behavior is borderline harassment. they bite newbies, and wiki hounds other's edits. 2409:40E1:10C5:5906:6D9E:F6F2:440D:CACE (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The user left Wikipedia because of a two-month page block? A pretty mild sanction for severe disruption, IMO (compare this ANI thread). And you have found it necessary to log out from your account to come here and complain about it? OK. I'm afraid I would take that more seriously if you weren't hiding. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC).

Some words

Hi, hope this comment finds you well. To be honest, I think the reaction shown to my report may make the attackers bolder. Making numerous instances of personal attacks, which is usually taken seriously, and going with no cautions or warnings. Thanks anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

They can simply edit war and make personal attack without responding to policy based arguments raised by me. Is the discussion considered ongoing now? I know there should be more DR steps over the content dispute but the incivility is not a content issue. --Mhhossein ^talk 23:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'm sorry, but the offenses were too old for admin action when you reported them at ANI, and they're even older now. There's nothing I can do. When I told you that at ANI, you said the (old) diffs you had given were merely examples, but you still to this day have not offered anything recent. Do you have anything from the last 10 days? If not, I suggest you'll feel better if you let it go. Bishonen | tålk 23:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. AT ANI, I raised [8] personal attacks which were only 7 days old [9] and 3 days ago he accused me of having COI [10]. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a COI? I've asked them what they mean by that. Bishonen | tålk 10:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC).

New legal article

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It reads well, Valjean, and I'm delighted to encounter my old friend A. C. Bradley in such an unexpected context, but IANAL. Bishonen | tålk 18:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC).

Antioch International Movement of Churches

Hi there, I see you contributed a minor edit at the page for Antioch International Movement of Churches. Would you consider helping out on that page? Totally ok if not, but you have a lot more experience than I or the other involved editor Austin613 and we're having a hard time agreeing on how the article should be developed. Your feedback might be helpful since you have more experience. But totally ok if you don't have time; since you made a minor edit I thought it was worth asking you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Shinealittlelight. I no longer remember how I came to make the small correction, but I'm sorry - the subject lies pretty far from my interests and knowledge. Maybe you'd like to use the Wikipedia:Third opinion form of dispute resolution? It's lightweight and easy to use, and perfect for a disagreement where only two people are involved. Bishonen | tålk 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC).

Sure, thanks, I'll check that out. Have a good day. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please correct this

Please correct this allegation it's not accurate. [11] Tonymetz 💬 23:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I checked it carefully. How is it not accurate? Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

restored some removed posts 🔜 “restored a single post and then apologized for it” Tonymetz 💬 16:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a single post. It's three posts — a little conversation — which you restored. I've already asked on ANI where you apologized, purely because the diff you originally provided for it does not contain an apology. I see you have replied there with another diff, where you say "Let’s take it down a knotch. I’m sorry how that was received." That is actually what's known as a Non-apology apology (please click on my link there), a statement which expresses "I didn't do anything wrong, but you took it the wrong way". The mere words "I'm sorry" can't turn that into an actual apology. Please see also WP:NOTSORRY. But that is by the way, purely because you now mention it. My "allegation", as you call it, wasn't about objecting to your non-apology — hardly worth it, IMO — but purely about restoring some posts. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

Ok I hear your opinion and thank you. What’s next. Is there anything more to do on the admin side? Tonymetz 💬 20:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing I'm aware of. Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

Ok great. I wanted to say thanks for the help in managing the community. I know it is a volunteer effort and we appreciate that. I know you mean well despite any differences we may have had in the discussion. I hope we get to work together sometime soon. Tonymetz 💬 22:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy editing, Tony. Bishonen | tålk 02:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC).

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Just in case, since you were mentioned and I mentioned you further: #User Tonymetz posted again to my talk a month after [..] – 2804:F14:8090:C501:8CF5:7412:F217:B3C2 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

Your goggles are requested please

Hello Bishonen, I know you are busy and I hate to trouble you, but – User:DrKC MD – has been slinging insults/attacks at me and edit warring. I noticed you issued a warning a few days ago, but now the behavior is directed at me. When you find a moment, could you please have a look and at the situation? Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) looks like he's talking on the talk page... hasn't make an edit or revert yet today. can take to AN3 if he continues. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

[Bishzilla is very pleased.] It's the little Aunva6! Not to run away again! [Stuffs little Aunva in her pocket. Sternly:] Stay! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 17:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

@Aunva6, you are mistaken, not sure you are looking in the right places which is the article Women in punk rock and associated talk page Talk: Women in punk rock and also their user page. I am more concerned about the insults/attacks than the edit warring, which is simply annoying. In actuality they did make their last edit today by yet again restoring their disputed content on the article, this is the 4th time (along with insults in a couple different venues.) This started a week ago. Netherzone (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have an opinion about the disagreement, Netherzone, but I won't share it (in order to remain able to "admin" the article in case it's needed). It's a problem that there are only the two of you arguing. You obviously need more eyes on the article. Try Wikipedia:Third opinion, perhaps? As for the personal attacks, DrKC MD is being fairly rude, yes, but I don't think it rises to where I warn them about personal attacks. Better focus on getting the conflict resolved. As for being the fourth revert, as you tell Aunva... no. What counts is how many reverts they've made after you warned them about edit warring. By my count that's only one. All their edits are not reverts, some are merely additions of new sources. Bishonen | tålk 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

I guess the other two warnings I put in edit summaries don't count Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, warnings should be on the person's page, to make sure they see them. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know. Just want you to know, tho, they are now editing logged out Talk:Women in punk rock#Any objection to creation of an entry for 2020s to support their own "consensus". I'm going to step away from this, however. Netherzone (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

just an update, personal attacks and edit warring have resumed. i've created an AN3 case regarding his edit warring, etc. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Also accusing others of personal attacks and vandalism, both of which are untrue. Netherzone (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right on both counts, Netherzone. Noting that I'd previously warned the user for personal attacks, I've blocked them for 36 hours. Bishonen | tålk 12:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC).

Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

For our hard-working hard-hat ...

	... who is busily shoring up the enwiki infrastructure.
	Thanks for making sure that New York's architecture stays up to code. Havradim leaf a message 20:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Havradim. Hard hats should be compulsory for admins; all we get is a crappy T-shirt.

(Help, little talkpage stalkers; how do I get the yellow award to stop extending itself to everything downstream?) Bishonen | tålk 10:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC).

I think I fixed it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have the best stalkers. Thanks, John. Bishonen | tålk 11:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC).

Contentious edits of a user.

Hello @Bishonen, hope your doing well. An editor is adding questionable pov-pushing edits here [12], [13], as well as using religious sources with[14],[15] and additions that are looking like those of a troll account[16].

I reverted a few edits and asked him to gain consensus. However, as is typical with such accounts, he left me a message[17] attributing vandalism to me. Currently, he is engaged in an edit war, reverting my changes instead of first seeking consensus on the talk pages, as I advised. Could you please look into this? StarkReport (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The editor in question is now using Talk:Aisha#Use of Sahih Bukhari for age during marriage consummation to seek consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Two problem editors there. The one being discussed, and also see their edit to this new problem editor [18] "As for you adding contents, please use contents supported by peer reviewed sources. Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)". Kawrno Baba thinks Hadith's are reliable sources for fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen

Thank you for the message you left on my talkpage. You could have a taken stronger action and it would have been in your right to do so, but you acted in good faith and gave me the benefit of the doubt, thinking that as it has been years since I left, I must have forgotten, and you were right. I totally forgot. Thank you for that, and my sincere apologies. I used to work on many African related articles and not just Serer, but agree that I spent a huge time on Serer related articles. No disagreement there! There was a reason for that. And please don't assume I'm looking for a pity party, because that's not my character and that's not the point of writing the following. Apologies in advance for the long essay. I'm long winded (lol). I just want you to understand so you see where I was coming from. My tribe are a minority group throughout the Senegambia region. Even worse, my people have been persecuted for centuries because of our religious beliefs and ethnicity. Even today, my tribe is disenfranchised, and viewed as the scorn of society and suffer prejudice. Due to our turbulent history, a huge chunk of our history has been lost because of what our ancestors went through for centuries. Despite what our ancestors went through, including being driven from their lands because of their religious beliefs and ethnicity, genocide, rape, slavery, confescation of their properties, jihads, appropriation of their culture, etc., our ancestors still survived and preserved what they could of their identity to pass it down to their descendants so that their descendants never forget where they came from. Whilst the other tribes of Senegambia are more numerous, my tribe is not. Hence why you are more likely to find articles about the Wolof, Fula, Mandinka, etc, than about the Serer. I have been fortunate enough to spend decades studying the history of the Serer, as well as the history of the Senegambia region and its people, and West Africa. And through the years, I have acquired a large number of books on the subject, many of which are now out of print. The history of the Serer people of Senegambia is practically been wiped out of the general history of the Senegambia by some of the dominant groups, and what was historically regarded as part of Serer culture and history is now being taken for themselves. For that very reason, over a year ago, the president of Senegal appointed one of Senegal's historians to write the general history of Senegal, with strong ties to one of the dominant group. When that was published, it was as if the Serer never had a stake in Senegal or the Senegambia region to be exact. The Serer associations of Senegal took a strong stance against it. Historical figures, terms, etc., that you can only decipher by referring to Serer (the original source), and not any other language, etc., made historians to question the credibility of the book. The author had to concede and agreed to re-work the book. This is what my people have been going through for years. Now, our persecution and disenfranchisement is more sublte than direct like what our ancestors faced. Our ancestors used to assign Serer names and meanings to things they created so that, only those who know the language and the symbolisms can decispher them. That was to help their descendants never forget who they are and where they came from. Due to the materials I've accumulated over the years, which is a priviledge, as many from my tribe do not have access to those materials, I thought it useful to document my people's history on Wikipedia which is free and the most used for finding out things. Maybe someone else might have later created or edited a particular article about the Serer, maybe they might not. I don't know. However, I felt it would be very selfish of me, to sit on a huge collection of materials without sharing it with the world, especially knowing that some of my people will not have access to those materials. In my passion and attempt to put the history of my people on Wiki's pages of history, I offended many people and Wiki policy, and for that, I sincerely apologise, because that was never ever my intent. Respectfully, I was not even planning of coming back to Wiki due to work and family life, but had another grandson earlier this year. When I looked at his little face, I remember how lucky he is and what his ancestors went through to make sure he is here. I could have simply passed on my collection to his father to make sure he gets it and know where he came from, but what about the other Serer babies who might not have access to it? What about the other generation? What about others who might not even be Serer but simply wants to learn? These are the reasons I decided to come back, in order to help the project in the area I know more about, and do whatever I can to the best of my ability to advance this great project for the next generation of Wiki editors. I do not doubt that I might make mistakes. We are all humans and we all make mistakes. The best thing we can do is to learn from those mistakes, and improve, because life is about learning, and learning never stops. After serving this project for over a decade, I think I have learnt a lot, moreso, in the last 5 years which has given me opportunity to reflect and be the best I could possibly be. Thank you for taking the time to read this long essay, but just to thank you and to give you some perspective. Have a great weekend.Tamsier (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Tamsier, I feel I'm not getting through, but I'll try one more time. This will be your last chance of not being blocked. You are topic banned from all edits related to the Serer people. That applies on all Wikipedia pages. This page, my talkpage, is a Wikipedia page. Writing a long text here about the importance of Serer history is a violation of your topic ban. Will you do something for me? Please read WP:TBAN to see the official definition of what a topic ban is and what it means. It's only short. Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC).

