Jump to content

User talk:Bishonen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GingerBreadHarlot (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 8 July 2015 (→Please do not alter or remove text from my personal talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Summertime, and the living is easy…
Please speak softly. This user is busy smelling the flowers and may not respond to queries in a timely, or rational, manner. You may be better off consulting another admin. Or the friendly talkpage stalkers may be able to help you, see the cool jaguar image below.
murie sing cuccu ---Sluzzelin talk 15:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talkpage stalker hiding in the foliage on this page. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.


Den blomstertid nu kommer
med lust och fägring stor.
Du nalkas, ljuva sommar,
då gräs och gröda gror.
Med blid och livlig värma
till allt som varit dött,
sig solens strålar närma,
och allt blir återfött.
Israel Kolmodin, 1643 - 1709


Sjung med psalmisten Kolmodin
Kom nu till Hångers källa.
Elisabet Hermodsson, b. 1927

A bowl of strawberries for you!

You're one of the people who make a difference here. Thomas.W talk 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How kind, Thomas. Very seasonable! Bishonen | talk 20:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

There's a big chance that the strawberries are repackaged imported strawberries, though, and not äkta svenska jordgubbar. Thomas.W talk 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I add some flowers, because your meadow made my day? (Pick on top of my talk.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to share a quote that I ran across while re-reading the Blessed Hooker. It's when he springs his trap in the "Preface." He proposes a grand council for settling the arguments with the Puritans, but he figures that they wouldn't abide by it, because it would have Authority, and there are no authorities except themselves, so he asks, “I would therefore know, whether for the ending of these irksome strifes. . . ye be content to refer your cause to any other higher judgment than your own, or else intend to persist and proceed as ye have begun, till yourselves can be persuaded to condemn yourselves.”
It's one of those things I've wanted to say on a dozen occasions since, in meetings, online, with fellow left wingers, etc. (And my other favorite is Samuel Butler's: "He who is persuaded against his will/ Is of his own opinion still.") Hithladaeus (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Holknekt

Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I recently created. I am planning to nominate it for DYK in the next few days so any help or improvements are welcomed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, Babba. I see some things I can wikilink. But it looks from the history like another user is copyediting it right now, so I'd better wait till they're done. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC). PS, kom nu till Hångers källa! I denna ljuva sommartid osv. Don't forget to smell the flowers. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Enrico Fermi

Help! I have a problem on Enrico Fermi with an editor 115ash who is insisting that Emilio Segrè was not Fermi's student. I have Segrè's autobiography as a source, which I regard as definitive in this case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Hawkeye7. Segrè's autobiography A Mind Always in Motion (used as a reference in Emilio G. Segrè) is conveniently available online and does indeed make it clear Segrè was Fermi's student. But the only book by Segrè that's given as a reference in Enrico Fermi is Enrico Fermi, Physicist (1970). You probably meant to refer to A Mind Always in Motion in your edit summary "Segre was his student. See Segre pp. 48-52" — didn't you? The pages fit. Perhaps you want to add A Mind Always in Motion as a reference to Enrico Fermi, and then refer to it as "Segrè 1993" or whatever the reference system is in the article? And take it up on article talk. I can't say I see Ash doing that much insisting — he reverted you, then posted one comment about it on your page. If you explain it to him on article talk and point him to A Mind Always in Motion, I assume he'll stop insisting. Your note on Ash's talkpage is frankly not entirely explanatory. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The religion card is a big problem with the infoboxes on a lot of scientist articles. I would remove them, but given that you can't see them, it didn't seem worth arguing about. But feel free. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

This thread is closed. Please don't comment further on the user. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

Hi. In regards to the post you left me on my page to which I was kind to have replied back to, I have yet, several days later not received a single word from you. Where I come from it is considered polite, good manners, responsible, mature, decent and respectful to reply back. I have no idea where you come from but where I'm from we call it rude to not reply back. Caden cool 01:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You complain about perceived rudeness by leaving an overtly rude post. You are very funny, and please don't mistake this for a compliment. Jehochman Talk 01:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can perceive it any way you wish but my post was not rude, it's called honesty and common sense. How else could you possibly see it otherwise? Caden cool 01:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. OK, I posted on your page and you replied to me. How many times would you like us to reply back and forth before we can stop? Bishonen | talk 02:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Apparently, zero :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind. He's upset. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
... and asking to be cheered up on top of that, - not easy, - should smell the flowers perhaps. - Btw, I am out of prison and have interesting conversations about teenagers and beginners, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda. I find it ironic to see you posting here considering how you proudly joined in on a thread devoted to trashing and badmouthing me as seen here: [1]. It's also ironic how Bish considered such a post devoted to bad mouthing me as just fine. How hypocritical of her, considering how she left me this post [2] where she lectured me, threatened me, and pretty much bullied me. Why Bish did you order me to not “craptalk” him but yet it was ok if he did it towards me as seen in the dif? Btw where was your evidence for this supposed “craptalk” I did? I want direct proof for that through quotes showing me doing what you accused me of. Furthermore you said :“ Please leave Cassianto alone from now on. Don't talk about him on wiki. Don't bond with the guys by badmouthing other people. I hope that's clear.” No it's not clear. Tell me why did you order me to refrain from supposedly doing all of these things yet you turned around and allowed him and others to do to me? How hypocritical is that for you to do? Your conduct as an admin was biased, hypocritical, unfair and disgraceful in regards to how you mistreated me. Your tools should be taken away from you. It's appalling to see how unfit you are to be an admin. Had you actually done your job correctly by doing your homework you'd have seen the long history that dates back to 2014. But no that would be called work so you decided to cut corners through laziness and judge me without even knowing what you were doing. I suppose it no longer matters since both the user and I made peace. One last thing, what's up with the bragging list on your user page? Looks to me as inappropriate for an admin since it can be seen as a trophy list. Caden cool 22:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Caden:, your recent comments here, on your talk page, and on my talk page indicate you are having some kind of personal crisis. it would best if you take a break and find something else to do, for your own well being. I recently admonished you for using the thanks button five times in a short period to one user. In response, you made a series of bizarre, paranoid accusations against me, making me think you aren't being rational at this time. Please take care of yourself. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a degreed meteorologist, I have observed that big winds can come from small caves. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sometimes they return to them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Swift, in his allegory of the three great stages of man, points out that it can be very difficult to distinguish afflatus and just plain flatus. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caden, it's unexpected to see you on my page again less than a day after you banned me "from posting ever again" on yours. How do you figure that's going to turn out, you making yourself at home on my page when you don't want to see me on yours? But I'm sorry you're so upset, and I'm sorry I responded to you like I did above. Sometimes it's like I can't resist trying to be funny. :-( I would rather not have posted even the one time on your page, because it was a bad time to be reproaching you when you were already being piled on. But I had (or thought I had) little choice, after I warned you and Baseball Bugs on ANI and Bugs acknowledged that he had seen what I said. I made it clear in the ANI warning that if I couldn't be sure you'd seen it, I'd have to put something on your page. After the ANI thread was closed, I wish you would have posted a line on mine. ("If you will kindly respond here or alternatively on my page… you'll save me the trouble of putting a formal caution on your pages."[3]) Anyway, I hope you cheer up, Caden. As Viriditas says, take care of yourself. It's only a website. I'm closing this thread now, folks. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Haldirams controversy

Here is a link to source, as you requested: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/importrefusals/ir_detail.cfm?EntryId=9WH-1008214-7&DocId=1&LineId=26&SfxId= Norman21 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Norman21. Through that link, I also found this one, which gives details and background. I've put both of them into the article with some neutral text and made a separate section (because that stuff is important, and needs to show up in the table of contents). Please take a look and see what you think — feel free to edit the article. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry

I've done the same thing on other websites where I reply to the person that you shouldn't ever reply to, but I'll try to avoid replying to that IP again. Dustin (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, Dustin. I've given them a nice personalized warning, and I will certainly block if they persist. I see they've had a discretionary sanctions alert too, so they could be topic banned, but that's kind of useless for an IP SPA. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

One more expression of gratitude

Bishonen, I owe you one more thanks. The discussion, currently found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent: would somebody consider snow deleting a BLP.2C please.3F is closed, so I can't comment there. So I thank you here.

