User talk:Bishonen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:35, 22 January 2022

[[?title=User_talk:Bishonen&action=purge Purge the page to see a different image |?title=User_talk:Bishonen&action=purge Purge the page to see a different image]]

Yuletide Greeting

Greetings from all of us holed up on some remote island south of the Italian peninsular. I do hope you’re well, if yet another year older. My year has been dreadful. The kitchen staff have decamped back to the Philippines, my French maid has said ‘bollox to Brexit’ and gone back to France, and Stanislaw my devoted plumber has found he can earn more in Poland. Now Rishi Sunak (such a mice looking boy) is raising my taxes. I already subsidise the whole country and single handedly fund the NHS. Fortunately, I never think of myself or complain, so I have moved in with my nephew and his odd wife, which is why I’m here in wherever. Do you like my Christmas card? Giano had hundreds printed, (apparently some distant connection of his, who he says was the first Santa Claus) anyway, it’s cheaper than buying my own cards. Do take care of yourself, I’ve always admired your energy and stamina, you and the dear Queen are such examples to us all. I just hope I’m the same at your age. Much love to you all The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas from me too. Love Giano (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC) xx[reply]

As I'm sure Bishonen (or, at least, Darwinbish) knows already, I too wish her and everyone a most excellent holiday season. But, seeing the fine comments of the most gracious Lady Catherine, I decided to educate myself about her ever-so-inspiring history – something I was unable to do until just now, due to a rather pesky neurological disorder. (I should hasten to add that I'm half American and half human.) I'm most interested in the history of formal dance, and I can only imagine the magnificent balls that must have been in Scrotum House. Perhaps they climaxed years ago, but still, I'm sure they must have been marvelous. But I digress. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Lady Catherine, what an honour to hear from you, and receive a lovely Christmas card. Your nephew's taste is exquisite as always. My sockpuppets and I send you both many, many respectful greetings and venture to hope that, amongst the exodus of your faithful (?) retainers, Sven the Swedish majordomo remains staunchly in attendance. Comparing me with the dear Queen is too, too gracious. I am now actually fully twice as old as she! That takes me back... I remember your funeral, what a solemn occasion that was! We must do it again soon! Bishonen | tålk 13:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Merry Christmas

Heba Aisha (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas to you too, Heba! Bishonen | tålk 11:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Error

It was not my intention to log two warnings - Twinkle did not reload the page and I thought the first warning did not go through. Anyways, wishing a pleasant holiday to you and your's! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You too, TrangaBellam! No, it was me, I didn't read carefully enough — they were actually warnings about different aspects of one edit (probably not necessary, but still, I shouldn't have removed it). I've put it back. Bishonen | tålk 20:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sreenivasan KG1

You haven't actually blocked them. FYI. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rats, I forgot the very last click. But the tab was still open and live, so now it's done. Thanks, RP! Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Deaths in 2022

Hi - a happy New Year to you for four days time.

You were kind enough to protect the page Deaths in 2021 last year, and save it from the potential ravages of goodwill misguidance (and sometimes malevolence). Could I kindly ask that you consider stepping in for us on January 1st 2022 and doing the same, as we who often edit the Deaths pages are always apprehensive about this issue as each New Year approaches? If I am being too forward in this request, I do apologise and wish you every health and happiness for 2022. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Refsworldlee, happy new year to you too. I'm sure you're right about the vandalism to be expected at Deaths in 2022, but since the protection policy explicitly disapproves of preemptive semiprotection against vandalism that hasn't happened yet, I guess I'll hold off a little. I've watchlisted the article, but feel free to remind me in early January in case I forget. Bishonen | tålk 20:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

That's very civil of you - I'm aware of the rules regarding "pre-emptive strikes", and I'm appreciative of you keeping the project in your thoughts. I will certainly pop up again if it's still unprotected on January 2nd. Every best wish for you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pala Empire

Hi Bishonen, hope you had a great Christmas! Please look into the article on Pala Empire, where DD (whom you had warned earlier) is forcing their POV, and removing a reliably sourced statement in the midst of an ongoing talk page discussion (initiated by them). DD is also engaged in edit warring. Please help! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekdalian. I already looked at that situation, but I don't feel competent to intervene in it. I recommend my admin talkpage watchers to take a look, as well as other users with an interest in the subject. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. I am not requesting to pass any judgement regarding the content related issue; I am only concerned about the fact that user Dear Debasish is violating the very basics, removing the reliably sourced statement during an ongoing talk page discussion before arriving at a consensus (in spite of valid concerns raised by me as well as an established editor LukeEmily), as well as edit warring, which is not acceptable! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Bishonen: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Thank you very much, CAPTAIN RAJU, what a fine card! Bishonen | tålk 22:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks

Hi Bishonen! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the holiday wishes

