User talk:Bishonen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Platinum Goddess of Wikipedia. Cold and hard, but also beautiful and priceless.

I'm curious[edit]

You mentioned you had a little script that added a royal crown to a user name if they were an admin. Could you possibly divulge that code and how to implement it? It sounds like it could be not only useful, but kinda "groovy man - like far out" (although perhaps "totes cool" is today's lingo) — Ched :  ?  — 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

M poor dear antiquated Ched, crowns are soooo outré. My young little Bish, I would like a tasteful tiara with a tasteful number of tasteful diamonds and tasteful pearls. Thanks ever so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I use a little drama emoji: 🎭 See User:Floquenbeam/common.css --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have the aqua highlighting in my momobook.js by importing one of Mastcell's scripts - but never my own coding to adjust .. I'll look into it. Is there a list of those little icons I can pick from? — Ched :  ?  — 18:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • If you added a crown, Floq, that would make you a drama queen.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yea Bbb - time does seem to have passed me by in many ways. :-) — Ched :  ?  — 18:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmmm - putting something like that in my common.css seems to take precedence over my monobook.js. — Ched :  ?  — 18:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    I just stole that from someone. I have no idea how common vs monobook or css vs js interact. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    I forget most of what I learned in school (C++, Cobol, VB, etc) and never did study much about javascript and style sheets. Well - did a bit of self taught .js back when Excite had chat rooms and all. Anyway - going back to my highlighter - seems better than the little icons for my taste. ty guys and girls — Ched :  ?  — 18:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ched: I'm sorry, I added the crown script ages ago, I don't know where it is. But the effect is very pretty — (better than pearl-clutching, Bbb23!) — perhaps a talkpage stalker would like to dig it out of one of my monobook or common... uh... pages?... for you? (One of them takes precedence? That's over my head completely.) Though I must say the Floque's drama emoji for admins is also very fine, and you see, above, that he has told you where to find it. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC).
{{yo|Ched}}? .. hmmm neato. No problem Ms. Bishonen - I found it in your common.css. I tried both the beautiful crown and the drama emoji. For now I'm going to stick with the highlighter. I actually have very little in my common.css, just the edit section. (I commented out the crown and emoji for now) Since I liked the old monobook look - I use that skin and import .js files into that. Greatly appreciate your time though. — Ched :  ?  — 19:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Ched: I'm late to this party, but I use this, which allows me to do both icons and colors: that way I can separate all admin and advanced permission holders without remembering too much stuff. Amorymeltzer is quite good about keeping it running, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Incandescently obvious sock redux[edit]

I'm about to ping you at Talk:Latino about a circumstantially obvious undeclared sock of Lauracerffer (talk · contribs). I'm trying to assemble diffs and stuff, but you may have more background on this particular case, not to mention more tools, and thus be able to deal with it more rapidly than I could. If your plate is full, no worries; feel free to ignore, and I'll carry on investigating on my side, and report back eventually. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: looks kind of obvious, yes. Now that you've asked about previous accounts on their page, perhaps it's as well to leave it till they reply.
I notice that after I'd blocked Lauracerffer, Bbb23 changed the block to a CU-block for abusing multiple accounts, long before either Teresa samonetta or GiannaZarelli had been created, so I guess there must have been earlier socks. Maybe it's time for an SPI? Beeb, would you like to create one, since you're aware of more socks than me and Mathglot? Also pinging Doug Weller, who tried (with little success) to educate the previous incarnations about how to contribute to Wikipedia. Doug, you're also a CU, how about it? Bishonen | talk 08:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
I tried to get guidance from WP:SOCK and WP:SPI about whether or not to simply ask the editor about alt accounts, and I couldn't find anything there about it (maybe something should be added?) So, I based my decision to ask her, based on analogy to the guidance I've seen at WP:COI about asking users politely about COI issues, or pasting one of the templates that effectively does the same thing. I hope by asking her, I didn't complicate things.
I sympathize with Doug for the pain he went through earlier. I was tsk-tsking my way through it. Some of that stuff could become a case study for future Rfa candidates on keeping their cool under stressful conditions. I got dissed by her a tiny bit at her User talk page, but that was nothing compared to what Doug went through. Meanwhile, I'm busy designing my WWDD (What Would Doug Do?) bumper stickers and T-shirt designs for Cafe Press; any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Mathglot (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As long as there's no hurry, which there isn't here, simply asking is a good thing, IMO. Incidentally, for slightly different circumstances (disruption while logged out), one of my socks has a fine template you'd be welcome to use. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
Ha! Btw, you might be interested in lurking or commenting at WT:SOCK#Guidance about whether to simply ask them, which I just started. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Thanks for the embarrassing compliments. I hope I can live up to them. I see they deny having any other accounts. I've given an only warning for those attacks on here. I note that the editor posted this to someone else at "Why did you delete my addition "people, respective cultures" on the "Latino" article? If you're Spanish, and live in Spain, are you not proud of being a Latino and enjoying Latin culture? I hope you're not being misdirected by the USA's rash 1997 corruption of the word "latino" as a shortened form of "latinoamericano" for the USA's census. We Latin Europeans (in case you happen to be one), are proud of our Latino countries. I know I am (I'm an Italiana from Lazio, Rome, Italy). I won't be bossed about by naysaying Anglo-Americans, and you shouldn't either. Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Corsica, Malta, San Marino, Monaco are just some of the Old World's Latino countries. Yes, we use Cultura Latina which originated in Rome beginning 1200 BC. And it is, we are Latino people. The term "latinoamerica" ​​was only created in the late 1880s. The USA's silly misuse of the word "latino" for a person from Latin America who comes to live in the USA is both futile and foolish.
Especially since the USA is being latinoized more each year. So is Anglo-Canada. There isn't much of Anglo-America anymore. The French Canadians are Latin People. America is growing up; it's becoming a continent (as we Latins say it is) instead of country (as the Anglo USA community thinks it is). If you're really an Old Word Latino, you should embrace your Latin roots. I know I embrace mine. Being a Roman, it's impossible to give up the cradle of European culture so the USA can consider Native Americans "Latino". You'll notice people in the USA don't naysay their Celtic, Scots, and Anglo-Saxon ethnicities. Yet, they expect we Latin Europeans to forget our Latin cultures, ethinc designations, and roots. It's just NOT on! We Latin Europeans have the right to be called "Latin people" and our Latin cultures need to be embraced and noted here on Wikipedia. We don't disrespect and naysay other people's cultures. We don't like ours naysayed and disrepected. Don't you agree?- The previous unsigned comment is the work of GiannaZarelli ( disc. • contribs ). 19:16, June 13, 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted their latest edit. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You folk are funny. Why anyone would want to ask a sock/person who is known for their aggressive rants whether they've ever edited with another account is beyond me. Their response was predictable, as was my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd happily buy a dozen of those stickers Mathglot speaks of. I thought that trash edit push was dead and buried a year ago, or would have helped out. Astonishing the insistence on 'I'm an Italiana from Lazio, Rome, Italy': This is certainly untrue, since the editor in question has a feeble knowledge of Italian, and has zero knowledge of Roman dialect (I'm an experienced translator of it). Best wishes, as always, Doug. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The only Italian I know is operatic.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've removed tpa. I don't think we need any more nonsense out of them. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC).