My inclusionist tendencies border on "strict". But this deletion is right.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aladdin. Starting an emergency thread on ANI was a kind of workaround around the fact that probably few admins were following the original thread any longer. It shouldn't be used often, of course — it could potentially be quite annoying — but BLPs and consideration for their subjects is very important. Glad it worked. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Speaking softly to say

Hello. Responses may not be rational huh? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Enthusiastically:] 'Twas brillig and the slithy flowers did gyre and gimble in the meadow! Come taste them! Graze, graze! Bishonen | talk 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
what a great thing to read, today of all days, for all sorts of reasons! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Is the visitor taking the mickey? Not sure. /me cheerfully sticks straws in her hair.] Bishonen | talk 06:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

My meadow

Hi, thank you for your message, pleased that you like this picture (you are the second user to tell me so). The place has changed by now, the horse and the flowers have been replaced by a pine-tree grove... Cheers, --Jibi44 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pine trees, Jibi44? As in, a pine plantation? Bishonen | talk 16:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Question

Bish can you have a look at an issue I'm having with KoshVorlon? On ANI you said that User:Lucd13's user page was fine and I agree with you and so did Liz but when she tried to undo User:KoshVorlon's edits she was reverted by him (KoshVorlon) as seen here:[4] and when I tried asking him (KoshVorlon) to revert his edit I was called a troll as seen here: [5]. Can you revert the user's page back? If I do it, KoshVorlon will start back up with his personal attacks on calling me a troll etc. Caden cool 22:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) Caden, Iridescent has already reverted [6] the user page to its original state. - NQ (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you for telling me, I didn't know that. Caden cool 23:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from Roger Libby/Seattle Editor

What to do about this? User:Searchwriter/sandbox? Seems like it should be speedy-able as a draft of a now-deleted article by a now-indeffed user but I couldn't see where it fits in the speedy criteria. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a sandbox. It contains material that the user might want to use for other purposes, on other websites or whatever. (Yes, you'd think he'd have it saved on his own hard drive already, but maybe not, you never know.) The user is indeffed, but that wouldn't prevent him from looking at the sandbox, maybe as an IP, and harvesting text from it. I don't want to stop that happening — we have no vendetta against him — and I'm altogether not into deleting sandboxes much, unless their owners ask me to. But I've removed the image, since it's up for deletion on Commons,[7] and Seattleditor is clearly unable to disentangle himself with any credibility from his contradictory claims in the deletion discussion there. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
thanks. the laurel and hardy picture cracks me up whenever i write here. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assist if possible or interested

In this article under the subsection "Europe" fourth paragraph, I have a citation needed template added after the one comment regarding glaciers in Sweden. I have searched everywhere but cannot find anything to support that sentence. In fact, I have found little to nothing regarding glaciers in Sweden. I know good sources are available since Sweden has actually been doing glacier research for 100+ years. Anyway, if interested, can you assist me with a source even if I have to completely alter the sentence? If not, I fully understand.--MONGO 08:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know this one. It says "In the Kebnekaise Mountains of Northern Sweden of sixteen glaciers examined from 1990-2001, 14 are retreating, one is advancing and one is stable", same as you do. I don't know if you took it from them, or they from us (nah!), but anyway, they have a reference for the sentence:[8] An unhelpful reference, I must say. It's to a reliable source, a uni department, but simply to the front page of it, and I can't find anything about the specific study. I did find a reference for the sentence about Storglaciären, [9], but I realize you need more. I'll keep looking, but probably your chances are better than mine: you're a better researcher, and all that stuff is in English anyway. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
That first link is to Mauri Peltos website and he was one of the three primary editors of the Wikipedia article...so there is some back and forth on that data. I know this much...anybody using MONGO as a reference on their term paper should be 1). Publicly shamed 2). Receive a fail for the entire course 3). Thrown out of the university! So Pelto must have added that info some years back from research he uncovered...and it came from a reliable source (not Wikipedia).--MONGO 17:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(TPS bursts in): I presume you have this one? Valter Schytt's fine article, if a little old -- but it's got a pretty good batch of references that you could chase down. Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(TPS 2 follows) : Glaciers and climate in northern Sweden during the 19th and 20th century. Glacier mass balance bulletin series and the Fluctuations of Glaciers series. A whole bunch of references- NQ (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alrightie, is this it?. Swedish glacierfront monitoring program - compilation of data from 1990 to 2001 (pp.37-40.) - NQ (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That most definitely looks like it. The text was not added to the article by me but is definitely derived from that data. Nice work. I searched forever and it just seemed to elude me. Thanks bunches to all of you! MONGO pleased.--MONGO 17:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bishonen. You have new messages at CrazyAces489's talk page.
Message added 07:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Caden

I know we may have our little differences, but after your post on my talk page Caden has continued to post on my page after I've told him to stop. He is not minding his own business in a place he doesn't belong (making amends with Lucd13). Now, he has accused me of being a liar and told me to grow up. At this point, I feel harrassed and wikihounded (he has been following my moves lately; just look at his contributions on my talk page) even though this is just the second warning. I'd like him to stop. What should I do? Diff: [10]. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 09:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callmemirela, the only behaviour you can change is your own, and the only time to complain to admin is after you've tried your best to improve your own practice. For instance, you need to stop fiddling with your post on Lucd13's page (provoking a "new messages" banner every time), especially to add remarks about Caden. (I'm pinging Caden here since he has an objection to me posting on his page.) I seriously don't blame him for posting one more time on your page. I've no reason to believe he'll post there again as long as you leave him alone. (Don't, Caden, or you'll be in trouble.) Complaining about him on other pages counts as not leaving him alone. Also, did you notice where Lucd13 said he'd like the conversation to be at an end when you've told him what incivility you're referring to? And it's a sad fact that few people much appreciate "little reminders" about this and that that you would like them to change about themselves — perhaps especially coming from people who have offended them. And as for advising Lucd13 to "keep calm"… I actually once wrote a little essay about how it's better not to tell people to "keep calm": it's here if you're interested. I'm sure you mean well with your advice to Lucd13, but I hope you're done on his page now, and also done talking about Caden. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
By the way, do you know about pinging, Mirela? It means linking a user's name so that they get an alert that you've mentioned them. (It's much more meaningful than providing admins and experienced users with links to well-known wikipedia policies, as you do above — some touchy people even get annoyed about that, as it can be perceived as condescending, though I'm sure you didn't mean it like that in this instance. Just a little tip.) You're supposed to ping when you discuss another user. It's because you didn't ping Caden on Luc's page that Caden says "behind my back" in his post to you. Please read the info page about pinging and incorporate it into your practice. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you Bish for letting me know about this thread. Oh and Bish just so you know, yes you are welcome on my talk page, just ignore my past comment because that was said while I was upset. As for about Mirela, right now I'm very pissed off at this edit [11] of hers and I'm not going to say anything further before I say something I will regret because I'm too damn pissed off right now. Caden cool 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last message regarding this whole issue and Caden and I's disagreements that seem to explode more everyday (or more less now). I have slowly excluded myself from all pages that Caden watches that are also on my watchlist, because right now I want to forget about him and move on. I am pissed off, too. Not just Caden. Him, too, has committed errors. [12] I'm sorry but "Time for you to apologize"? Yes, I stand by what I wrote on Lucd13's talk page even though it was removed. You never suggested an apology. It was downright "It's time for you to apologize". "I think you should apologize for your mistake. You were proven wrong." would had been a lot more better than that nasty tone and the eventual false accusations (view below). You do not own me. I had planned on the apology once this was sorted out and I had the chance to do so.
You had accused me of being a liar and have told me to grow up. I'm sorry, but how would you had known about my post on WP:Resources? I am certain you have been wikihounding me since this started. You also knew about my post to The Traveling Man's talk page then also posted on there ([13]). One would only know that if they had been following my contributions list. [14]
I was only suspicious about the initial source from the start. I eventually found more sources to confirm the said content. If you follow TV sources, you would know that 99% of the time, when there is news about a TV show of any kind, those sources will announce it as well. Excuse me for following how it's been with TV shows on Wikipedia and its used sources. I have not dismissed what Lucd13 said. I said I would search for sources, and I did. I also suggested to him in my edit summaries that since it's a TV show, there would be more sources. And there was (however, they came from social media which is discouraged to use), but I suppose it would be good to use them for back-up sources; I don't know.
I am done with this crap now. This is my last message, as mentioned above. While I am getting shit for this issue, there are issues from others about it as well. Lucd13 ranted about me with rather uncivil comments and insults and Caden was using a rude tone to his messages on my talk page (WP:Civility seems to be apart of this, but I can't confirm since it's not intense but it is very unhelpful and rude) and has seemingly wikihounded me. I am done. I want to move on. I am tired of arguing. I have apologized; Lucd13 has forgiven me. I want this issue to be over. I'm sorry for not pinging; I'm sorry for the behind-the-back talk. I'm sorry for the whole mess, but I also wish Caden be less "possessive", if you will. I have promised to be more careful in the future (I am working on a solution for edit warring stuff). Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mirela, by "wikihounding" you seem to mean "looking at my contributions list", since you blame Caden for even knowing about a post of yours. That's not what the word means, and the contributions link is there for a reason; it's meant to be used. But you should both give each other a wide berth from now on. I know it can be difficult to let go and move on, I've experienced it myself; I'm glad you've resolved to try. I hope you feel better soon. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