Daniel Coronell

Hello Bishonen, if you're not too busy, do you think I could trouble you to look at this weird vandalism ring I found? The edits primarily concern the IP 170.55.41.66 and are mostly targeted at the articles Daniel Coronell, schools and institutions in the South Florida area and various sportspeople. Basically this IP has been adding hoaxes and changing random information. They have added non-existent awards to Daniel Coronell in this edit and the several edits following it, as well as this edit, and several edits in the past few weeks, which you could check the page history if you want to see those. They added information about a non-existent town to Chazz Woodson in this edit and linked a Google Sites about the made-up town. They've also added the names of people who appear to be students of Ransom Everglades School to various articles, such as here, here, here, here, and here. They've also committed random vandalism like this, this, this, this, this, this, whatever this is, this, this, this fiasco, this, and this. This account, Koolio Kat, also seems to have partaken. There's probably more but this is the obvious stuff. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it appears that their most recent three edits violated the final warning given by Muboshgu on their talk page. Sorry if it's a lot but I've had my eye on them for about a couple months now. If I had to guess I'd say it's probably a bored Miami-area teenager who thinks that Wikipedia is their playground. Not sure though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow — well, I am in fact pretty busy right now, AllTheUsernames, sorry. And I see a lot of your diffs, while certainly bad, are pretty old. Do you think you could appeal to Materialscientist, who blocked for a month in 2021, or, perhaps better, Muboshgu, who warned recently? Or, of course, to WP:ANI. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC).

No problem. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, it does appear stale to me, the oldest edit was about two weeks ago. If they return, we should respond promptly. I'll notice if they're back on those baseball articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: They just made an unexplained content removal at Zhanna Pintusevich-Block. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. Yes, it's formally an unexplained content removal, but I'm not sure the text they removed should have been there in the first place. People ought to use edit summaries, yes, but I wouldn't call that vandalism. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Fair. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Ratnahastin

admin sir. This user @Ratnahastin removed reliable/sourced information from Graharipu and he reverted blocked user version. please block him. Hcsrctu (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hcsrctu: There was a lot of caste-cruft in your edits which I am sure anyone would find wrong. Anyway, I would simply suggest you to read WP:HISTRS. Outdated sources from colonial period and new age publications are not reliable for this subject. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Scholars and historians have mentioned Graharipu as Yadava and Abhira but you people have problem only with Abhira word. It is clearly visible from your editing that you promote casteism. I don't know why you people feel that the present Ahirs are the ancient Abhiras. Hcsrctu (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The version you were trying to restore had been rejected by @Utcursch: [19] in past, inspite of this you participated in a slow edit war to restore your preferred version multiple times [20][21]. You have been notified about active sanctions in this topic area,I would suggest you to be more careful on how you conduct yourself.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• That won't happen, Hcsrctu. Would my talkpage stalkers care to take a look at those sources? They sound dodgy to me. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: You look at the Graharipu article where it is showing that The Chudasamas began to rule in Sourashtra from the second half of the 10th century A.D but the sources mention Abhiras not Chudasamas. And there it is also showing that Hemachandra in the Dvyashraya-Kavya describe Graharipu as a Yadava. But the Source mentions Graharipu as an Abhira and a Yadava. Hcsrctu (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Unacceptable language in article talk by SPA

Hi Bishonen, hope everything is fine! Please have a look at this POV-pusher Rahul pal jadoun's edit here! Since they couldn't remove sourced content, they are abusing and using unacceptable language; 'chutiye' in Hindi means 'fu**er'! Would request you to warn/take necessary action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thank you, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Thank you so much for your prompt action. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

User_talk:Sudsahab#April_2024

Would you mind having a look...? Drmies (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

But it's so complicated..! OK, I'll try. Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC).

Many thanks and much love. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bishonen test categories

Good day. I came upon Category:Bishonen test categories because it was erroneously placed in Category:Category-Class Wikipedia articles. It looks like this category and its subcategories were created out of the discussion at User talk:Bishonen/Archive 24#Red link categories, but that the result of that discussion, including this edit, is that the categories are no longer needed and can be deleted. Is that correct? Bsherr (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bsherr, insofar as they were ever needed, they certainly aren't now. I find the discussion in my archive that you link to rather heavy going; I can only hope that deleting those cats won't lead to them appearing in red on my pages, making me again a mark for complaints. Johnuniq, you took care of it, right? Do you think deleting them will have any deleterious (ha!) effects? Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC).

I believe Category:Bishonen test categories and its four subcategories can be deleted with no bad side effects. The category should also be removed from User:Bishonen/Useful warnings which I can do if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do, John. I guess you rightly surmise that I'm not sure which one (ones?) might be trouble. Bishonen | tålk 08:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC).

Done, it was just a simple removal. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Very good. I have tagged them for speedy deletion with an edit summary linking to this section. (I have also removed the empty category templates, since I think it is actually inapplicable to these categories.) Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done I live for the opportunity to delete something Bishonen created. MWAHAHAHA. Floquenbeam the Destroyer (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You're so deleterious. (Is nobody impressed by my fine learned pun?) Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC).

April music

story · music · places

today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And spring has come to my page! Thank you, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

Nyttend

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring & persistent disruptive editing by SPA

Hi Bishonen.. would request you to check the revision history of Varna (Hinduism). An apparently new user Parsikan is edit warring in spite of all possible warnings on their talk page! Moreover, you may have a look at this edit summary, where the user has also engaged in personal attack labelling me as a 'caste propagator'! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you both, most kind! Bishonen | tålk 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC).

Indeed, it is a most felicitous and happy day. What a jubilee for you to celebrate, so many long years of service to this esteemed project, I think a Wikipedian Damehood is called for, then you’ll be almost (but not quite) as elevated as me. I doubt I was old enough, or even born, at the time of your elevation to vote, but you continue to amaze those of us not even half your age. Now do take care and don’t overtax yourself (although, I doubt anyone is more over taxed than me, it’s blatant robbery, I blame that Mrs Truss and that dreadful Trump man). I’ll post you a nice blanket and some vitamin pills to ensure your continued dedication to this fine project. Avec beaucoup d'amour comme toujours as we say on Monte Carlo were I’m exiled to live in near penury. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Really, Lady Catherine? Last I saw you were flirting wildly with Mr Trump. But the kind sentiments are nevertheless appreciated. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC).

