User talk:Bishonen

Greetings

Hello, I hope you are well and that the sun is shining where you are. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All day and all night, Jonathan. Hope all is well with you. Bishonen | tålk 20:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I believe you. We just visited Iceland. We could sleep late and still have a full day worth of daylight to do whatever we wanted. It was quite excellent, especially the Westman Islands. Jehochman ^Talk 01:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did you get a look at Heimaey, and at Surtsey, the "new" island, Jonathan? I just realized Surtsey is shrinking quite fast. And, get this, there has been a tomato disaster on the island, caused by an improperly managed, err, something or other.[1]! Bishonen | tålk 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

We hiked all over Heimaey. Surstey is the furthest rock, which we might have seen on the horizon from Big Head. Hard to say for there are lots of little islands out there. The trail that rings the Big Head lighthouse is often just a few meters from the top of the sea cliffs. It’s a thrilling hike, especially on a windy day. No safety rails of course — you’re responsible for yourself. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June music

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Oh, look, foxglove, source of digitalis! Bishonen | tålk 22:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

yes - too many died, see my story and listen to Comfort ye (sung in German) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new.

Where I can read the style guide? Thanks. IGOTTOOPHONES (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(comment from passing jaguar...) You can find the Manual of Style (MOS) here. Also, if you look in the far-left column of the page, you will find links to other helpful sources, especially beneath the "Contribute" tab, including Help and Learn to edit. Have fun! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can't help being a nice guy, JoJo. Bishonen | tålk 10:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I suspect several people around here would disagree with you on that score. And regarding your edit summary, we are not "old." We are Experienced. With a capital E! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do..

Sorry to bother you, Bishonen! I am not sure why I have been dragged into the topic ban on castes in the ongoing arbitration related to Indian military history! Only because I had reported against POV pushing by Dympies (Rajput) for which he has already been banned! And canvassing? I had openly left messages on the talk pages of some admins including you when an editor reported against me at AE! Aren't admins supposed to be neutral? Anyway, I have already been warned for personal attacks (mostly related to Dympies) and canvassing by admins (WP:AE). But action would be taken again for the same offence? Is it logical? Even Sitush has supported me since he is aware of my contributions related to caste articles; please see this. Honestly speaking, I am not sure what to do! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekdalian I actually tried to strike my comment that you link to, not because I have changed my mind but because the talk page rules seem to mean I should not have said it there. It isn't showing as being struck, but my attempt to do so is in the edit history. Not at all sure what is going there.

For the record, I stand by what I said in the comment, whether or not it is struck through. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SFR merely moved your comment, Sitush - you were supposed to create a section of your own. I agree with you, and have now said so. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, thanks. SFR moved it as I was writing here. I got the ping from them as soon as I finished my msg above. But prior to that, it was still showing as not struck-through. It will probably be another app bug.

Thanks for weighing-in there, too. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen and Sitush, thank you both for your comments on the relevant talk page! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlackAfrican2006

Don't think you actually pressed the buttons here, FYI. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking for a link to add to the log - we're good now. Bishonen | tålk 09:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Jrgn112pk

Thanks for handling that situation for me, it was clear that his first block taught him nothing about WP:BOSS. I was halfway to writing something to ANI about him when I saw you blocked him. Gommeh 🎮 21:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not much use blocking that jewel step by step, Gommeh. Did you notice this? Bishonen | tålk 21:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah I did actually. Some people are willing to do anything to stay under our radar. Gommeh 🎮 21:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamilcontent1

He may have to be indeffed at some point. If you are aware, he removed your messages from his talkpage. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user is free to remove messages, Kailash29792. See WP:REMOVED. Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

July 9–15 - Call for candidates
July 18–22 - Discussion phase
July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Bishonen, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July music

Today is Bastille Day, commemorated by a DYK as my "story" and a visit to the Bastille Opera in "music". I like the interview coming with the story, on the day before the big event, but for pomp and circumstance, the affair with 600 singing children and orchestra, and the singer dressed in the national flag, was also captured on videos, much slower. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allons enfants de la patrie, Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Talk:Helena Tattermuschová - what do you think about that slow edit war? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floq passed a warning. - Check out places for a great smile, - he had just stepped in to play Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 2, successfully! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PFHLai left a kind long message. - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice Uria-Monzon and her story, Julia Hagen and her no story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. Bishonen | tålk 20:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

On Bach's day of death, I decorated my user pages in memory of his music, and my story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