E-mail

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Responded. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

About your note on my talk page

Bishonen, about your note on my page, I explained in detail on Luc13's page why his posting is Polemic, I've demonstrated that it meets the definition of Polemic as defined on that same page . I have to admit, I'm a bit suprised to see you post that it doesn't apply to talk pages. Yes, I realize that we have flexability as to what we can do and say on our talkpages, and believe it or not , I agree with that, however, posting Polemic statements doesn't fall under "just being flexible" , it's not accepted. Take a look at WP:POLEMIC and you'll see that there's no exemptions given anywhere for polemic statements, 3RR for example, is given an exemption when it's for BLP purposes, polemic has no such exemption, nor does it have any exemption. So, I'm carrying out policy by removing the polemic message from Lucd13's page. Regarding my edit summary to Caden, that was me being sarcastic. I've got a dry sense of humor, and it definetly doesn't come out well online at all, but, it was sarcasm, not incivility, but if you like, I'll revert my removal of Caden's message so that's back on my page. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon, you are not "carrying out policy" even if you're following WP:POLEMIC to the letter, since, as has been explained to you repeatedly, you claiming that something is "a policy" is not going to make it one and you are never going to get consensus to make WP:POLEMIC a policy (you're welcome to try, just to see how quickly you get shot down; I would also point out that if "content unrelated to wikipedia should be removed" were a policy, your own user page would be first in the sights). As Bishonen has been too polite to point out, you're not just skirting on the edges of a block for disruption, but given your history you're within a hair's breadth of a WP:CIR indefblock. Let it drop. – iridescent 11:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you're really so keen on enforcing policy, do something about that ridiculous 286-character sig, given that the 255 character limit is a Wikipedia policy. – iridescent 11:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Iridescent. What he said, KoshVorlon. Also I don't know what you mean that I posted WP:POLEMIC "doesn't apply to talk pages". No talkpages have been involved AFAIK. It does apply to userpages, assuming that was what you meant, but it's not relevant to that userpage and the material on it. I honestly don't know why that's so hard to grasp and why you're eternally "surprised" about it. I'm damned if I'll explain yet again. And if you know your "dry sense of humor", which I would call something else, doesn't come across well online, why do you post it on Wikipedia? I can't say I care if you restore Caden's post or not, and I doubt he does either. The edit summary was the problem, not the removal. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Iridescent: Have a look at this. My rather mild comment there earned me this rebuke. KV's claims about POLEMIC are completely incorrect. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, people have been complaining about that sig for literally years; a glance over the history of his talkpage will show that he thinks Wikipedia policies apply to everyone else, not him. At some point, presumably either someone will salt the page he transcludes it from, or one of the more colourful characters will notice that he's using a subst'ed signature and he'll realise the hard way just why we discourage them so strongly. Trust me, the sig is not the most glaring WP:CIR issues here. – iridescent 11:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent, please quote that sentance fully " Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities..." On Luc13's page he's posting content that attacks or vilifys a group of editors. It's therefore a polemic statement. Regarding my signature, people have complained for various reasons about my signature, most because they hate artistic signatures of any sort, however, your complaint's valid, my signature's too long, so I'll shorten it right now. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When the target is "the entire Wikipedia community" it's not singling out an editor or group thereof. Can I just add my voice to the "drop it" camp? WormTT(talk) 12:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kosh, for the last time WP:POLEMIC is not a Wikipedia policy so your angels-on-pinheads arguments as to whether it's been breached (it hasn't) are irrelevant.
WTT, just to put things in perspective this is the user who performed this edit; I really wouldn't hold out too much hope of common sense sinking in. – iridescent 12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense or no, KoshVorlon has agreed in the past that if "three users in good standing" tell him to drop something, he'll do it. I'm hoping he'll stick to that. WormTT(talk) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, Worm that Turned. 3 users have told me to drop it, so consider it dropped. KoshVorlon We are Kosh 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the MarkBernstein AE