Missing conversation[edit]

Went back through my Email archive "Toshiba CK6R4" and searched for said reply: couldn't find it. Any ideas please?

Sorry, I don't know what this is about, (You can sign posts on talkpages by typing four tildes ~~~~, which will convert automatically to your username or IP.) Bishonen | talk 08:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC).

Request for protecting Nath (surname) & Debnath from persistent vandalism / unsourced POV edits[edit]

Hi Bishonen, would request you to check and protect the articles on Nath (surname) & Debnath. The user User:Siddy0070, who is engaged in an edit war, seems to be a sock of User:Siddharthnath0070. Thanks & Regards, Ekdalian (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Some obvious socking there, and quite charming comments on your page, about your jealousy of Brahmins. I've blocked both accounts. Since all the disruption has been coming from them, I think I'll leave the articles for now. Thanks for reporting, Ekdalian, and could you please let me know if more socks turn up? Then I'll semi. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC).
Sure, I shall inform you in case more socks turn up. Thanks a lot, Bishonen. Ekdalian (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors![edit]

Just to be sure you don't miss this [1]. EEng 07:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I rather enjoyed the (slightly Pythonesque) "pearl-clutching and hand-wringing" imagery.-- Dlohcierekim 12:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a little like "He flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions." EEng 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Since it would be a shame to get blocked before being able to assist in bringing the Moors murders sourcing to at least GA level, I've modified the header of this section to something more neutral.
  • ive been looking at this too. What edition of Staff's book The Lost Boy are you checking against? I suspect it's not the 2007 edition cited in the article but the revised 2013 one, in which some of the text may well have been moved. Perhaps this is why you tag all these failed verificaton errors. I suppose, If you're checking a source it surely makes sense to check against the source that's been cited. Giano (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    Giano, see [2], and don't call me Shirley. EEng 18:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Bish - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog. I just went back over the cited sources in the article - removed the garbage citations, and added tags. I asked Tone to review the close again. Also take a look at the editing experiences of the iVotes - which is great that new editors are getting involved. A few WP:WikiProject Dog editors and I are trying to clean-up articles about breeds that are not breeds, rather they are dog-types, if that, and most are not cited to RS because there are none. I don't think WP considers self-published dog lover/puppymill/hobbyist books as RS, and the same would apply to websites. I want to avoid the back-and-forth with the newbies (so far, I've managed well and have tried to be encouraging) so if you will just take a look at what we're dealing with, and share your thoughts, I'll go from there. Atsme Talk 📧 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a little short of time, and not much good with dogs. But I see Tone has relisted it. I hope some of my stalkers will check it out. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC).
Ok, no problem. I'll just leave this diff which helps explain a little about why it's particularly important fo get these articles right. Atsme Talk 📧 22:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Purely coincidental that EEng is having similar issues regarding accuracy. Atsme Talk 📧 23:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