North indian history

is not blocked... i seen your talk page message to the sockpupeteer. made a mainspace edit just today. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Aunva6. Good catch! Bishonen | tålk 08:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC).

May music

story · music · places

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

last offer in May: photos of the river Rhine, and the adjacent Eltville rose garden, - high water and interesting weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 08:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC).

Special:Contributions/24.170.195.23 and Special:Contributions/2600:8807:C143:9F00:DDCF:80BA:C447:6B9D

please take a look at the Contributions for these two ip is continuing to vandalize Gainesville High School (Florida) and revel of the ip's edit summary is needed as well. I want to point out that these two ip's 24.170.195.23 and 2600:8807:C143:9F00:DDCF:80BA:C447:6B9D are the same person and ip's needs to be blocked asap and edit summary needs to be revdel also. 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) Untamed1910 (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Untamed1910: I think I have done all that is necessary. Reply here if more is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Untamed1910. And thank you, Johnuniq, it looks complete to me. Bishonen | tålk 08:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC).

Self-requested block

Hi, please block me for six months. I'll probably have cheered up a bit by then. If you want to wait 24 hours that's fine.  Tewdar  21:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. I hope you do cheer up. Bishonen | tålk 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC).

Question

I believe Rev Del had been done on many of the last edits on this page [22]

So then, why were they undone? 2409:4052:248D:5FFB:ADA6:C104:3DF7:650E (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) several still look revdeled, and I don't really see anything else that needs to be revdeled IMO. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I only see a few edits from February 2021 revdel'd because they were purely disruptive, and one from April 2020. No revision deletion has been undone (if that was what you meant); if such an action had been performed, it would have shown up here. Why do you care after all this time? Bishonen | tålk 22:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC).

I wanted to better understand Wikipedia's rules/polices, given what I remembered.

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Festivalfalcon

Hi Bishonen, I saw the recent developments surrounding Festivalfalcon and while the connection between Alvin and him is obvious, I think his connection to HaughtonBrit is being neglected. Further, if you take into account RangersRus's actions and case, it's pretty clear that all 3 accounts are being used by the sockmaster to vote stack in AFDs, suppress articles in which their religious side was defeated/promote articles which valourize their religion. The evidence for Festivalfalcon's connection to HB can be seen here-[23]

In addition, HaughtonBrit has been making bogus unblock requests, gas lighting and deceiving admins for years on end See HaughtonBrit protesting his unblock request despite the fact that he was CU confirmed to AtmaramU and [24]

Canon8's unblock requests

MehmoodS made his first unblock request on July 5, 2022, despite vehemently declaring his innocence, he started editing from his IPs/proxies a few hours after his block, then he made another unblock request 7 months later again declaring that he abided by the terms of the standard offer, despite the fact that he was editing logged out for the entire 7 months and was operating another sock account Javerine before and after the request: Despite the fact that he promised Yamla that he would stay away from block evading, he again began editing logged out and through sock accounts

Dekhoaayadon

Elifanta23's unblock requests

Supmananger's unblock request

Finmas was another which was acting in tandem with HB's logged out IPs and sock accounts; had his TPA revoked for inappropriate use

I don't think an obvious sock of an extremely deleterious sockmaster should be given any consideration whatsoever. In fact, I think all his blocked sock accounts should have their TPAs revoked for repeated attempts to deceive. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In addition, after MehmoodS was blocked, the sockmaster made many dozens of throwaway accounts from mid/late 2022 to present day, of which Festivalfalcon is included, and employed extensive logged out editing (including proxy use, Abecedare blocked numerous of his IPs and ranges in the summer of last year ) as a tactic to confuse admins as much as possible and make dealing with his sockpuppetry much harder. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) * Comment. This sock threat made against me is for fifth time now with this repeated SPI case. Southasianhistorian8 filed SPI before for same allegations that two admins @The Wordsmith: and @Drmies: found no connection [25]. I have voted on 100s of AFDs and because some votes were on Southasianhistorian8's nominated AFDs, he began making full of all inane allegations and has become continous case of WP:BULLY and revenge threat to stop me from voting. I would not like to repeat myself and you can see my response here. Pinging @The Wordsmith: and @Drmies: who can shed more input in my case. Him messaging you is trying forum shopping WP:OTHERPARENT that he has done before. An Admin Liz also said to him in an AFD nomination"It is not appropriate to accuse an editor of being a sockpuppet in an AFD discussion. If you have concerns, file a case at SPI. If there is no confirmation of sockpuppetry through an SPI, then you are just trying to tarnish the reputation of an editor which is a personal attack. Please conduct a discussion elsewhere." This user has repeatedly violated Wikipedia's civility policy and should be blocked for WP:BULLY. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Bishonen, the comment by RR further bolsters my case that all 3 accounts are working in tandem to achieve the aforementioned goals laid out above. All 3 accounts have made obvious attempts to hinder my edits, all 3 accounts have clearly been shown to be following me around, all 3 accounts have sabatoged my AFDs (with significant overlap between RangersRus and Festivalfalcon) and voted in the same AFDs to promote their religion's military achievements/surpress articles in which they were defeated-[26].