That was my bad to use the wrong thing for the santion, but I will point out that Mark has had 3 blocks that have been under the community sanctions WP:GS/GG, which the latest would be the one to consider for this case : [15]. I would ask if I could undo the hatting to replace the reason with this one. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking. Hang on. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, sorry about that. Please note that someone (an IP) undid your hatting. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I write hurriedly. I don't see it. You link me to a month-long block by HJ Mitchell from January 2015, but I don't altogether see the relevance to AE. The block rationale mentions a topic ban. But where is this topic ban? Not in the GG final decision. I see a topic ban from March on this page, lifted on March 26. And there's another month-long block by H J Mitchell in March. And, oh, right, there was an indefinite topic ban in November 2014 by Gamaliel. But it was lifted in February 2015. Look… I don't see how your complaints and diffs in the request fit in with any of this. So, no, I don't agree to you lifting the hat and merely inserting a January block (?) as "reason". It doesn't make any sense. There were topic bans of limited duration, yes. You can't take him to AE today for violating those. So what is it you want to have "enforced" on the AE page? I'm sorry, but I think you'll have to start over if you want the user sanctioned (and probably not do it on AE). Your new reason doesn't fit your evidence (which has been framed wrt violating "decorum"). If MarkBernstein has violated a sanction — a sanction I can't find — you could start a new AE request.
If you don't like what I say, could you take it to ANI, please, or to AE talk, and try to get consensus for overruling me? I have to be out of here in five minutes.
An IP undid my hatting? That's ridiculous. I have to assume somebody will revert the IP. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'll open a discussion at AE talk at your advice, there is the discretionary sanction of issue here too but I'll do that at talk. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the re-open. There was no reason given for the re-open.--Jorm (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Jorm, I appreciate it. I wonder where everybody else was. It took nearly an hour before the IP was reverted — an IP reverting an admin action on a contentious board without so much as an edit summary. Was one of those unmissable American sports events in progress? Bishonen | talk 08:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
It happened again, reverted, vandalized, reverted and semi-protected through July 8. 24.252.22.174 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually look at the diffs (so no opinion on the merits), but it was obvious to me that this is a request for enforcement under WP:ARBGG#Discretionary sanctions. Closing it for linking the wrong section seems...overly bureaucratic. T. Canens (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, I have opened the AN requesting the reopen over here [16] and notifying you. You're clearly right to close it on a procedural basis, so I'm certainly not trying to seek any type of remedy/result against you, simply the fix up the AE instead of refiling it fresh with a better sanction. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Timotheus here - implying that someone is complicit in rape / rape threats is so far beyond the pale that closing due to an incorrect link seems bizarre. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm definitely opting out.) ORLY? Hmmm. Bishonen | talk 08:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
It's the middle of finals in most academic institutions in the English-speaking world, and given the preponderance of students and academics on Wikipedia it's not unreasonable to assume things are going to be running slower than usual. Now, please don't put me in a position where I feel obliged to defend The Most Inept Arbcom Since 2008™ again. – iridescent 08:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration? The living would be easier without AE, says the victim. (Is there a more palatable word for victim in the context? I was threatened to be blocked for this edit, DYK? And what would a block achieve? A GA coming later, whom does it help?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the middle of finals in most academic institutions in the English-speaking world. Blimey, it's 30 years or more ago but mine were over somewhere around the first week in June, maybe even the last week in May. Ok, that's just one university but if the dates for finals are slipping and that causes the dates for ArbCom deliberations to slip then, given long enough, we'll end up going full circle. Perhaps this is a question to ask at the next arbcom elections: "are you likely to be involved in degree examinations, as a student or academic, during the next year or two? If so, how will you ensure sufficient time for the responsibilities of this role also?" - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were at Cambridge, which has always had shorter terms than everywhere else. (We always had something similar as one of the questions in my day; it isn't just relevant to academics, but to anyone in the military reserves, in a job that regularly takes them abroad etc. "People are more likely to be on holiday in the summer" is hardly a shock revelation.) – iridescent 11:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks shorter, I thought, but no worries. I'm being a bit facetious: the summer holiday scenario suggests we should aim for an ArbCom consisting 50:50 North and South hemisphere; indeed, the WMF should send a grant in the direction of a pressure group for that purpose right now. And doubtless the alpinists etc will object to the point-y funding. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more disturbed that finals would actually be an issue for someone with tools unless they actually worked at University or went back after a career. I'd be happier if it were Holiday as the reason. Greece is nice this time of year. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little more than two weeks for the Spring Term, if I recall correctly, Si - 56 days instead of the 60 days for the Michaelmas and Lent terms (although I always understood 60 days was the standard for university terms with the differences between HE establishments being a function of the number of workdays per week: 5, 6, or 7). As for Greece, it is incredibly hot at this time of year - no problem for a dinosaur like me, but hardly "nice". Nevertheless, your pound, dollar or krona is likely to go further there quite soon. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, RexxS. I never kept much track of it. Back then, it seemed like weeks just to travel by British Rail from home to Cambridge or vice versa. And still I refused their sandwiches: once bitten, twice poisoned shy ;)

As for working days, well, that might explain it. I didn't bother with lectures (couldn't hear them) but had many, let's say, memorable weekend evenings in supervisions with the likes of Maurice Cowling, Harold James, Edward Norman, Tim Blanning and numerous others. Some of those conversations veered well away from the matter at hand, including one when Cowling (rightly, as it turned out) recognised that I wouldn't be able to hold down a job in the "real world" and said that he would put a word in for me with his mates in the secret services - he thought that my intelligence, my lipreading skills and the possibilities of adapting my required hearing aids into surreptitious eavesdropping devices might be attractive. I told him that I had no desire to end up dead in Moscow. My mistake, as it turns out!

Alas (?), most who taught me are still living and thus BLP applies, as it does also for various students of my cohort. I do have the evidence, sometimes photographic. My time may come, mwah-ha-ha-ha :) - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward, even if you disregard people who work in academia (which is a fair few) and those who have children doing their exams (a few more), it wouldn't be that surprising if quite a number of Wikipedia admins are students. The tranche of editors who were spotty teenagers editing the pages of their favourite band during the boom of 2007–08 are now the grad students in their mid-20s. Assuming this photograph is reasonably representative* of the people so obsessed with Wikipedia that they'd pay money to spend three days in the most expensive city in the world, trapped in one of the country's most notoriously unpleasant buildings, listening to people they'd normally cross the street to avoid droning about their pet hobby-horses, then it looks like there's a decent smattering of 20-somethings. (While I don't know their ages, just going by photos on userpages two members of the current Arbcom look about twelve.) – iridescent 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*If this photograph is representative of the hardcore, then the people who use "diversity" as a shitty stick to beat whoever they happen to be in disagreement with have some serious mote/beam issues, given that this photo was taken in the middle of the most diverse city in the world yet looks like a UKIP rally. – iridescent 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent Oh, I didn't say I was surprised by it or disbelieved it :) . --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, the 2008 ArbCom is notorious? Wow. Who would have thought it? Certainly, long time admins getting stripped by secret non-ArbCom procedures done by review process internally on the secret list-serve wouldn't have thought so. They'd have simply applauded the sagacity of self-selection and the ability to do special pleading when regular pleading might take too long. (By the way, American universities were done with Spring term in May, and I think they're still "English-speaking." Now, I have very little evidence that they're "English writing," but that's a different standard.) It's untrue, of course, to say that ArbCom is what was wrong with Wikipedia back then. If all of the problems besetting users were listed, I'm sure several would not have been due to ArbCom. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for moving the discussion to the talk page from where it was clearly out of position and in a fashion very likely to have influenced the discussion and decisions. Cheers, LindsayHello 21:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wish I'd thought of it sooner. Pity SilkTork didn't care to reply to me. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Seconded. I didn't think of it either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can thank User:MrX for switching on a belated lightbulb in my head.[17] See also [18]. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

DYK for Per Holknekt

Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and credit where credit is due, but that's hardly here, Materialscientist! I merely did a little copyedit at BabbaQ's article. Bishonen | talk 08:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Enforcement Request Regarding TheRedPenOfDoom at WP:AE

I have opened an enforcement request against TheRedPenOfDoom at WP:AE. You are being notified because an aspect of the complaint is that he or she misled you into helping them breach a topic ban, which they did not disclose clearly when seeking assistance from you at WP:EWN. The request is here. Vordrak (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the alert, but it has apparently already been closed. FYI, I was indeed not aware of the topic ban, but merely noticed an IP-hopper in obvious need of a block for trolling, disruption and edit warring. Pleased to find the range very small and not used by anyone else for editing Wikipedia, I blocked for 2 weeks. So I didn't just block for edit warring — that would have been shorter. Incidentally, if anything "misled", or led, me into rangeblocking, it wasn't TheRedPenOfDoom, but the comment by Hell in a Bucket and, especially, the helpful information from Thomas.W. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