July 23–29 – Voting phase
July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts as a Wikimedia admin. I truly appreciate your work:) Baqi:) (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Bishonen | tålk 01:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for catching my typo on Chiropractic! I appreciate your edit! Dillard 421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 03:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor you blocked

Hello, you recently blocked editor @Italianpasta999: a little over a week ago. They repeatedly keep reverting an edit that goes against the MOS on Trisha Paytas per WP:BIOFAMILY. I sent them a warning and they responded back saying "do you… sit and refresh Trisha’s page all day? giving jobless" - I think this falls under a personal attack per WP:PA. I would advise giving them a longer block as this editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Pillowdelight (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“They repeatedly keep reverting an edit” mind you, you’ve reverted the page more times than I have . Italianpasta999 (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked some more, per persistent disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Could you give your opinion on this Talk:Trisha Paytas#Is it permitted for the article to contain the names of the subject's children - two editors are indicating that the policy I've used is incorrect despite myself seeing many editors use it for the purpose I used it for. They have also pinged the blocked editor as well in it. Pillowdelight (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not, but there's a relevant comment by an administrator on User talk:Italianpasta999. Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen Pyaaz Kachori was blocked by you I saw he recently created an article that was created many times before by socks and deleted at AfD.[2][3][4] read in deleted discussions sources used here again are same as previous one also image, infobox and lead is also same.[5][6] That article was deleted many times by Dclemens1971. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated under quite a few different names, I see! I have speedy deleted the one you mention, Dirty Dolphish. Bishonen | tålk 16:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected welcome template

Hello, since both the project and talk pages of WP:RFP are semi-protected, I cannot make a suggestion there. I have noticed that when an editor welcomed me (and forgetting to substitute it), I then inadvertently edited Template:Register directly when replying. The history shows that this also happened with other editors before. It seems to me like it would be a good idea for the template to at least be semi-protected. I thought that I would ask an administrator directly, in case they wish to proxy my request to RFP or to directly protect it. Thank you very much. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, experienced user now locked out of your account. So, somebody welcomes you, forgetting to subst, and then you reply, accidentally getting this instead of replying on your own page, and this is what you want to avoid. But... assume you're actually a new user. Then, if the template were semi'd your attempt to reply, potentially directly in the template, would simply fail. Wouldn't you merely be frustrated, and not reply at all? Or would you understand what happened and make sure you replied to the user who wrote to you? I think probably the first, don't you? ~~Also, suppose you were a non-autoconfirmed user so eager that you wanted to welcome others? You wouldn't be able to. That may not happen very often, but it would be unfortunate.~~ Note also that there are many, many welcome templates, that would all have to be semi'd, not just Template:Register.

So I'm not sure about this. But maybe there are subtleties I'm missing. I suggest you post on some appropriate board, for wider input. You can edit most boards. WP:AN, for example, or the Village Pump. How about WP:PROPS? Bishonen | tålk 09:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm. On second thoughts, no, a non-autoconfirmed user would still be able to welcome others, I wasn't figuring it right. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Yes it would neither prevent issuing the template nor editing one's talk page, only prevent the error of editing the template itself by clicking on the wrong "edit" link. It's true that I could ask at WP:AN which has no semiprotection... 206.248.143.75 (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the new rules on caste articles

Hi Bishonen.. a new user (SPA), Facelesswiki is violating the rules on contentious caste articles in spite of being informed (on the user talk) that they are not supposed to edit caste articles (minimum 500 edits required)! Can you please have a look at the revision history of the article on Barujibi and the user talk page. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've warned as clearly as possible. Thank you, Ekdalian. Bishonen | tålk 12:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Level 2 harassment warning

You are correct. I saw the 'misinterpreted' but thought that as it was followed by 'or viewed as harassment' it might do. I must admit, I rarely use level 2 because if it is mild, I have left a personalised message with links and a reminder this isn't social media. I should have gone to level 3 straight away as it is unambiguous personal attacks and/or harrassment. Thank you for the reminder, much appreciated. Knitsey (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vote_Chori_Hoax

Draft:Vote Chori Hoax

hey bish check this Kadamb Patil (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do well to check the citations - around half of the links go nowhere. Is this LLM-generated hallucinated output? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Thanks, Andy. The sock has been blocked. Bishonen | tålk 17:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

User

Problematic user

@Bishonen Sir. User HistorianAlferedo[7] is blocked with VikRagnarr[8] for confirmed sockpuppetry who is also active for disruption in Indian caste related articles on this platform. Please block them and also save this platform. They are blocked for sockpuppetry by CheckUser block-account on simple Wikipedia. He should be only allowed under one strike rule to work on English Wikipedia if he commits more mistakes on English Wikipedia he should be blocked. I've reported this user on simple Wikipedia ANI and English Wikipedia ANI, but no one takes strict action.2402:E000:44A:242E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen Sir. also check disruption on this platform by this user in highly contentious :South Asian caste articles.