It's strange that RangersRus decides to come here, in what strongly resembles the emotional, impulsive reaction of Festivalfalcon here-[27]. It's a very common theme with HB, he can't help but to make it obvious that he's socking. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Also bizarre how he put the "talk page stalker" notification, despite this being the first interaction he's had with you-[28]. It strongly suggests that he was trying to preemptively downplay his obvious following by suggesting that he's been tracking your t/p for a while. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"talk page stalker" is "considered polite to announce one's intention to stalk another's talk page, perhaps through some creative means, or an amiably worded self-invitation to the talk page's owner using as many weasel words as you can manage." RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x 3. Please take a look at Southasianhistorian8's top post if you have time, Abecedare. But imo, Southasianhistorian8, it's not about giving the sock/meat accounts of a notoriously deleterious sockmaster, as you say, as harsh sanctions as possible so as to express our indignation against them. In practical terms, that doesn't do much, since it's fatally easy to simply create more socks. It's about trying to flush them out, or even re-educate them (said she with manic optimism). And frankly, I don't think my offer of an alternative sanction to Festivalfalcon is much of a "consideration"; if they accept it (a big if), it's at least conceivable that they'll understand they can be here provided they edit more constructively. And it can't do any harm, that I can see. (Possibly not much good either, but we try.) RangersRus, reading the SPI and its archives, I notice several Checkusers opining that it's too hard to evaluate technical evidence in these cases, and they will have to be evaluated on behavioral evidence. Therefore, I'm quite unimpressed by your statement that Checkusers "found no connection" (=they found no technical connection, iow they found no connections as checkusers). As for you being a "talkpage stalker" of my page, that's surprising. How come? Bishonen | tålk 13:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC).

  Maybe "talk page stalker" was not the right tag to use but ever since Southasianhistorian8 filed one accusation after another through SPI and ANI, I had him on watch list and because my account was brought up here, I had to comment. This is what admins said that I was trying to show After taking a close look at the behavioral evidence, I'm reasonably convinced that RangersRus is not an HB sock. Southasianhistorian8 continued to harass even after that on ANI, on AFD too. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I understand, but retaining the sock block for Festivalfalcon would allow for future cases for more notorious, integrated sock accounts which are creating disruption but have a long, convoluted edit history, to go more smooth as it would establish precedence and editing/voting overlap. It also kinda sends a message that sock accounts can stay on Wikipedia as long as they edit "constructively" (but with this particular sockmaster, they'll exploit any opportunity they get to ensure their religion comes out on top no matter what, they're fanatically and exclusively devoted to that cause, whether it be through "legitimate" means, though it's almost always through illegitimate means) whereas my stance is that sockpuppets should be blocked regardless, especially since it'll allow the sockmaster to hide his vast list of indiscretions and indef blocks.

• Basically, the account being unblocked would hinder what is an obvious sock puppet from being invoked in any future or other sockpuppetry cases, which are usually conducted by establishing similarities between a suspected account and blocked/confirmed socks. I'm also concerned that if Festivalfalcon were to somehow appeal his topic ban, we'd be back at square one, having to deal with his relentless tendentious edits, and it would have to be escalated again with admin involvement.

• And yes, HaughtonBrit has a very, very long history of evading CU blocks, CUs not only found no evidence of MehmoodS block evading despite the fact that he himself admitted that he was doing so for 7 months straight and operating a sock account behind the scenes, Finmas and Dazzem, two other sock accounts were deemed "Unrelated", "Inconclusive" and "Possible" by CUs despite being very obvious socks (they were block evading through proxies, as was his other sock, Dekhoaaydon according to Ponyo). During the summer last year, they were hounding me non stop with logged out editing; Abecedare blocked multiple IPs and ranges and HB would come back the very next day as if nothing happened. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Bish, as you probably know CU is difficult for this part of the world and pretty much everything is just Inconclusive or Possible. The only thing we can really go on is behavioral evidence, and in this case it's long, complex and frankly gives me a headache (Southasianhistorian8's gish gallop-like evidence doesn't help). At the first SPI for RangersRus I noticed some key differences in their writing style, grammar, edit summaries, and topic areas which I won't go into for WP:BEANS reasons, but they were behaviors I hadn't observed in the confirmed socks. I also noticed some similarities; they could just be the result of speaking Indian English and being interested in India-related topics or they could be more. The evidence seemed too much like reasonable coincidence, so I closed it that way. I said the same on SAH8's second bite at the apple on my talkpage, and the third when I was taken to ANI over it. Since then I've tried to stay out of it, but it seems like nobody else is eager to dive in either.

  If you could take a look at the new evidence and give a second opinion, I'd owe you one. I haven't checked it all out, but one thing that caught my eye is that RangersRus was created one hour after suspected HB sock Gubara90 was indeffed. That information wasn't given at the first SPI (and there was no other SPI logged for Gibara90); it could change things if the rest of the new evidence shakes out. Either way, it would be great to not keep getting pinged every few weeks for another round of this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, The Wordsmith. Unfortunately I'm far from well-informed concerning this complicated sockdrawer; there's probably plenty of evidence I haven't read. My involvement so far has merely been to "take over" Abecedare's indefinite block of Festivalfalcon873 as a meatpuppet, per Abe's block rationale here, after Abe realized he might be considered involved. I'm sorry, this is spread over so many pages: where is this new evidence of which you speak (new since when?)? Is it evidence against RangersRus that you're particularly interested in? Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC).

  RangersRus is the one that keeps popping up in discussions by Southasianhistorian8, so that's really the only outstanding thing I'd appreciate a second opinion on. There's so much "evidence" spread out everywhere, but specifically what I'm concerned with is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit#10 May 2024 in the collapsed section for RangersRus. It looks like a reasonably concise presentation of all the evidence I originally reviewed in March 2024 and some new things I haven't, so if there is enough to justify a block it'll be there. And if there isn't enough, I'd hope that's the final word on the issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  @The Wordsmith, I'd also appreciate your thoughts on the section. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Wordsmith, I took a look at the SPI section you indicate, and here are my thoughts.