SiTrew's block

Was that a "save face" block? I don't imagine anybody would've felt threatened or offended by his ramblings. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, my face? You must think me extremely sensitive. It was more a "save the user" block. Of course I'm not going to discuss that aspect of it. No, I don't suppose anybody felt threatened, but did you see this, this, or this? Note the edit summaries. And did you see where he removed my warning[19] and then complained he couldn't find it? "Apparently admin User:Bishonen also crapped on my my talk page, but I can't see it. so how can I possibly reply? Admin abuse as usual"? He had in fact already replied. As I had said in my warning, he wasn't in a fit state to edit.[20] Quite confused (you realize this is not a new user, so that wasn't it) and extremely belligerent with it. But indeed I'm not sure two weeks, which I went to in view of his block log, was the right length; I won't object if the UTRS admins find it appropriate to unblock him or shorten the block. Nobody could be better pleased than me if he's able to write a coherent unblock request. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
No, I meant his face; and yes, that is the aspect I was referring to. I've seen this done quite a few times (RG's block springs to mind). You probably think you're doing the editor a favour, but I'm not so sure. Perhaps turning a blind eye would've been a bigger favour. Alakzi (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't suppose you'd care about discussing your preconceptions with a pleb. Alakzi (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true, Alakzi. I've never found 'Shonen unwilling to discuss with a pleb (and there's nobody more plebeian than I). Sometimes she's busy; sometimes she forgets - don't we all? - but I don't believe a lack of response will be due to unwillingness. You may well be right, of course, that turning a blind eye may have been better. Nevertheless, letting someone continue to edit while "under the weather" has the potential for the Hang-'em-&-flog-'em Brigade to impose draconian sanctions on them. And that's far harder to unpick after the event. The block does look lengthy, but I suspect the intention is have him unblocked as soon as he regains equilibrium. It's okay to disagree with my analysis, but I think I'm right; 'Shonen is one of the most reasonable admins I've ever come across. --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
↑ What he said. (And I am—wearily—familiar with the back-story to this particular case.) – iridescent 19:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the replies. Alakzi (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Alakzi. I didn't mean to ignore you, I just didn't know what to say more; you made a good point. So did RexxS and Iridescent, though. These situations are tricky. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, Bishonen, and I apologise for my rudeness. Alakzi (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic user you had advised

Closing this thread. I advise everybody in it to take further concerns to this ANI thread if they're important, but please be careful of overwhelming it. TLDR will only mean it doesn't, in fact, get read. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

On June 29, in response to his multi-accounting, you generously said to User:CrazyAces489 that if he ceased editing on the CrazyAces489 account and pointed it to his new account, that you would grant him leniency on the multi-accounting offenses. He has not taken your words seriously and has made over 100 edits on the CrazyAces489 account since then. Those edits have included a 3RR [21] [22] [23] , as well as CrazyAces489 trying to settle [24] [25] some old scores [26].

Given the terms you offered, the situation is concerning enough that I hope you will have a look at it.

In addition, User:Tokyogirl79 asked CrazyAces489 nicely to stop creating articles in the mainspace given his endless string of poor articles. His response was to create another [27] the next day. While Tokyogirl79 was not giving an order, only a request, I think it calls into question whether CrazyAces489 can ever be a productive contributor when his response to two admins going out of their way to set him on the right path is to immediately contravene the advice of both of them. --SubSeven (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. I stopped editing on my "new account" after I was outed on that account. I tagged Bishonen on the talk page. [28] . On the Royce Gracie article talk page violation of 3rr included SubSeven. SubSeven also made claims that I don't like BJJ, but why would I create and fight for BJJ articles? Settling old scores is incorrect. If I was settling old scores with [29] , than NightShift36 is settling even worse with multiple deletions across various articles I was editing on [30] , [31] and more [32].
Steven Anderson was a well known martial arts fighter who was black belt magazine hall of fame. I am sorry if I believe that black martial artists deserve a place in the history of martial arts. Sorry that I created so many articles about them. It seems that they may not necessarily have a place here.  :( CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - CA again "retired" to avoid impending punishment. If he does come back on this account or is found on any other, can some block finally be enforced? This user has tip-toed around policy and admins for too long and has been given too many chances. He has proven he can not be trusted to work here collaboratively, so no one should bother to continue to be lenient with him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on ANI. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you Bishonen and hopefully the other ANI will just get sorted as nothing. Unfortunately, CA hinted at a third account he was prepared to use, but never mentioned a name. If he does what he did last time to evade scrutiny, expect another account somewhere that is actually CA.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you, TheGracefulSlick. (What other ANI?) Can you show me this hint? Bishonen | talk 09:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
It has my username as the title. It was about a WP:IBAN, which doesn't really help since CA is "gone" now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed it. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks again. Hopefully this is the last you'll have to hear about CA, at least in a negative manner such as this. Who knows, maybe he can come back, learn how to properly edit, and be one of the best wikipedians here (One can dream, right?).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I didn't even know IBAN's existed until Tokyogirl brought them up. [33] I took a small break thought about it and had another account. I was outed and TheGracefulSlick started following me around that account. Simply take a look at this. [34] . I asked him to stay off of my talk page a while back. [35] and asked Tokyogirl to have TheGracefulSlick stay away from me. [36] He agreed and simply did not. [37] This isn't retaliation, I simply want nothing to do with this individual. I am not saying he should be banned from wikipedia. Just away from me. That is the purpose of an IBAN correct? As early as two months ago I didn't want him to contact me. So how could this be thought of as retliation? [38] and [39] CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because right after I gave valid information supporting Niteshift36's argument at AN/I, you took me to ANI. That is easily considered retaliation. And I agreed to stay away from your work and talk page (which I did), but said nothing about ANI, because I knew you would be sent there for how you continue to break policy in article creation and your inability to collaborate with others. Like I said, if you actually took people's advice I would not be an issue with you, we could even work together (crazy theory, right?).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand an IBAN - Interactive Ban states Interaction ban[edit] "Shortcut: WP:IBAN The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way.[1] For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

edit editor Y's user and user talk space; reply to editor Y in discussions; make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means); use the Thanks extension on editor Y's edits." Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) Stated that TheGracefulSlick TheGracefulSlick " edit in a manner that complies with IBAN." Which he did not! That is why I asked for an official IBAN now. Can I PLEASE and I am sincerely asking you that an IBAN be placed on TheGracefulSlick for me. I don't edit on anything he does. Yet a day hasn't gone by that he hasn't had some sort of issue with me. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually another user had a problem with you...scratch that multiple users have a problem with you. I didn't start the issue, YOU did. Everyone else around you has been trying to help you, but YOU continue to disrupt collaborative engagements and create poorly-written articles. I thought you were retired? Could you please choose what you are doing, and perhaps improve positively upon it?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I flatly will not impose an IBAN between you, I don't see how that would be constructive at this point. Do you have an opinion, Tokyogirl79? Bishonen | talk 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well if we want to examine his usual pattern, it is for when he comes back on the CA account after he believes he evaded scrutiny again. Right now, he is either on an actual break or is on another account just like last time. He did hint that he had a third account to start over with.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a new account after an admin emailed me and said that I could if I retired. I minded my own business and was outed. I can even provide the link where I was outed on May 28, 2015 [40]. I guess being outed is considered to be ok. I had stayed away from martial arts articles when I had a new account (an area where I had an emotional attachment as per cleanstart ). [41] I created articles that were important to minorities including Congolese Genocide and African American History

which were automatically noteworthy based on accomplishments via WP:WPBB/N "Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association." I made a few other articles and that was it." Automatically notable and no chance of being deleted via AFD.

In terms of TheGracefulSlick, after he saw that I created James Takemori he messaged PRehse and asked to nominate it for deletion and later claimed he wanted nothing to do with my work on 29 May 2015. [42] Yet strangely enough he started showing up on places my new account went to and started heavily editing there. [43] I retired my new account and went back to this one, I also left a reason why. [44] I felt I was being hounded and and asked Tokyogirl79 to ask TheGracefulSlick to leave me alone in the spirit of IBAN. [45] To which he agreed on June 29, 2015 [[46] ] and simply ignored as of June 30, 2015 to July 4, 2015 . [47] He has voted to the exact opposite of what I vote (although once changed his vote) including [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] . The purpose of TheGracefulSlicks hounding me I believe is based on my nominating a few of his articles for deletion 2 months ago. [53] [54] [55] [56] TheGracefulSlick stated that he believes that I have a personal vendetta against him [57] Another even told us to stay away from each other. [58] I have been trying to get away from him as early as April 25, 2015! [59]

In terms of Amn Khoury, I don't see how Amin_Khoury is considered to be noteworthy. YRCW has a CEO James L. Welch and the company is a fortune 500 yet he has no article. [[60]] What did he accomplish?! His firms website is listed as a source and according to the author Niteshift, a martial arts website isn't a good source for a martial artist. [61] So how is it a business website reliable for a businessman? I saw the various arguments used including notability is not inherited and other stuff exists. I learned rapidly these terms when I have had about 6 my articles placed on AFD at once by a small group of editors? Feb 23, 2015 [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] Feb 24 [68] It was overwhelming. I thought there was something to it. [69] I wondered what was the similarities between the individuals and there was 2 things (100 percent of them did Judo and 7 out of 8 were African American). When I made that statement, I was said to have implied racial implications. [70] The funny thing is that I saw that most of my articles in general that were deleted were African American or individuals of black descent. Strange coincidence? Possible WP:WORLDVIEW ?