That block ( ) should be for personal attacks, they did some small vandalism yesterday but today their edits weren't vandalism they were simply blanking TP warnings the main issue was the comments in edit summary. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Really? There was so much of it I had trouble getting an overview, and of course CLCStudent was wrong to revert their blanking of their own talkpage; I'm surprised CLC doesn't know that. But what stood out for me was their redirecting their own and another IP talkpage to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
If we stretch good faith those were tests and they stopped today but that would be a stretch for sure! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, anyway, thanks for coming to my page to discuss, HIB. It's nice to see you here. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

Merle Haggard and Garner Ted Armstrong[edit]

Hey Bish, I pinged you earlier about this, but I think this is linked to the socking over at Garner Ted Armstrong. The IP addresses are all different, but the IP editor is restoring the same unverifiable quotation about Merle Haggard and Armstrong that they were warring over on that page, and their talk page comments make it pretty clear they are mostly concerned with linking Armstrong and Haggard. Can you take a look or should I just ask at ANI? Thanks! Nblund talk 15:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a notable difference that these IPs are not attacking Doug Weller, or saying you're Doug's sock, so maybe not the same. Anyway, I've semi'd Merle Haggard for three months. Check out the protection log — apparently it was exactly the same thing 3 years ago: "11:54, 21 April 2016 Nyttend changed protection level for Merle Haggard [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 11:54, 28 April 2016) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Persistent disruptive editing: Addition of copyright infringements by multiple IPs)." Persistent seems right! Incidentally, I do see your ping on Talk:Merle Haggard now, but I did not receive your notification. Unreliable, pings are! 😟 Bishonen | talk 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC).
Haha, you're right that that did kind of seem like a defining feature of the previous account. Thanks for taking a look! Nblund talk 16:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, I suspect they're right. I can Cinderella a source saying that Haggard was listening to Armstrong and got some inspiration from him. I can't afford the Merle Haggard autobiography it you'd expect that to mention Garner. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Cinderella? Bishonen | talk 19:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC).
I've no idea how "find" turned inti Cinderella. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Uh.. link, please. I have so much recent. (Going out now, back in a few hours.) Bishonen | talk 11:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC).
No worries, 331dot caught it at the same time I posted here. ——SerialNumber54129 12:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, Doug Weller, I misread that as "biography", rather than autobiog :) if you're really keen on the thing, there's a copy here for less thn 8$ inc. shipping. ——SerialNumber54129 12:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
          • @Serial Number 54129: not really, it's up to the soci/meatpuppets to find it. He also co-wrote " My House of Memories: An Autobiography". Doug Weller talk 12:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Then the sockmeister can spend their own hard-earned then :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


You've got some. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've got your message, Steve. Sorry not to have replied, but I'm still thinking about it. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC).
No rush, thanks. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 14:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Oversight question...[edit]

I've noticed that gross incivility often gets people blocked and lead to their comments being oversighted within seconds. I notice that other times it doesn't. Here, for example. I suppose that the advantage to this double standard is that I can always link to it to show how en.wp is more toxic for some than others. I noticed that the person who reverted it reported a lot of people for vandalism in the moments following, but didn't report the guy for incivility. I wonder why vandalism is a greater crime than repeated personal attacks? (see also the antz talkpage) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vandalism that targets an article is often defamatory in nature; which BLP doesn't permit, but which could also open Wikipedia up to legal trouble. Same with copyright violations. Personal attacks are disruptive, and unpleasant, but they're rarely as urgent a problem...I, and several others, will often take down personal attacks that are egregious, under RD2 or RD3; but not all admins will, and if it happens on your talk page, it's less likely to be noticed. Also, for the record; oversight and revision deletion are similar but different; all admins can delete revisions, and read deleted revisions; only oversighters can oversight (or suppress) revisions, and read those that have been suppressed. The bar for suppression is considerably higher, and run-of-the-mill vandalism will be suppressed only very rarely. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
SashiRolls, your comment above is too involved and serpentine for me to be able to tell if you would like the comment revdel'd or not. I can do that if desired. (I don't think any oversighter would like to suppress it.) Meanwhile, I've blocked the user for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC).
Sorry, should have said, I removed it. Revision deletion only, does not qualify for suppression. Personally, I have a low bar when it comes to that sort of crap. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. You're a bit serpentine too. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC).
To be a bit more blunt than Vanamonde: we mainly suppress personal attacks if they are calling you a pedophile or other sex criminal. I’d be fine suppressing allegations of being an actual member of a neo-Nazi group as well, but not “he’s a Nazi/fascist for liking [thing]!” Obviously things are evaluated individually, but sex crimes would be the most common cause for suppressing personal attacks. Agree with his revdel, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reaction once I mentioned it. Sorry to trouble you all. I gather this was retribution for something I wrote. I guess it's safer not to edit wikipedia if you don't want the antz to come marching in. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. I really do appreciate the culture of fr.wp where ArbCom cases are filed by the name of the prosecutor. Nevertheless, I do appreciate you blocking the single purpose account the instant I reported the attack. I'm not optimistic about the likelihood of Bulldog antz becoming a collaborative encyclopédiste, but you never know. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at ANI's TOC right now: "User:X", "User:Y", "User:Z and WP:CIR", etc. Lots of usernames, lots of alphabet soup. Nblund's original header is quite typical. Not typical of fr.wp, admittedly. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

ANI: 16:48 25 August 2019 (UTC)[edit]

It isn't often that I chortle with glee, while reading WP. But the appearances of Bishzilla make me laugh aloud! Ohh, the raptures... her graceful snout, her fiery eyes, her learned and idiosyncratic discourse! She brings joy to the hearts of all who love her, and worship from afar. (Like *really* far away, those flames look dangerous!) With gratitude, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hehehe. ['Zilla sticks the little user in her pocket. Commandingly (and learnedly):] Stay! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 08:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC).