• Gubara is a blocked sock of HB. One hour after Gubara was blocked by Discospinster, RR created their account. Somewhat suggestive, yes, but nothing much.
• HB's IP 24.154.112.204 was blocked for a month on 3 June 2023 by Abecedare for block evasion, with a reference to the SPI. When they returned, they inflated figures for Sikhism in the United States and RR went on to add more after just a few hours. I don't see that that matters.
• Southasianhistorian8 gives examples of edits aggrandizing the Sikh side and being particulary against the Marathas by MehmoodS and Javerine and IPs. Then one example (a good one) of RR doing the same at Special:Diff/1173320549.
• SAH has examples of RR voting in AFDs to delete articles about victories by Marathas and defeats of Sikhs and to keep articles about Sikh victories. Then SAH also admits that RR makes "65-70 votes in a span of two months ... The obvious conclusion to draw from that is that he knew he messed up and the numerous votes help to disguise himself; making DUCK-like AFD votes more legitimate at face value." SAH's point is that the duckish AFD votes were made first, and then the 65-70 unrelated votes were made to mask the significance of the duckish ones. Possibly, but it seems pretty tenuous to me. I'm disinclined to accept this argument as evidence.
• TLDR: Obviously RR is a Sikh promoter like HB and his socks. No doubt about that. But there are surely independent Sikh promoters knocking about Wikipedia. The million-dollar question here is whether the other similarity, that of having a particular beef with Marathas, is significant. I'm not sure it is. RR is a tendentious editor, but I don't believe we can say, from the evidence by SAH that I've reviewed, that they're a sock. Bishonen | tålk 12:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen, @The Wordsmith, I think one critical area of the SPI is being neglected and that is RR's hounding and undeniable parallel AFD campaign which only began as a reaction to my first AFD nom of the year (detailed in the first 3 AFD votes part + 1000 edits, 5 months part). There's only one user who throughout the entirety of my Wikipedia experience that has been hounding me- starting with MehmoodS and I (there's far too many content disputes we had but it was well into the hundreds), then Rivanawam, Elifanta23, Supmanager, Finmas, his proxy trying to get me banned as a SPA, *2, *3, *4, trying to get me in trouble by stalking a disagreement on my t/p, comparing me to a convicted criminal, the hundreds of logged out edits trying to inhibit my work last year, the whole Alvin1783 and Festivalfalcon accounts trying to ruin my PRODs; these diffs are the very tip of the iceberg, probably just 1/1000th of the actual situation, and don't really get across just how intense and overwhelming the hounding is. When you take that + all the other things into context, his very obvious parallel AFD campaign that started as a reaction to me, the consistent sabotaging of my AFDs, the other following examples in the AFD, and his POV pushing, I think it's a open and shut case. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

There's just no way the Gubara90 connection, the same mass movie edits, the close proximity editing to HB's blocked IPs, the timing and POV of his first 3 AFD votes one of which had 4 of his IP votes, his mass AFD votes beginning right after my nom, the constant sabotage of my AFDs, same promotion of articles which valorize Sikhs/suppression of articles which mention their defeat + vice versa for Afghans/Marathas, obvious following, including following me to his SPI-[29], [30], [31], his votes in tadem with Festivalfalcon and Alvin1783, and the fact that HB and RR have the exact same writing style can all be chalked up to coincidence! Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bishonen: SAH8 created wall of text of inane allegation purposely taking out all the other evidence that does not make me a sock. I voted in favor of his deletion nomination on a page that claimed Sikh victory Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_battle_of_Anandpur_(1704). I have also voted for Delete on other pages claiming sikh victory Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Nirmohgarh_(1702) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Chamkaur_(1764). I have voted Keep for articles with Maratha victory Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bajirao's_Konkan_Campaign, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plunder_of_Murshidabad_(1742) and voted deletion for page with Nizam victory over Marathas Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maratha–Nizam_wars. These all are some examples. I do not remember my earlier edits and its plausible that Rohtas fort was one of the many pages on mainspace that showed up on recent edits list and I took interest in what I considered was unwarranted edits that didn't run parallel with the source and Rohtas Fort was a case of no source available and that is why the bare comment was removed. I have also edited on pages by inflating Hinduism population in the United states as correction by source. I have also edited on Jainism in the United States. I am not connected with any religious or community to take precedence over. My votes on AFDs are exclusively on the evaluation of sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The overwhelming trend for RR is to valourize the Sikh side and vitiate the Marathas/Afghans, a consistent and idiosyncratic (in regards to the Marathas, as I've not seen any other "Sikh promoter" engage in such in the past 3 years) pattern for HB's socks. The few opposite votes (most of them are in May of this year, around the same time I started working on the RR SPI case on my user page-[32] ) are an obvious attempt to create some plausible deniability, as are the mass edits to movie topics which HB socks (HB + Gubara90) employed as well.

A sock account is obviously going to try tactics which help demarcate themselves from the master, it's not like every sock is going to announce that they're a sock. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Thank you, that roughly matches my assessment but I owe you one for giving a second opinion. RR could be a HB sock, but the more likely explanation is just someone with a similar POV. The Gubara90 connection was the strongest piece of evidence so far. @Southasianhistorian8: It seems like you've gotten to a point where any similarities are evidence of sockpuppetry, but any differences are evidence of covering up sockpuppetry. I strongly suggest you leave RR alone and move on, several admins now have concluded the evidence is not strong enough to justify a sockpuppetry block. Between the multiple reports and contacting multiple admins on their talkpages, we're approaching WP:HOUNDING territory if not already there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith, well there's nothing more I can do, somehow a user created 1 hour after an indeffed sock with the same POV of said sockmaster running an obvious parallel AFD campaign against my noms, also consistent with sockmaster doing such things for years on end, wasn't convincing enough. I tried my very, very best, but now it's to move forward. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for protecting the article on Dhadhor

Hi Bishonen.. hope you are doing well. Would request you to please check the revision history of the article on Dhadhor and the warnings on the user talk page, User talk:Praveenkaveer24! The user is engaged in persistent vandalism (caste related POV) and edit warring in spite of all possible warnings! Would like to request you to take appropriate action. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

An easy one, Ekdalian. Page-blocked from the article. Thanks for your vigilance. Bishonen | tålk 09:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC).