Now I keep getting attacked because of my grammar. [71] I was even mocked for it by Niteshift36 [72] It seem that sadly, I am an innercity male where ebonics or African American Vernacular English is the language people speak. 91 percent of wikipedians are white males. [73] . Myself and most blacks speak very different, often listen to different music, and have a different relationship with the authorities from that of the average white male. Yet I am attacked for it? That is a bit unfair! I am told to go read rules and write "properly?" I am told by Niteshift36 that I am butthurt and make a crap factory and it is ok? [74]. Even earlier on April 9 he referred to me as "Crazy"Aces [75] on an AN/I . Even Bishonen stated that it was bullying "P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)." Niteshift36 stated that " But you and WordSeventeen stroking each others, um , egos with barnstars " (implying a sexual innuendo). [1] Yet I had , I got blocked for personal attacks when I put forth a corelation of articles [76] and he blatantly has stated nasty things about me and nothing happens? He has a long history of personal attacks. [77]

I created an article Racial bias on Wikipedia and was being judged on it. Problem is that it exists on wikipedia despite what people say. It was nominated for an AFD and was speedy keep. [78] Do I believe that WP:WORLDVIEW exists on wikipedia? Sure do!

The only thing that I asked is that Niteshifts behavior and repeated personal attacks be looked into. That TheGracefulSlick be WP:IBANed from interacting with me. I made one request and it was ignored. [79]

To be honest, I believe nothing will come about from this. Niteshifts repeated personal attacks will be glossed over at the most a slap on the wrist. My request for an IBAN will be ignored despite violations of WP:Hounding [80] [81] I will probably be reprimanded for something and or told that I am playing the role of the victim. It will be said that I have poor grammar, make bad articles, or the sort. I am pretty much semi-retired. I wanted to finish up a few articles Florendo and Paul Vizzio and quit. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CA no one is "attacking" you for being an African-American. I didn't even know you were black until you said so here. It's because you refuse to adhere to policy no matter which account you are on. It's almost a necessity that I did basic editing on your articles because they are so poorly written. Yes, I will vote "delete" on them, but so will 99% of all other users. It has nothing to do with whatever conspiracy you want to dream up. The sad thing is, the field of work you assimilate yourself with needs help, but this only hurts it which is a shame.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyAces489, you used both accounts at the same time, making a significant amount of edits on both. Bishonen offered to overlook that infraction IF you went through with a good faith WP:CLEANSTART with full disclosure. Is it fair to say that you are no longer interested in doing that? --SubSeven (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick, I find that very hard to believe considering the username NEGROLEAGUEHISTORIAN and the fact that a large number of my articles are African American's. Articles such as Racial bias on Wikipedia to 1972 Olympics Black Power salute to even Discrimination in bar exam. My articles are often written in African American Vernacular English. To you they might be poorly written because you may not be black. I personally know plenty of blacks who understand my writing. I even tagged one article you had called Blind Connie Williams to which you deleted [82] Why should my work on African Americans be assimilated or need help? I believe the subject matter to be quite important! CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So because you enjoy writing poorly written articles about African Americans, I should assume you are black? That is unfair in its own right. The subject is very important, but you obviously don't take it seriously, since people tell you how to improve but you refuse to do so. And it's not just me, everyone thinks they are poorly created.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I even stated that as being the case on an AN/I . Helpng without out hounding or attacking is helpful. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course that username meant you were black because only black people can edit articles about black topics, right? Again, this isn't the Ebonics Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia. You are free to start a AAVE Wikipedia. You can be the Jimbo Wales of Ebonics. If I go to the Spanish Wikipedia and edit with Cuban slang, I'll be rightfully corrected. I also won't complain that "my people" understand it.
Those were signs not the only thing that showed it. 2 months ago on an AN/I I stated my background. Sorry again AAVE is a type of English like the Queens English or Patois. My people as in my friends. (which is common usage in AAVE) CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I understood what "my people" means. I quoted it to connect what I was saying to your particular wording. The problem is, AAVE isn't generally accepted. It may be spoken among some of "your people", but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. And please, don't point out some very isolated college class that allows it because for every one that does, 500+ don't. In any case, your grammar is only a small part of your editing issues. I suspect you're focusing on that now because you want to throw the race card in again and try to blame more things on systemic bias. It's not bias that makes your sources unreliable. It's not grammar that's making your articles get deleted at AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An injustice somewhere is an injustice everywhere. AAVE is generally accepted by many people and is used by many people. I believe that there is a glass ceiling that exists in america. Just because racism isn't blatant now than it was before does not mean it doesn't exist. I am not throwing in the "race card" for the heck of it. I am pointing out obvious problems. If you think that there isn't racism or discrimination in America anymore  ; you don't see the world threw the lends of a minority in America. Niteshift you have stated multiple times that my articles are poorly written and have bad grammar. The sources are the sources. I put something in, and it gets gutted. So I just started to make stubs. Less work and less headaches. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd correct your misstatements (such as the notion that a source was rejected on the basis of grammar), and your incorrect choice of words again (lens, not lends), but Bishonen has requested that you stop posting here and my answer would just tempt you into more posting. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, CrazyAces. The amount of posting you do, you're making the "Retired" template on your page look a bit silly. Please stop copypasting all the complaints you've ever had on this website all over the place ad nauseam, before you're blocked as a complete waste of time. I'm almost ready to propose an indefinite block for you in the ANI thread. Please don't post on my page again; let's keep it on ANI. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
You and Tokyogirl are the most familiar with the situation. Didn't mean to annoy you. I only posted it 2 places. I see conversations going on everywhere and was trying to address them. I will put semi-retired back. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. I'm closing this thread now. Bishonen | talk 08:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Roseberry&diff=next&oldid=656777419