Kennedies (Kennedys?)[edit]

From history, and page history as well; I have learned not to unprotect these folks. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The protection had expired. Do you think it should be indefinite? We don't often do that. Did you check the IP's so-called contributions? Quite a bio spree — a democratic politician spree. It's probably one of those perennial proposals to semi all BLPs indefinitely. Though even that wouldn't have helped in this case, as two out of the three are dead. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC).


Hi Could you delete this edit? --Panam2014 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Odd, it doesn't seem to have worked right when SineBot was deleted. But I think it's invisible now. Bishonen | talk 08:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
You're like a magician.-- Deepfriedokra 08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
[Bishonen, pleased, saws the little Deepfried in half.] Bishonen | talk 08:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC).

William S Lerner[edit]

I'm sorry, I got distracted there and didn't notice your were already dealing with it. Do you want me to remove the username block? --kingboyk (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. No, he might as well identify himself properly now. Thanks for writing. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
On second thought, and after reading the thread on Alexf's talkpage, I wish you would unblock him, kingboyk. He's a new user (and a highly qualified one) doing his best, and all he's met with is don't do this and don't do that, and also you've been blocked. There isn't really any doubt that he is who he says he is, IMO. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
OK, will do. --kingboyk (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I've unblocked. I propose to essentially retract the block by removing the block template and the request to unblock. Is that OK or should I leave the notification and change the unblock request to 'accepted'? --kingboyk (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I dunno if there are any rules for that. If it was me, I'd just remove both and write him a nice welcoming little note. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC).
That's what I planned to do, so if you'd do the same I think it can't be too unreasonable. Thank you! --kingboyk (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see you already wrote the note. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC).


Bloodofox is a wiki-friend and I have formerly collaborated with them; I broke my promise to myself to make fewer than five edits to Wikipedia this month, for the second month, because of their ping and because there are few of us left fixing Norse/ancient Germanic messes. But was the copyright violation at Völva only the failure to attribute when restoring the pre-rewrite version of the page? If so, a new editor would be unlikely to realise that copying within Wikipedia without attribution counts as copyvio, and in light of the personal concerns they revealed on their talkpage, I'd like to plead for some mercy for this well intentioned editor, perhaps in the form of a message from you explaining the coying problem and suggesting they ask for unblock with a promise to cease the insults as well as the death curses. I have been trying to fix the mess of bad links, bad Norse, lack of bolding, on the page and talk them down on their talk page, but I type slowly. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, Yngvadottir. I'll certainly think about it, since you ask, but they've been very aggressive you know. Look at their edit summaries altogether, not just the "death curse" but the others, and at their aggressive edit warring at Völva. The mythology wiki that I linked to at the noticeboard, here, is marked "copyright Wikia". Of course Wikia is not Wikipedia. Are you saying you think that's actually an unacknowledged copy from an older version of Wikipedia's Völva article? Bishonen | talk 17:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
Yes. As are many Wikia articles. (It may even have an acknowledgement somewhere in the history.) See this version before Bloodofox started his rewrite, the second edit of which was the move from the Völva title - see the move template on the redirect page above the history-purge template someone has added; I've made a note there with that link.
Yes, they've been very aggressive, and to a friend of mine, I'm not pleading for any change to the block. But see their talk page response to me for where they're coming from. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Slow typing sucks, doesn't it Yngvadottir? Many's the time I've tried to intervene in a dispute at ANI, only to have my response become obsolete before I can act. Then I revise my response, only to find it has *again* evolved beyond me. Same thing's happening here. I tried to agree with you about the copyright thing, but it's already been redacted by another admin, and arguing about it just seems like *so* much effort. I tried to respond to the unblock request, but it was already responded to before I was done. Then I tried to leave a comment for them with some advice, but before I could hit "save" they've escalated and doubled down and gone off the deep end. Now I feel forced into removing talk page access. Before I do, do you still think there is *any* hope here? Do you want to try talking to them anymore? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Walked dog after workmen finished and left, will now go look at their talk page. Thanks for trying, both. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't say I've much hope, but I've invited another unblock request, so please hold off a little with the tpa removal. I've withdrawn the copyvio charge. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
I don't have much either, but I've done my best to put the case for seeking to return to editing minus imprecations, and repeating here my thanks there for the strike-out and statement about copyvio. Yes, they lie. Water is wet. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
SvarturVölva's talkpage access has been revoked. There's a stunner! I'm sorry your patience and kindness didn't bear better fruit, Yngvadottir. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, Bloodofox, I was reading the Litro article linked here <redacted>, thinking it could fit on Presscoverage/Presstemplate at Talk:Carl Raschke, but the article seems to violate WP:OUTING, and the link should perhaps be supressed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Could you ask an Oversighter, please, Gamla bergtroll? They're the only ones that can do it. You can use the e-mail link at the top of Wikipedia:Oversight. Please don't put the link anywhere else in public, and ask them to oversight it here on my page also; I've redacted it. Bishonen | talk 09:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
The Goddess requests, e-mail sent to oversight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd quietly asked Floquenbeam to perform a little selective rev-deletion on it but they must have gone to bed. Yes, Bishonen, I didn't have much hope, but we tried. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I got that last night when I was on my phone and couldn't easily revdel, and then completely forgot about it overnight. My bad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I've revdel'd the link here, and on SV's talk page, so it's less visible until OS gets it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, folks! I'm only now catching up. I'm assuming someone posted the Litro article by Carl Raschke's son? None of the information about yours truly there is accurate. It's either wholesale invented and fictional—like much of the writer's account of how Wikipedia works—or means that he and his father harassed some poor uninvolved guy in the U.S. based on who-knows-what criteria thinking it was me because he didn't like what scholars had to say about Painted Black. I considered posting it on my user page for a while, but thought it wasn't worth my time, and figured it would be funny whenever it surfaced. Thanks for looking out, nonetheless! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Correct, glad to hear the article didn't bother you too much. I'm fairly inclusionist about adding articles to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 etc, but OUTING goes beyond that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's another one for the blocklist.[edit]