Sheesh, that's gotta be one of the worst articles I have seen on wikipedia. The lead plagiarizes from one one 1845 work by an East India Company administrator who in turn simply regurgitates the opinion from an 1825 work by a British soldier and adventurer (naturally that simple plagiarism has 8 "supporting" references appended to it). And neither the writing nor the sourcing of the article improve from thereon. See also comments comments by Sitush and WikiDan61 on the talkpage

Plan to light a fuse. B, I expect that semi/ECP is likely to be required soon to prevent the rebuilding of this monstrosity. :) Abecedare (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What a cute little article it is now, Abecedare. I've semi'd for two years, in consideration of the editing that has already taken place. But you realise that the stub template encourages rebuilding? "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". No, I don't think you can. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC).

Hey, I just reverted to Sitush's version. Blame him for the invitation! ;-) Abecedare (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Bishonen. Great to see you back, Abecedare; indeed it was a poor article to say the least, thanks for reverting it to the version by Sitush! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Thank you for protecting my talk! Please just keep watching it. - Today is "the day" for James Joyce! Today is also the day for Bach's fourth chorale cantata. The most recent pics (click on "places") have a mammal I had to look up ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

A review was started, and no other articles became ready for a nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Mr vili

Heads up: I have upgraded the block to indef for reasons orthogonal to your original 24h block. Abecedare (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Suspected Sock of Liliana Verdiana Levy

Hi, Odette Alexandra Hamilton (talk · contribs) appears to be adding cats to articles in the same manner as sock Liliana Verdiana Levy. You were very quick to nip this in the bud last time. Thanks. Sciencefish (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Her again? Amazing. Blocked and tagged. Thanks, Sciencefish. Bishonen | tålk 21:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC).

Possible disruptive editing

Hello, I'm reaching out to you because you blocked rollinginhisgrave a few years back for "persistent edit warring supported by wikilawyering on the talkpage". It appears that the disruptive editing is back. I try to assume good faith, but this editor is making dozens of edits to the page every day that I feel are disruptive and is at the same time advocating at AFD for the article to be deleted. It seems like this editor is trying to demonstrate why the article should be deleted by providing dozens of examples of why the article is problematic. Again, I try to assume good faith and accusing someone of disruptive editing may run afoul of that, but I feel like I'm drinking from a firehose to preserve the article's integrity in the face of a deluge of edits.

Details can be found at [33], Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#New_Entries_Proposal, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(6th_nomination). Seems to be a pattern of WP:POINT.

Thanks in advance for looking into this. Thought I'd ask and admin quietly before taking it to ANI. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Swordfish. I'm unsure about this. Both Rollinginhisgrave and you yourself clearly feel very strongly about the article, but I don't see either of you as editing in bad faith. Then again, there is just so much editing by Rolling that checking all of it is too much for any one admin, so ANI may be your best bet. (Though I'm afraid it might be too much for the ANI regulars also.) In my sampling of their edits, I did notice what I thought a few pedantries, such as tagging the statement that Santa was already fat and clad in red "by the late 19th century" with citation needed, even though just a little good faith can get it from the Snopes reference. Bishonen | tålk 18:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for looking into this. For the last several weeks I have been treating their edits in good faith and trying to engage to improve the article. But when I saw that they were advocating for deletion of the article I began to question whether these edits were being made in good faith when the very same material added by this editor is used to support the deletion. The argument is basically "the inclusion criteria is too loose and allows too many entries - just look at all the entries I have just made to prove my point." Why would someone take the time to make literally hundreds of additional entries when they want the article to be deleted? I can't think of a good faith reason.

Do you think this is a good candidate for ANI or should I just let the AfD discussion play out? If this editor is successful at deleting the article via arguments on AfD and tendentious editing there's not much else to discuss. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it'll do very well on ANI — too niche and too much work. Sorry. Bishonen | tålk 08:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC).

One person...

One person is what? Now, I wonder why I find that funny. 🤨 JBW (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose when I say that, I should accompany it with a blushing smiley. 😳 Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC).

Not at all! Use this one! 😈 darwin bish 21:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC).

Something to keep an eye on perhaps (Nicole Kidman)

Debated posting this to AN/I, but there's nothing really necessary yet other than additional eyeballs (unless someone can add to what I've already stated), but someone professing to be an assistant to Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is asking that her birthdate be removed from her Wikipedia article. The user in question is Blossomkid2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So far the discussion is all on their talk page, and they've made a few edits to the subject article to change the birthdate (all reverted so far). Thanks. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

July music

story · music · places

Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and Mozart related to all three items of music on my talk: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, Martti Wallén, a bass, and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia (whose article would be better with more details about her music-making). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 12:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC).

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart again if you click on "music" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers the chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 12:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 July 30b had a baritone, a violinist, a composer and a Bach cantata, - almost too much, and the composer's article, Wolfgang Rihm, improved much over the last days, could still grow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society

Dear Bishonen,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more. ​

Best regards, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

— The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, Bish getting old.!

Hopefully, saying the TRUTH here rather than at AN will not earn me templated NPA warnings. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition

I have nominated Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Caste warrior

Hi Bishonen.. I believe you are fine and must be doing great! Would request you to have a look at the user talk page of King of karkota! The user is here to promote Kayastha caste and has been violating all forms of warnings including DS alert & level 4 warning. The user is also trying to add caste related POV using misleading edit summaries! Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC).

Thanks a lot. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You've got an email

@Bishonen pinging just in case

Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 08:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Kefas Brand

Hello. Does this look like a sock of User:LuboneEditors to you? Should I file an SPI? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean Adrian Chumachen? Hard to tell who's the original sockmaster here, and, since two brothers are involved as subjects, they may also both be editing. Adrian Chumachen last edited 4 years ago, if we ignore some recent deleted edits. Also, they moved Draft:Arnold Namisi and Draft:Kefas Brand to mainspace just a week ago, so they're around all right. Whereas LuboneEditors is brand new. A one-edit account called Park hue originally created Draft:Kefas Brand in March 2024. Sigh. I think probably creation protecting the article names, and trying to keep a lookout for recreations under slightly different names, is the way to go. I'll do that. If it's not a hassle for you, Wikishovel, you could file an SPI (of course under the oldest known account, Adrian Chumachen), but it's just so easy to keep creating socks... sigh again. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC).