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		In the midst of the snowy season, sending you some cheer with the sounds of nature I enjoy in my garden when the Indigo bunting return with the warmer weather. May you and yours have a healthful, happy and productive 2022! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

in friendship

Happy new year, in friendship! - Thank you for still being around! - one of my pics is on the Main page, DYK? - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gerda. I love the snowy trees and the Sweetbriar rose, which I've put into the image carousel at the top of this page. Keep watching and it'll turn up one day! Bishonen | tålk 17:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I like the lion! - Seriously, I just went over my "blushing" corner, and have the feeling that 80% of my old friends are gone, which boils down to feeling sort of fossil. You are there, how great! ... and I remember that crying is allowed here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking TPA

Hello Bishonen, would it be possible to revoke the TPA of Autoconfsock1? Pahunkat (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thanks, Pahunkat. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Mehler

Thank you, talkpage stalkers, but I'm tired of looking at this. IfonlyIwasBradbury, don't argue here, argue on Talk:Barry Mehler . You have never been blocked from that, only from the article itself. Bishonen | tålk 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see you block me. I just wanted to defend this man, everyone is asking for his head and I don't think it's fair. In your edits you say that "He responded by claiming the content of the video was humorous in nature, and was well received by his current and former students." That's a lie! He says from the beginning of his video that he is citing, that he is being sarcastic. That's all I wanted to include. English is my second language and I'm still trying to figure out how to use Wikipedia, but there, hope you're happy, you block me... duck you and duck this cancel culture of fhit, you people don't have enough neurons to debate anything. It's pretty unfortunate to see how a little guy with a little power turned out to be such an impatient censor like yourself, there, have your Wikipedia, and help destroy the world with false information. IfonlyIwasBradbury (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really..? You see I blocked you from one article, but apparently you haven't read my posts on your page, where I attempted to explain some of Wikipedia's principles. Seriously, why haven't you? You've seen my posts, since you "thanked" me for them. And I guess you haven't seen or understood the article history — here it is — since you talk at random about what I 'say in my edits'. I haven't made any edits to Barry Mehler apart from once reverting your first addition, for reasons I have already explained. In view of these misunderstandings, which have led you to come here to recklessly insult me, I don't see much point in trying to explain all over again. Please re-read my posts on your page, click on the links in them, and don't attack anybody else, or you will be blocked from the entire site. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

One more time: I just wanted to offer unbiased information to what happened with this man. EVERYWHERE they're only talking about "how rude," but there is more than that. That's all I wanted. You can see that I just joined today, and that aside from those two edits, I haven't made any other. I tried to respond you where you left your comments, but it only gave me the option to thank you, so I did, bravo, you deleted my two edits and blocked me from the article just because I 1. Erased your Fow News source and 2. Included some missing information, not interpretation, not opinions, facts that he stated and that you for some reason are very keen on not include. Fine, I don't think it's fair, but there's nothing else I can do, you already threatened to block me forever of the site. LOL, and to think that I kept donating to Wikipedia cause I thought it was a free place. This world is doomed because of people like you. No dialogue, no nothing, you may think that you're quite the smart, but today you probed to be a brute. IfonlyIwasBradbury (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) – Comment: that "donation" argument never, never, never works. Literally. It is not worth saying. If anything, it could have a slight negative effect in that it perhaps makes other editors less sympathetic. I really, honestly, would advise you to never say that again. Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DBaK. Amazing how many aggressive newbies turn out to be disillusioned donators, isn't it? As you say, it makes a terrible impression. (Besides, I'm rather personally offended by having Fox News called my source.) Bishonen | tålk 11:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Absolutely. So many people are offended when their edits are reverted ... surely the Foundation must be down to its last few pennies by now? And yes, your source ... dodgy!!! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, the comment was actually Fow News. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am only the TPS here but yes it makes me feel much, much, better, thank you. For a moment I was all angry and suspicious of Bish but then I read those acronyms and now I am overcome with acceptance and admiration and am about to write a huge cheque for this year's fundraider. (Sorry, sorry, typo.} With best wishes to all, I remain, your humble servant, DBaK (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you both got me, congratulations. The point is that Mehler did give context and justified the language use. IfonlyIwasBradbury (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romani people

Hello @Bishonen, as you know i Cant wrote on the Romani people page, yet there is something written who doesnt have to do with the source, as you can see under genetic evidence, turkish and tatarian gen etc...the source there doesnt mentionend anything about that

Can you please have a look it?

Thanky

--Nalanidil (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nalanidil. The section "Genetic evidence" is over my head, sorry; I know very little about genetics. Even if I did understand it, I'm afraid your complaint is too general: the section is both quite long and highly specialized and has lots of sources. Please explain more specifically which bit of text (quote it) and which source (name it) you mean. If you add these specifics below, perhaps some of my esteemed talkpage watchers will be able to help. Bishonen | tålk 16:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Turkish_and_Tatar_Y-DNA_genes_of_the_Muslim_Roma699

the reference says nothing about turkish or tatar Y-DNA, or even muslim woman got children from turks, tatars etc, the source says only about Genetic influence of the Ottoman occupiers on the Balkan-Roma population. That's why I wanted to fix it but I can't. You blocked me from editing the Article.