Playtime000000 - another sock of that HughD loser. Honestly I don't know why they don't just get a life. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Done, but I had to dig out a template first. Does anybody know why Twinkle is being completely unhelpful with blocks atm? My little stalkers? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
Remember the old days-- when we had to carry our templates on our backs, through the snow, going uphill both ways?-- Deepfriedokra 14:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Templates? We used to dream of having templates. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
👏 @ young Deepfried and Boing. I just tried it again, and Twinkle seems to have recovered. There you go, I thought my best move would be to wait for some other admin to take it to VP or the Twinkle talkpage. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC).

re Filet-o-fish king[edit]

They had the same "special" signature here, just FYI. They really look like they're WP:NOTHERE imo. They've already been in an edit war and personally attacked someone twice, along with this. - Frood (talk!) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's been used in several places. Toddst1's page was just an example (a good one, since Toddst1 had reported them to AIV, apparently without noticing the sig). The user is now saying it was an embarrassing mistake. Well, maybe. I've replied on their page. Bishonen | talk 04:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
I took a look at the contributions, spotted some nasty anti-Semitic trolling a few days ago in addition to all the other nonsense, and based on that have upped the block to indef. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like a bad-hand and badder-hand account then. I blocked this [3] yesterday and there has been an IP-hopping anon sticking antisemitic remarks on (mainly but not exclusively) fast food articles for the past few weeks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@El C: knows more about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
DENY/RBI is the only approach to take against the fast food nazi LTA. El_C 06:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
We have a "fast food Nazi LTA"? I thought I'd heard everything, but .... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the McDonalds chicken McNugget vandal over the summer. Or was it McGriddles? He was obsessive about vandalizing fast food articles. I had hoped he had gone back to the third grade now that summer was over. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Brad, I wish I'd caught that. Once I'd seen the sig, I guess I focused on their posts on talkpages. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
I thought I remembered someone (ie troll) using the name of various fast food items from a few months ago. El_C is there a LTA page for this one or should we just post on your talk page when they pop up again? MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Does this have something to do with The Soup Nazi? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think there is, but I can't remember what the sock name is. The LTA usually edits my talk page and pings me on each spree, so no need. El_C 21:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
They've also been reading this very conversation (admins only, sorry). It's a twice or thrice daily occurrence, at any rate. Same as per usual. El_C 01:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@El C:--pings me on each spree-- how thoughtful of them.-- Deepfriedokra 02:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
This LTA hits a weird trifecta: fast food articles, incoherent nazi vandalism therein, pings admins. El_C 03:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

“Bad” language in your userpage![edit]

I think the subject has been sufficiently discussed. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excuse me, but I saw bad language in one of your userboxes.

The userbox I’m talking about is the one about...


Mind my language, but it said “S*ut u*” in the text of the userbox. Can I edit your userpage to change the text to something more appropriate? Rng0286 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. El_C 08:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Bishonen has posetEEng
Interesting message to someone who doesn't even have any userboxes. From the contribs, they're not a troll, so I have poset a civil (-ish) query on their page. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
Er, Bish, you do have userboxes: I assume This user loves the sound of her own voice. You probably think that if you ignore her she might eventually shut up, but you reckon without her inflated sense of her own importance. (my emphasis) is the offending phrase. I suspect the OP doesn't realize this is self-directed and thinks someone else has vandalized your userpage and they're doing you a favor in pointing it out. ‑ Iridescent 09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, the obscured term was "S*ut u*", I see. I misread it as something to do with fucking. Thanks Iri. I never thought of that as a userbox, let it be said. I do have one that I'd call a proper userbox, celebrating my block log. Thank you for your concern, Rng0286, but I like it as it is. Out of curiosity, what would you have liked to change the bad words to? Bishonen | talk 09:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
Something more appropriate please, Bishonen. I am REALLY sensitive to bad words. Rng0286 (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing inappropriate there and those words are REALLY not bad. --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it's perfectly appropriate. Please don't look at my userpage if it offends you. Surely it's easily avoided. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
Also, Rng0286, please decide on what you want to say, preview, and then save. It's quite disappointing to get a message that I have five messages on my page, and then it turns out that they're all you, changing your mind while crafting a short post. Bishonen | talk 09:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