He posted Copyrighted content on Dhir Singh Pundir [9][10][11] Kachhwaha, [12][13][14] and Political marriages.[15]
Citing poor sources from WordPress.[16] citing non reliable sources of Sikhhero.com and WordPress.com on contentious caste articles. [17]
Caste promotion with unreliable travel guide books source that also not mentioned any caste origin.[18]
Removed sourced information with invalid edit summary.[19]
Removed other caste names[20][21][22] from articles but added rajput caste name on many articles openly pushing rajput caste POV.[23][24][25][26] 2402:E000:429:3FB0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP. I can't block HistorianAlferedo for sockpuppetry, since their Simple sock has not been active here. I warned them for bad sourcing a couple of days ago, as you probably saw, and they haven't edited since. Thank you for providing further examples, but I can't block when they haven't edited after my warning. If and when they do, with again poor sources and/or caste promotion, I definitely will. But I suspect they're gone - my warning may be enough to show them they have no future here. In case they edit disruptively later and I miss it, please feel free to let me know. Bishonen | tålk 09:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

PS. Where did they use Seeing Spiritual India, that you link to in your note 13? Bishonen | tålk 09:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, no problem, but if he repeats all these mistakes, then you can block. I came from simple Wikipedia; that's why I'm well aware of his poor sourcing, sometimes bad-faith edits & caste pov. He used it in Karauli state and declared the state as Rajput state. But these sources didn't confirm caste origin, and these two sources are also unreliable. Including source [13].[27] Nitinmlk also asked this editor to provide quotes for many sources he added on other caste articles, but he hasn't provided them yet. I think this user also used sources on other articles for caste claims, but such claims might not be present in the sources. 2402:E000:444:5E6D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Seeing Spiritual India link. I agree their editing is highly problematic, and I'll try to keep my eyes open. Bishonen | tålk 22:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

August music

Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my talk for an Independence day, or: the pic of Oksana Lyniv was taken on 24 August. There's listening and reading in today's story, and I like both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put a music section on my Talk page. I'm going to call it "Roxy Music." Roxy the dog 18:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan! - On top of my talk: birthday of a great violinist and Requiem for a great friend. We sang Paradisi gloria from the Stabat Mater in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

User talk:GoddessWrath - user is continuing to use personal attacks in edit summaries after block. Home Lander (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, good ones. CambridgeBayWeather already got to it. Thanks, Home Lander. Bishonen | tålk 22:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Changed my signature twice base on the edit summary. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🙂 Much better response than dignifying it with revdel. Hmm. Should I add "stable genius" to mine? Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Violation of the new rules on caste in spite of all warnings

Hi Bishonen.. the user GhoshiThakur seems to be only interested in caste; the user has been violating the rules in spite of warnings and discussions! They may be a sock of GhoshThakur as the name suggests! Can you please have a look at User talk: GhoshiThakur and their contributions! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same person, yes, and also an incompetent editor. I've blocked + asked them about the sock situation. Bishonen | tålk 13:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your prompt action! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of unblock requests on their page now, Ekdalian! They denied any connection with the other account, but a checkuser thought differently. All figured out thanks to your good tip. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Honestly speaking, I always try to protect these articles (from obvious caste promotion)! And I closely watch the users involved. I would like to thank you for taking appropriate action every time I report such users! Thanks for being here. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report another case of violation by a caste warrior Deepak7559! Would request you to have a look at the revision history of the article on Jangid and the user talk page; the user has violated the rules in spite of prior explanation! Best Regards.Ekdalian (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bish

If you, in your role as all-round competent Wikipedian, feel like having an opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLPIMAGE,_again, please join. Same goes for any of your stalkers who think the shoe fits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking TPA

You might want to consider revoking TPA for East Asian bones are made of granite. I am fairly certain this is WP:LTA/BMX. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, their talk page was just revoked, so it isn't necessary. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dog posse. Willy has grandchildren now? I can never seem to remember these characters, however famous they fancy themselves to be. Bishonen | tålk 00:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding Topic Ban