Nalanidil (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nalanidil, that helps a lot. It's a strange very short section, where the header is actually more detailed than the text! The text doesn't say anything about DNA or even about genes. It looks to me like it's the header that wants changing, say from "Turkish and Tatar Y-DNA genes of the Muslim Roma" to something like "Turkish and Tatar influence on the Balkan Roma". But, anyway, this should be discussed on the article talkpage rather than here with me, an ignorant admin. Please start a discussion there, and ask that somebody change it. You are only blocked from the article, not from the talkpage.

I did block you from the article, and was sorry to do it, but you know why I felt it necessary. If you're now prepared to abide by our sourcing policies, I suggest you appeal the block, in the way I told you about here. As I told you at the time, I'll unblock you myself if you undertake, in a convincing way, to add only material supported by reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

No it's ok, I don't want to write anymore on this page I don't want to start a discussion either, because that only degenerates into long discussions, etc. Maybe someone can change it, delete the headline and just insert the sentence "Genetic influence of the Ottoman occupiers on the Balkan-Roma population" in front of the source.

Nalanidil (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block avoidance/sock puppetry?

Hi Bishonen. First, I wanted to thank you for the quick response on this one. Many of my requests on ANI are ignored or it handled with great latency, meaning much more damage to correct later. My issue here is that this IP created an account Romberd to avoid the block and continues with the same behavior. This is the first time I had an IP serving as the sock puppeteer so I'm not WP:SOCK applies, but they are certainly avoiding the block in this way. --Muhandes (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Muhandes. Yes, I'm always sorry to see well-grounded reports being ignored at ANI. The Romberd account was actually created a week before I blocked the IP. But guess what — it never edited until the day after the IP was blocked. Anyway, the wording of the edit summaries is enough to show it's the same person. Pity they chose that road, instead of replying to 331dot's questions. I don't think we'll bother with an SPI in such a case, as checkusers won't connect an account and an IP anyway, for privacy reasons. I've blocked Romberd per WP:DUCK and written a note at User talk:190.5.46.74. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Closing an unanimous discussion

Can you (or any of your admin t/p watchers) be willing enough to close this close-challenge at AN? I requested a closure at AN itself but failed to interest anyone. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, TrangaBellam, I looked, but it's a bit too much for me. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thoughts

I came across this and of course you are spot on, speaking freely, & asides anything else, please, in your opinion, how effective is COIN of recent in negating and dealing with possible COI & UPE? I’ve found that if it isn’t an air-proof evidence nothing much is achieved there, but please what are your thoughts on COIN? Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celestina007. I'm not sure I ought to opine about COIN in general, since I only use it in a lazy way — reading sections that appeal to me as interesting, which means I don't read most of it. But for what my impression is worth: it sometimes looks like admins are pretty cautious at COIN. It's in the nature of undisclosed paid editing that you can rarely strictly prove it, and so there's a tendency for admins to merely give an opinion, but not act. Not true of all admins! But I quite often find myself to be the one to block, which I do when circumstances (i.e. not strictly evidence) convince me that we're dealing with a UPE. So, in my personal opinion, we could do with being less cautious at COIN. OTOH, I suppose it's also questionable how much a block achieves, when it's so easy to create a sock or socks and continue as before. :-( Were you thinking of a particular case? Bishonen | tålk 11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

COIN is playing a central role at an ArbCom case that is going on right now. And I fear it will end very badly, ArbCom losing us even more respected and liked editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 261: / Line 261: @@
 I came across [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI / SPA| this]] and of course you are spot on, speaking freely, & asides anything else, please, in your opinion, how effective is COIN of recent in negating and dealing with possible COI & UPE? I’ve found that if it isn’t an air-proof evidence nothing much is achieved there, but please what are your thoughts on COIN? '''[[User:Celestina007|Celestina007]]''' ([[User talk:Celestina007|talk]]) 21:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 :Hi, [[User:Celestina007|Celestina007]]. I'm not sure I ought to opine about COIN in general, since I only use it in a lazy way — reading sections that appeal to me as interesting, which means I ''don't'' read most of it. But for what my impression is worth: it sometimes looks like admins are pretty cautious at COIN. It's in the nature of undisclosed paid editing that you can rarely strictly prove it, and so there's a tendency for admins to merely give an opinion, but not act. Not true of all admins! But I quite often find myself to be the one to block, which I do when circumstances (i.e. not strictly evidence) convince me that we're dealing with a UPE. So, in my personal opinion, we could do with being less cautious at COIN. OTOH, I suppose it's also questionable how much a block achieves, when it's so easy to create a sock or socks and continue as before. :-( Were you thinking of a particular case? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 11:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC).
+::COIN is playing a central role at an ArbCom case that is going on right now. And I fear it will end very badly, ArbCom losing us even more respected and liked editors. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)