I came here to say something funny about Swedish, but now I see this is serious, Bishonen. The civility police have come for you. Any last words before you are banned?Jehochman Talk 10:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Men för höge farao, don't hold back, Jehochman. I've never heard anything funny about Swedish. Speaking of farao (a euphemism by way of having the same first letters as the dreaded Fan Himself), I just heard an actual euphemism for "shut up" on QI, from Alan Davies: "Shut the front door!", much emphasis on "shut", expressing amazement. ((Obviously the listener who hears "Shut the f" is supposed to supply a different ending than "ront door", with the same intonation.) It might be a little confusing to say "if you ignore her she might eventually shut the front door" on my userpage, though. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
When I was a kid, a teacher told me if I said "gee wiz", I would burn in hell for eternity as it's a euphemism for Jesus and violates the Ten Commandments. Thought those days were long gone. (Is it getting warm in here?) O3000 (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Um. . Bish . .er. . .Oh, fuckit, a link will have to Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Invoking George Carlin.-- Deepfriedokra 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can’t abide bad language of any description, it displays a very limited vocabulary. Giano’s wife swears a lot; whenever I stay with them, all I can hear is filth being muttered under her breath, but then she’s from Venice, and we all know what they say about people from Veneto - all that filthy water sloshing around. I’m afraid Mrs Bishonen any more of these complaints about you and I shall be forced to contact the WMF and have you sent to the same dark place as the unfortunately vocabularied Mr Corbett. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

My dear lady, given your nobility, ignorance is to be expected, but not forgiven, esp since part of the baggage of soi-disant civilized life in your lofty parts is pointing out the fauxpas of the lower social orders, and every tit deserves a tat (or is that every pip deserves a pat? or something of both?). As a professional lout and linguist I am obliged to point out that asserting that 'bad language - - displays a very limited vocabulary' is characteristically ill-informed. The foulmouthed can avail themselves of a far wider variety of terms for a number of fundamental objects in the natural world than are available to the tony toffs and toffesses of the aristocracy. Witness Giuseppe Gioachino Belli's sonnet on the membrum virile, listing 51 terms current in Romanesco. Respecting the rights to parity between the sexes, the poet also wrote a sonnet on the corresponding female part which I can't link because it concerns advice as to how to lay a certain Catherine. Unfortunately, the sexism of history resulted in only 41 terms for country matters on the distaff side. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, Nishidani, I've always felt that profanity is the last resort of an inarticulate motherfucker. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow... as you have a link to the essay "Complete bollocks", I would have thought that would have been more of a problem! - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Eeeek, don't rat me out, SchroCat..! And people, this is all very amusing, but I worry the not-very-experienced user will feel bitten by the sheer amount of commentary, and, well, the amount of cussing. Perhaps we'd better be done here. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
  • You had better archive this section then, but before you do. Seriously, am I the only one here who hasn’t a clue what it’s about. My English is fluent and I like to think quite good, but something here is being very lost in translation for me. Giano (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Really, it's too horrible to explain. Modesty forbids. Your modesty, I mean. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