Will do, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Day Britain Stopped

The Day Britain Stopped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another sock's just turned up adding back the same bloated/fictitious plot summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, tagged, article reverted. Thanks, Andy. Bishonen | tålk 19:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC).

August music

story · music · places

Today I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Lovely, Gerda. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC).

Thank you! - On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you know (see below) that your block log was the first I ever inspected, yesterday, because you asked proudly? I don't care ;) (but the 10th anniversary of the lesson to the one who blocked you comes soon) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Today, lecturing our founder). Music for today's feast is Monteverdi's, the best concert we ever did (so pictured again on my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hehe, my fine block log! What a good anniversary for the founder, Gerda. Did you check out my discreet link to this also? I've no idea who added it to the article. (But I created the anchor for it myself, effortfully — I don't really know how to do stuff like that.) Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC).

Seen, but my interest in arbitration is close to zero ;) - singing is better. I said so right after their verdict. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

An answer to "why don't you keep that material off wiki, Buster?"

Thanks Bishonen for your question. The reason is simple...I am an old fart. I just celebrated #78. I don't do any of the social platforms and I don't use Word or any other platform for storage or info gathering. I just copy something and put in one of my many sandboxes or create a new one. Which is what happened in this case. I just do Wikipedia. I know how to edit Wikipedia...how to link and cut and paste, etc. I trust my self at Wikipedia. I realize I made a mistake with the inverted bar leaning left instead of right and so the page appeared in Mainspace. But it was a simple typing error. Nothing more. I agree with the groundswell of negative response to what I copied from the article. The article was horrible, as nasty a rightist piece of propaganda against any politician as I have ever read. It was attack to the MAX. Thats why I HAD to save it somewhere otherwise I would forget where to find it. That's what I do. I've been doing this (saving something I might lose) for a decade and a half. Now I have a big Red 'B' on my forehead (For "blocked). I guess I could add a '7' and no one would know. I do think that administrators could have used better judgement. Any minimal research would uncover a quality editor with very clean hands. Why right away assume my account was compromised? Why not email me? Or go to the Editor of the Week pages and ask around. It's been a bad day for me, with this rush to judgement by strangers. Wikipedia is not a hobby for me. I've been "working" here since 2008. I will close with this...I'm glad you are in my corner! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 01:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A big red B for blocked? Seriously, bah to that, Buster. Per contra, I think having no block log at all, for somebody who's been here so long as you, would be a bit milquetoast. I'm very proud of my block log, for my part — that's why I feature it at the top of my userpage. Click on it here, and note in particular the block from 22 May 2009. I took the admin in question to arbitration over it, pretty successfully. Drama, drama! No harm, no foul! Bishonen | tålk 08:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC).

I guess I forgot to ping Buster7 to show I'd replied. Bishonen | tålk 20:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC).

Request for intervention (caste promotion)

Hi Bishonen, hope you are fine.. Would request you to have a look at the revision history of the article on Lingayat Vani and take necessary action. The user PerspicazHistorian has blanked all warnings related to this article including DS alert here, accused me of vandalism when I tried to resist and is continuously engaged in edit warring in spite of posting related warning on their talk page! I have already pinged other experienced editors on the article talk page. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ekdalian, I was already looking at Lingayat Vani, as that user alerted me and others (rather foolishly) by posting a "warning" on your page. The article history is a horror show, indeed. I don't doubt that the the user needs to be stopped (indeffed), but as far as sourcing and caste promotion, I feel a little out of my depth as regards a block notice. I'm hoping somebody who actually understands the area will take care of the problem. Pinging Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Abecedare, SpacemanSpiff. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC).

Thanks a lot! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of temperament issues here, but I'm not seeing an obvious promotion issue. I'll give them a page-block until they're willing to recalibrate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanamonde93. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Ekdalian, this is a patently unjustifiable edit. Subrahmanyam is arguably the foremost historian of premodern South India and it is ridiculous to enquire, Are the authors reliable? Add brief bio for the authors in the article talk page [...] That said, PerspicazHistorian's usage of the source was not very satisfactory. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. TrangaBellam, there's something wrong with your link from "arguably". Bishonen | tålk 19:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC).

Apologies. This will work. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey TrangaBellam, thanks for your input; basically, I wanted the user to engage in discussion since I could not verify the statements! The user has definitely tried to promote the caste using unreliable sources. Have a look at the POV section, 'Lingayat Wani were Brahmins' which I have removed here. Vanamonde93, please note! Also the user is a repeat offender; in spite of clearly specifying here, the user has again tried to cite facebook as a source in their most recent edit! Anyway, thank you all, especially Bishonen, for pinging the right admins. Ekdalian (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI

Stumbled on [34] while looking into something unrelated. 12 days old, but postdates your sockblock, so thought you might want to know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Tamzin. I'll leave them for now, with a warning about using edit summaries. Bishonen | tålk 08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC).

Oops, my fault for vagueness there. I was sleepy. I was referring to the continued loutsocking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi - can I request an admin edit to Shroud of Turin, and should I do it here or there and what tl do I use?

Hi

Sorry to bother you :¬) I just wanted to get a wikilink fixed on there that I spotted, but was totally confused by the lack of "edit" next to the section titles. It took me a while to reliase what was going on lol How do we request an admin edit? Is there some sort of {{admin}} tag we can use? It was just a little edit at the end of the third paragraph in the "description" section ... It has a link to Poor Clare which is a redir to Poor Clares, so it really is just tagging an s on the end.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)