Thank you, Bishonen

Hi,

First of all, thanks for blocking User:Handpolk from editing for some time. After seeing the block sign on his talk page, I just want to add that he was also vandalizing my talk page during the night and later he started the same thing on User:2005's talk page (you already mentioned User:TheGracefulSlick so I left him out of here). Furthermore he has double standards – he can edit his or other user's talk page whenever he feels like it (add, revert, delete, etc.), but other users can't do the same. And he made constant threats to other users about this kind of thing handing warnings like free candy whereas he should have really gave all those warnings to himself. So thanks again and take care! – Sabbatino (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT: I completely forgot. He calls everything trolling when he doesn't like something... – Sabbatino (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't look further back than the recent stuff, but I did suspect there was probably more. You may have noticed he barely admits the examples I mentioned, in his unblock request. The point about double standards is well taken. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'm just going to put this here.--Jorm (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've already commented on that, in general terms. Already removed. But then it's generally true that you have to read Handpolk's page via the history. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
While I agree that he can delete things from his own talk page (though I think it's rude and immature), deleting other peoples' comments from other peoples' talk pages is not kosher, I think. Nor is referring to everything as "trolling". Ugh.--Jorm (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the remark that was removed here, wrong time for dark humor. Will not do it again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had hopes for Handpolk after his Gamergate topic ban, he moved on to other subjects. Even though he called me a shill, I thought he had intelligence. But he can turn the simplest disagreements into a battleground, this seems to occur on many articles he works on and he holds a grudge. I thought, like many inexperienced editors, Gamergate brought out the worst in him, but he seems to be argumentative in multiple other places. He suffers from what I call Have-to-have-the-last-wordism. Unless the other editor says, "Enough, forget this", this seems to inevitably lead to a revert war. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Man, did the trolls come after your talk page tonight! It's good you have talk page stalkers who matched them edit-for-edit. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My talkpage stalkers are the best, Liz. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think Handpolk will improve when he comes back either. He completely denies any wrongdoing, which is never a good sign.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amen (the last word) Hithladaeus (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I want to ask you and don't want to create a new section for that. Where can I report IP addresses? There's this one IP address that keeps vandalising various NBA teams' pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sabbatino. You can report vandalism, both from accounts and IPs, at this noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Silly me. I visited that page about 3–4 days ago. I think it's time for me to bookmark that page. Thanks anyway! – Sabbatino (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Postman

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CrowCaw 00:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen2

Just want some clarification. Is this an alternative account you just created or a sock of some other user you had issues with? If sock, get the IP checked, might have been someone you had issues recently like a user you blocked or warned. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account as Bish identifies members of her conglomerate. --NeilN talk to me 01:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this isn’t too beansy, but do contributions like those result in auto-confirmation?—Odysseus1479 03:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Odysseus1479: Ten edits anywhere, so yes. --NeilN talk to me 03:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, Odysseus and NeilN, in fact it turned out there was a sleeper which possibly read your tip, Odysseus, and proceeded like this:[83] — ten edits exactly. (Not that I mind the beans, Odysseus. They made me laugh, which AFAIC more than outweighs any and all manifestations of Nadia's dull little hobby.) Bishonen | talk 11:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Must be editing from an IP range, I see there's been another sock blocked. Bishonen, did you get my email from a couple of days ago? Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I did, sorry. It fell off the table, I'll try to get to it. I know who this latest character is — an established editor blowing up — now checkuserblocked by Risker. It was kind of obvious per WP:DUCK, too. Bishonen | talk 09:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
What about the anagrammatic cousin user:Shinbone1? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to the superannuated

So, supposing that I'm really old. Like, I'm really really old. Suppose I'm so old that the most notorious ArbCom in Wikipedia history dealt with me, and I'm back, but I'm not really back? You know, like I'm just filling some time between sending out CV's and stuff and just puttering around? So, what am I supposed to do to tell the officials that I used to be someone before I became who I appear to be? Should I put a note on my user page saying, "This user used to be Someone" or "I am Someone" or "I may be Someone?" After all, I understand, better than most, the severe repercussions of not having every single edit listed properly. We all know who we're working for, after all, and it's the boss. Hithladaeus (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from normal curiosity, I had to laugh at the thought that there's a most notorious arbcom case. I can think of at least six cases that have been referred to in that way. Risker (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't say mine was the most notorious case. I was saying only that that particular ArbCom committee is the most notorious. Whether or not my case created a stink, I don't know. I left, and, unlike most folks who do that, I really left. I don't think I even visited the site more than once a year as a user for quite a few years. (I was proud of leaving comments on some talk pages, a snide or exasperated remark here or there, but that was it.) This summer, I thought I might try to actually fix an article, so I created this account. I still haven't gotten a round tuit, though. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't imagine it would be a problem. Work on CV or develop Wikipedia Userpage....what to do .... I'd like to see the sanction for this notorious case Editor Someone is Topic Banned from the area of Gainful Employment, broadly construed. Someone may appeal this sanction, after such time the committee deems suitable, with a properly formatted CV and User Page. Passing 9-0. For the Arbitration Committee. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The advice of this dinosaur to you, young man, is to not worry about what the officials think about you. There are enough of us now who appreciate your massive contributions to this project that your reputation is safe. It was the most notorious ArbCom case though, Risker - even Brad was ashamed afterwards. --RexxS (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RexxS, but I also want to say that Brad had nothing to be ashamed of. He did all he could to stop the oncoming train. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I was thinking of the supposed issue of that day. Supposedly, I was operating a second account without putting an official sticker on the second account's page, and that was the reason that ArbCom members on a list-serve, without an actual case, had to act without a proceeding. If I am to even putter about, I was thinking I might be accidentally tripping over some bizarre regulation again.
By the way, at the time, I kept wondering why everyone going around trying to "prove" that I was this or that account, when they could have just asked me. I've always thought that investigations can be made much simpler by asking people questions.
See, I figure that getting better material from the nDNB for some of the articles would be cool, and there is adding in material for discussions of substantial works from authors, etc. I.e. I think I can see something to do other than just vote in AfD's, but I'm not going to deal well with another set of "But I have been investigating with NSA-like efficiency and can prove that you were here from 2002-2008 and did not put the required category tag on your user page!" things. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But everybody who knew your contributions already knew you ran a second account from work - it's not like your style is difficult to spot. Things have matured to some extent here in the interim. You have a new account now because you choose to; there's no question about evading scrutiny, and you have no sanctions outstanding. A well-respected admin is aware of your previous account (as is a thoroughly disreputable dinosaur), and we're both able to vouch for your bona fides. That's generally accepted nowadays, and there's bugger-all chance that anyone will be daft enough to accuse you of abusing multiple accounts in future. FWIW, I have access to JSTOR and parts of Elsevier as well as ODNB, so feel free to ping me if I can find any documents for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I probably will take you up on that. My work facilities are a bit on the cheapish side. We have JSTOR, but it's limited. However, "work" bought a number of the best reference works back when it was in higher heather, so it has the physical OED, nDNB, and Grove Dictionary of music. It has not, in my time, ever had adequate serials access, though, which has hurt my publications. (I've only published two tiny articles, and both of them I feel ashamed of, because I feel as if I didn't do an adequate literature review beforehand because I couldn't.) For Wikipedia, being able to synthesize disparate reputable references could be valuable.
The oDNB, for example, is sometimes better than what replaced it, because some of the entries are obsessively detailed, and the nDNB style sheet limited the authors. (Cf. "Jonathan Swift" in both, and you'll see what I mean. The 2004 is clearer and cleaner, but it has much, much less information.) On the other hand, the oDNB allowed editorial points of view. If we take Jonathan Swift as an example, again, the author feels the need to combat the notion that Swift was an insane misanthropist. No one today would. The 1898 authors were on the cusp of English literature becoming an accepted field of study (really), and most of them were shaking off the Macaulay and Carlyle paradigms. Most of them were, but not all of them. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kind talkpage stalkers

Thank you all for keeping guard while I slept! A special thanks to User:DHeyward, who removed the overlooked fragment about my, cough, new username. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A bit daft of me to edit the section and leave default edit summary with "rm vandalism." You should be proud to know that you were the only subject in all the WP realm with honorificabilitudinitatibus to receive such flowery phrasing whilst the rest of us feed from the alms-basket of usernames. --DHeyward (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I'm being singled out for attention by this user, and I guess the page (or, if not, its history) shows why. Hmm... I'm gonna go check if Risker has been distinguished too. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Geez, I go away for the weekend and the place goes crazy... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Doxxing"?

Another IP left this message on my talk page and I don't know what to make of it. Dustin (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked it as I was typing this message, but still. Dustin (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's the same /19 range, I strongly suspect they're just messing with your head. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I suspect you are right. I searched with the Google query "site:8ch.net Dustin V. S." and found zero relevant results. Thanks for the response. Dustin (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Excuse me?