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


Deepcruze (talk · contribs) has long been on a Dalit-promotion mission. I've just reverted them again but yesterday left a couple of notes on their talk page because I am utterly fed up of trying to clean up their mess over several years. They removed my remarks without comment, which is typical as they seem rarely (ever?) to engage with other contributors. I realise that removal constitutes acknowledgement of having read the stuff but is this the last straw? - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why, but the community is as unreasonably fixated on removal of messages being perfectly all right under any and all circumstances, as they're unreasonably fixated on socking, under any and all circumstances, being a capital crime. (Compare the recent RFAR on Eric Corbett.) So, no, I don't think the removal of your comments and SpacemanSpiff's can be used against Deepcruze. But I'll take a look at the situation generally, as time permits. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC).
Thanks. It's not the removals per se that are the problem. It's the unwillingness to communicate, which seems to have gone on forever. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Definitely not encouraging. Except for one short, meaningless, post after they were blocked, their contribution to User talk:Deepcruze is entirely one of removing the comments of others. Add the fact that a mere 1.5% of their contributions are to article talk pages and all their contributions to user talk pages are the removal of content from their own page, and we can safely say that they are not here to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia.--regentspark (comment) 13:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
RegentsPark, the latest edit is still awfully shabby. Can't (s)he be indeffed on basis of WP:ENGAGE? WBGconverse 18:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I spot-checked their last edit. It's more than shabby, it's verging on original research; they added three sources to the claim "ABVP and NSUI which field mostly Jat or Gujjar candidates for important posts in DUSU", each of which refer to a specific election only, and not to a generic trend; the only source previously supporting the content was a now-defunct right-wing web news outlet, which wasn't terribly reliable. this edit, since reverted by Sitush, added "the oppressed majority comprising 85% of India's population" as a qualifier to a group previously identified only as "untouchables"; the source supporting it, however, is only reporting a quote from a politician claiming to advocate for said demographic, and doesn't make the claim in its own voice. SpacemanSpiff has given them a warning about caste-related GS, which, as luck would have it, is still valid for three more days. My approach would be to apply a caste-related topic-ban, along with a warning that the continued failure to communicate and to use sources properly will result in an indefinite block. I'm INVOLVED with respect to Indian political parties, and don't want to place the actual sanction. That said, they essentially haven't edited the Article Talk namespace at I'm not exactly opposed to an indefinite block. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm keeping a weather eye out for the expiration of Spiffy's alert. I need to write up something, though. Topic ban or indef? They're specially interested in caste pages (Dalits), but not exclusively. I also suspect them of copyvios whenever they write in good English, because their own English, in their rare more personal edits, is rather primitive.[4] But I find it hard to tell whether the texts out there are copied from Wikipedia or not (of course they often are). I've been had that way before. I know the mirror sites, that's all right, but everybody seems to steal from Wikipedia, with or without acknowledgement, these days. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC).
Re: "Everybody steals from Wikipedia"; have I told you I once found a supposedly scholarly journal article that had lifted several paragraphs from a Wikipedia page I was the main author of? Wrote to the editors, got no response. *shrugs* I would be thoroughly unsurprised if they are copying; I would also be unsurprised if they are some sort of shared account. But I'm not finding slam-dunk evidence of either. I ran a version of a page entirely written by them through earwig's detector, and found nothing [5], which to me suggests that their paraphrasing skills with respect to basic factual information is sufficient, but when they get into more complex stuff, it might indeed be a language problem rather than deliberate source misrepresentation. I'm a bit of a softy; I like to start with the lesser sanction. If they have some basic competence, they should be able to demonstrate it outside of caste-related topics; if they don't, it will turn into an indef soon enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmmz - roaring Owl. Anyway, I've left Deepcruze a note on their talkpage. Perhaps they will engage with that.--RexxS (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I got a roaring manul, meow! Excellent note on their page, RexxS, and yours too, Sitush. The more I think about it, the less point there seems to be in topic banning that user. If they remove the currently latest posts on their page without response, I'll indef. Unless somebody feels like trying to persuade me otherwise while we wait? Bishonen | talk 15:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC).
Nah, they aren't worth the trouble. If they ignore, as seems likely, good riddance. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Tunde Bakare[edit]

Hello Bishonen, I removed your PROD from the article Tunde Bakare because I thought there was enough content online for the subject to pass WP:GNG. I have added several citations to the article. If you have time please visit the article to see if your concerns have been helped, or please tell me how I can fix those problems if those issues still are present in the article. Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC).


Thanks for taking the time to contribute to my RfA and for sharing your own experience. Being compared to you is flattery more than I deserve and to have you do it while addressing the concerns of some neutral and oppose editors is beyond what I could expect. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Immanuvel Devendrar[edit]

Hi, we seem to have one of the periodic campaigns to substitute revisionist caste history/naming etc at Immanuvel Devendrar. A whole bunch of anons have been having a go these last few days. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

With pleasure. Bishonen | talk 08:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Hey Bishonen, Many thanks for blocking them,
Obviously we're all volunteers here and aren't required to be here 24/7 but the report had sat there all day without any sort of comment .... so I just assumed everyone passing wasn't bothered and felt no admin intervention was required, ANI is pretty quick when it comes to reports so just assumed no one cared really,
Kinda wished I left it open longer but anyway thanks again for your swift actions :),
Many thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Davey2010. I do understand your frustration. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
No worries, Happy editing, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Vanjari Caste & Banjara[edit]

Hi Dear, Vanjari Caste is redirected to Banjara. Kindly note the difference between two. And keep both pages separate. As I am not a regular user, so don't know how to make it. Goresm (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The pages were merged in 2015, with the content of Vanjari (caste) merged into the "Society" section of Banjara. Please see the discussion at Talk:Banjara. But I'm no expert; I'm pinging Sitush. Bishonen | talk 08:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
I think this is a dispute that goes back for many years, as with the Ezhava/Thiyya and Balmiki/Valmiki issues. I'll take a look at the talk page later. Just off the top of my head, I note that the letters B and V are often interchangeable in Romanisation of Indic names. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Goresm, now that I've read Sitush's and Regentspark's replies to you at Talk:Banjara, I have to stand by my reverts of your changes and repeat that Vanjari (caste) should be a redirect to Banjara. I hope you, too, read their comments carefully. They are both very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's principles for caste editing, and about the kinds of sources needed. Please note that your personal experience is not enough of a source. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC).


Thanks [6]. Anything in particular? Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the copyvio warnings and comments about poor sourcing on your talkpage. I haven't researched your contributions myself, but the comments on your page are enough for me to think it would be good for you to be aware of the discretionary sanctions for Indian subjects. A DS notice isn't an accusation or a warning, it's just information. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC).
Thank you. I understand, although I think it is a bit strange to base your action on the words of one or two editors on my Talk Page (although I'm perfectly OK with Diannaa's attribution request). You might want to check for yourself. Regarding sourcing, you might also have a look at this for example [7]. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Malacrida's publications[edit] - Hope that's not an egg-sucking lesson. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No indeed, very much not. Thank you very much, Andy. (For those playing along at home: this is about User:Bishonen/sandbox.) My source didn't say anything about a pseudonym; now that I've got that, I can also find the books in the British Library catalogue,
The BL knows who the authors are IRL, as you can see, but would not divulge these books when I searched for "Malacrida" by itself. That was unfair of them. But the main problem is my search skills are rotten to the core, always have been. Why didn't I look for the titles? Admittedly, I had Life Begins To-day wrong from my source (Lucy London), as Life Begins Here, but I could have found the other one, and have got the pseudonym from it, if I'd had more sense. Good job this is a collaborative project, and thanks again. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC).
My pleasure. Always happy to help, in similar cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've got it from my source that Nadja Malacrida, otherwise Louisa Nadia Green, was regularly heard on BBC radio in the nineteen twenties and early thirties. She used to recite well-known pieces of poetry. Also, apparently, even though she died in 1934, she appeared in some early BBC TV broadcasts. So I tried with my usual lack of success to search the BBC archives. Would anybody more cleverer like to try? Little talkpage stalkers? Andy? Bishonen | talk 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Yeah no I can't help. I'm too ignorant and senile, and I have to go practice biting newbies, because not doing that is bad for the encyclopedia. I done been tole. KillerChihuahua 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I tried, got nowhere with the BBC. Did find this though, not sure if it's helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde, I thought I had got my pdf. problems licked, see [8], but with your link there's a new twist: I immediately get a screen that says "Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again." What new deviltry is this? Even if your session has timed out it shouldn't be telling me that, surely? It is a bit of a weird-looking link — is it a search result? Bishonen | talk 17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Huh, strange, I get the same now. It was a search result which I then plugged into google scholar, which automatically links public pdfs and/or those my institution gives me access to. Maybe this was one of those. Anyhow, the source is this one, and if you don't have access I'm happy to send you the pdf via email. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It sounds extremely interesting from the abstract, I'd love to have the .pdf, yes, please. But I also need to be able to link to it. I suppose if I give the link, then people who have access will be able to see the whole thing, and the rest of us get redirected to the abstract? That's what the URL I land at says, that it's redirected from full text, like this: Bishonen | talk 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Sent. Hope it's helpful. With respect to citing; I think the url I pasted should be fine, but you could even just add the doi and not use the url. There's a pesky bot going around dumping urls from journal citations that have dois (I use those a lot, so it's been in my watchlist a lot) so I suppose someone somewhere decided that that's what we're doing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
And received, thanks! You mean I could use the link ? Oh, hey, btw... I could have sworn I used it before, and was redirected to the abstract, but as I tried it again just now, I got the whole long form. These are mysteries. Anyway, in case the doi link blows hot and cold for me, I now have the .pdf you attached. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
My pleasure. You could use |url= with, or you could skip the url altogether and use |doi= with 10.1093/english/efn039; that's usually verifiable enough (that was what you were asking, yes?) Vanamonde (Talk) 19:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
What..? Never mind, it'll be fine, it works if I just link to the doi url, I'm good. There's no problem. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Start here: [9]; the site is BBC Genome Project, a digital archive of The Radio Times. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, great, Andy. Brilliant. And I got even better results with "Nadja Green". It looks like all her readings were in 1934. I had the impression that her taste in poetry was very conventional, but she actually read Hopkins' "Pied Beauty".[10] Not necessarily her choice, of course. And most of the readings are of tested Victorian favorites — Coventry Patmore, Swinburne, Walter de la Mare. There's some prose as well — Thomas Hardy and, believe it or not, D. H. Lawrence. I guess I can't make much of the text selection, though, as most likely it wasn't done by her. Bishonen | talk 17:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC).

Can't find that user-time thing of yours[edit]

Hi, Bishonen, I recently came upon a brief quotation of yours in some board or Talk page, where you recapitulated what seemed to be a value of yours, which sounded like it might have been oft-repeated, where you spoke about your feeling about how preserving the time of constructive editors was an important goal, or resource, or something like that. The way you phrased it was much better, and I've forgotten the details of it. In any case, it could be a helpful quotation to reference in a situation I'm dealing with, but I can't find it, now. Do you know what I'm talking about? If you can give me a link to that excerpt, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, right, I'm like a grammophone record with that. I vary it a bit, because I can't remember any specific phrasing either, but here's a recent one. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC).
Perfect, thanks! Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


The reason I removed the sentence "Opponents of Islam (such as Ibn Warraq, Sam Shamoun) have worked to find internal inconsistency and scientific errors in the holy book, and faults with its clarity, authenticity, and ethical message." is because the source doesn't mention or say anything about what is being claimed it says (you can see the source here [1]. Look up the source and see it for yourself. There is NO MENTION of anything about Ibn Warraq or Sam Shamoun at all. The sentence seems to be editorialization. Also Sam Shamoun is unreliable and non-notable source, he is a Christian missionary with no academic background on Islam whatsoever. (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You probably want to take this to the article talk page, where all the regular editors of the page can see your argument and weigh in. KillerChihuahua 20:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)