Sorry about that. Not so much "fat-finger" as "skinny text on an iPad screen + mobile-version page rendering". In other words, I was trying to tap the "DIff" link but missed, and the page it showed me was the awful mobile version; hitting the "Request desktop site" button seems to have saved my mistake as an actual edit. --Calton | Talk 21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem — I could have sworn I'd already replied, sorry, Calton. Must have forgotten to hit save. Don't even talk to me about mobile devices. I have to use 'em sometimes, as seldom as possible — I hate 'em with a passion. Bishonen | talk 08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Page deletion

Hi, Bishonen,
I hope you can advise me. I was straightening out the talk page archives of WikiProject Poker, some of the archives were numbered (Archive 1), some were marked by year (Archive 2013) and no archives were listed in the talk page archive box after 2009 though they did exist. I wanted to make use of {{aan}} so I changed the later archives to numbered pages but there was one glitch. There was a page that was listed in the talk page archive box as Wikipedia talkWikiProject Poker/Archive 6|2009 and a page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 2009 that existed but was not listed. I mistakenly moved the later page to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 because I thought I was just moving Archive 2009 to Archive 6. Then I noticed my naming mistake so I tried to move the page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 and I couldn't because it already existed. So, I moved the contents of Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 and I'd like to delete the mistakenly titled move page but I can't find a CSD criteria that applies here and I can't use PROD because that is not utilized in Wikipedia talk space. I realize now that I should have merged the histories since they were two archives covering the same year but I didn't notice that were two separate archives pages that existed until I tried moving the mistakenly titled archive page to the correct title.

TL;DR version: Can you delete Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 or recommend what I should do next? Thanks in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 13:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you’re sure all I need to do is delete the malformed title… done. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Bishonen! It's much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handpolk c.s.

Perhaps you could take a look at the edits of LowballChamp. Gives me the feeling of a new Handpolk/DegenFarang as he is deleting edits of user:2005, claiming a consensus that I fail to see. The Banner talk 14:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That’s certainly suggestive. Whoever’s sock it is, it’s not a new user, and the quacking is really loud… I’ve duck blocked and added a malformed report at the SPI, which I hope somebody will fix. (I'm on a new computer, it's killing me.) Thank you, The Banner. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I fixed the SPI and throttled the newcomer. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Favonian. Did I not even remember to actually block the sock? No surprises there. Apart from general absentmindedness stupidity, I was trying to maneouvre a new browser, on my mother's new computer (that I was trying out for her), with only intermittent use of a mouse, which my son kept borrowing for other purposes. The nightmare of family life. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Revdel?

Hi there, just stopping by to suggest that this edit be revdel'd. It appears to match a previous comment by that IP giving advice to blocked users on how to create sockpuppets which was previously revdel'd so I can't link to it. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

46.28.51.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - NQ (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revdel all those, Ivanvector..? (There are six identical posts.) Thank you for reverting, NQ. I'm not much of a one for honoring that kind of trolling with revdel, as if it was something important, or in this case as if they were sharing important secrets with those blocked users (bah). That's my personal view. Maybe another admin will be more amenable. Oh, and I've blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I would say yes, nuke 'em all. I don't know what the rationale was for deleting the first one but I figure if one was worth deleting, then they all are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But was the first one worth deleting? That's my point, admins can disagree about that stuff. (Hint: if you feel strongly about it, ask the guy who did the first one.) Bishonen | talk 18:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry!

Oh man, I'm sorry that I missed all of the CrazyAces stuff! (sighs) I remember getting pinged and figured that I'd dive into it the next day, but then ended up getting caught up in family stuff this past weekend. Sorry about that! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, little geisha, never be sorry for family stuff! Wikipedia only hobby! And thread still open in case wishes to opine after all, but never if stressful! bishzilla ROARR!! 06:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not alter or remove text from my personal talk page

Keep your hands to yourself, do not touch my text or writing on my own personal talk page. Tom Northshoreman has a history of erasing or altering people's text on the Leo Frank talk page. I just checked the archives, he has done it not only to me, but to other people as well in the past. This disruptive and POV behavior is unacceptable. I posted on my talk page, a question asking who I must contact to report his (Tom Northshoreman's) infantile behavior. My post was not a call for some random person to come along and delete my text. Do not alter the text on my personal talk page. THANK YOU. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand the use of talkpages, despite having been here for quite some time (over a year, I make it, including your previous account), you'd do yourself a favour by listening to people who do. Did you not notice that in my edit summary, I answered your question as to who you must contact to report the user in question? Answered it quite fully. Here, I'll quote it for you: If you want admins to sanction or warn Tom N, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. With evidence (diffs), of course." You're welcome. I've removed the note on your page again, as it is inappropriate and also not needed, now that you know where to appropriately place your complaint. Please don't restore it again. You have certain rights over your talkpage, but you're wrong in thinking it's your 'personal' talkpage in the sense that you own it. Incidentally, I see that when you reverted me, you also took the opportunity to flesh out your personal attack against User:Doug Weller. I'll block you for personal attacks| if you continue to be so rude. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Can you please show me where it says its allowed for other people (not the subject) to modify, edit or alter other peoples personal notes on their personal talk pages? You removed content from my personal talk page, that I wanted to keep there for my own historical records. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TPO GingerBreadHarlot. I'm sure you'll recognise the reason as to why your comments have been edited using the very handy list there. CassiantoTalk 18:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:USERTALKBLOG GingerBreadHarlot. BTW your talk page is not "personal" as both it and its editing history are available for all to see. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Telling me to hunt for something on a page doesn't answer my question. I want an answer why my own notes, on my personal talk page, were deleted with no notes left. I dont want people touching my personal talk page without my permission or a clear explanation. Bishonen simply deleted my post, without any comment on my talk page. I don't appreciate this rude and disruptive behavior on my talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Here's a quote from Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by improper ownership behavior". Your user talk page is not your personal page, but is intended solely for communication between you and other editors about the project, that is Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk 18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas W, Tom Northshoreman, was deleting my posts on the Leo Frank page, and I have a right to bring it up on my own talk page. bishonen deleted my post on my talk page without asking me about it, without leaving any notes on my talk page, with no indication at all. He just deleted my posts about Tom Northshoreman, who has been deleting peoples posts on the Leo Frank talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I would never modify, edit or alter anything you wrote on your page or elsewhere, GingerBreadHarlot. I will remove inappropriate stuff, though. You have now put the stuff I removed on WP:AN, where it goes reasonably well (not as well as it would have done on WP:ANI, which I recommended, but whatever). As for why I removed it from your page, what Cassianto said. Your historical records remain in the page history, btw; it's all still there. [Added after edit conflict]: You have now again talked about your "personal talkpage" just exactly as if you haven't read a word either I, MarnetteD or Thomas.W have said about that matter. I'm not sure there's any use telling you anything. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't negate the fact that you are publishing a personal thoughts about someone in a negative tone. Jesus, I know I'm an uncivil bastard at times, but even I'd never do that. In any case, what makes you think that people would even want to know that? CassiantoTalk 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Thomas.W: Here's a quote from Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by improper ownership behavior". Your user talk page is not your personal page, but is intended solely for communication between you and other editors about the project, that is Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk 18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, Read the quote above, that's exactly what I did. I posted an issue I have with Tom Northshoreman on my "personal" talk page ("personal" referring to mine), and asked for help to improve the encyclopedia because of a disruptive editor. Bishonen, You wiped out the entire post I made explaining the problem and asking for help. Why are you deleting posts from my talk page in a disruptive manner without leaving public notes, when I'm asking for help. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, my question was what do I do when someone like Tom Northshoreman is doing disruptive behavior, deleting my posts from Leo Frank talk page. The archives show he did this in the past to other users. This is disruptive behavior. Bishonen, do not delete my questions and concerns on my talk page, that have to do we me trying to learn the proper methods on wikipedia. Stop this disruptive behavior. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=670559302"