Dear @Bishonen, I deeply apologise for the citation issue that i caused unwillingly on some of the articles. I’m sorry for those changes of mine and i didn’t add some of those citations that are not considered reliable intentionally. Moreover, some of the recently added citations were from the same pages about what i was adding and thats the reason i added them from the main topic. For example- When i added about a princely state, the main page of that princely state already had the same information that i wrote on the other regarding that. I also promise you that i’ll be careful in citaiton adding from now and if i’ll have some doubt regarding some citation i will first confirm about its authenticity from some admin and then only i’ll add that source. The topic ban is like cutting a bird’s feather and asking it to live without the wings as i have a good knowledge of history and caste/ethnic groups topics and banning me from those is like i’ll be left with nothing. I request you to pardon me once and i’ll surely add only relevant citations by checking them or after discussion with some admin. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HistorianAlferedo, I'm sorry but my feeling is that you got a lot of warnings and advice that you didn't take seriously until this topic ban. Sourcing is extremely important in the caste area. (The fourth source you added here a few days ago was from 1877!) I'm afraid you will have to appeal to either WP:AN or WP:AE, see WP:CTOPAPPEALS. At AN, you would be appealing to the community, at AE to uninvolved admins. I recommend you to take a look at a few existing appeals in both places, to help you decide which would work better for you. Theoretically, you can also appeal straight to WP:ARCA; such appeals are decided by ArbCom. But I don't recommend doing that until you have exhausted other possibilities. Arbcom is very slow, and a negative decision by them tends to in practice close off other avenues. Bishonen | tålk 09:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen, You only focused on the citations adding mistake I did and never looked at the good contributors that i have done ok wikipedia. I had been appreciated by various users for my constructive works and removing unnecessary castecruft and povpushes from various articles. Moreover, i was one of the user who’s primary focus was on reverting vandalism caused by ips and povpush users. But all you saw was the citation mistake and now i totally have a bad experience of wikipedia, like you banned me from the topics of my interest and knowledge that’s already like a block! You could have been kind and give me a last chance for improving but you actually don’t want to. Also, regarding the recent changes that you said are a violation of topic ban, I had only “reverted” them and not to my revision but to the revision of some other contributor! HistorianAlferedo (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September music

story · music · places

As you may know, Arvo Pärt is 90 today. Did you know that it tool me some trouble to get him to the main page? Listen! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the birthday of the 16th Thomaskantor after Bach, remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My 100th biography to the Main page in 2025 is Siegmund Nimsgern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your hundredth? That's great, Gerda. I'm very impressed. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep in mind please that most were not written by me, but just the quality raised enough for the main page. - Today I could have told many stories, - St. Michael's Day (The Company of Heaven) and the anniversary of our performance of the Mass in B minor in 2013. I picked the composition (and its author) that was on DYK in the morning, and you can listen. I also show a random collection of DYK around people called Michael on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A question for the admin (and their jaguars)

An editor writes on an article Talk page: "it is my understanding that if something [article content] is removed, it requires consensus to put it back." Is that true? If so, where exactly is it codified in PAGs? My issue is that, based upon my perhaps misunderstanding of the WP:BRD concept, a bold "edit" refers to any change, removal or addition, in an article's stable content, and that removal of content does not have a special status with respect to content addition. Thanks in advance for your comment(s). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Generally speaking, I would say that reversions to the status quo (good or bad) of an article would be presumed to have a consensus, as it is the status quo. Or another way of looking at it is that any change to the page technically goes against consensus, but if other editors can't be bothered to revert, then that represents a change in the consensus.

So no, I would say that editor is not correct.

It would be very odd to have a state of the rules in which any individual editor could remove any content they didn't like from any article, and a discussion must be had to determine consensus before that change could be reverted. I feel that POV pushers and pseudoscience cranks would have an absolute field day with WP if that were the case, deleting any material they object to and throwing the rest of the project into chaos as we scramble to establish a consensus before reinserting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:ONUS, which is policy, which states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content".-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So does that not invite the type of editor identified by MjolnirPants above to, as they write, have a field day by removing everything they dislike/dispute in Wikipedia, reliably sourced or not, and forcing everyone else to then spend who-knows-how-long gaining consensus? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to invite that, yes. Ponyo, do you mean that when content is disputed (by being removed), there must be consensus for inclusion before it's restored? So that the editor quoted by JoJo is correct? And the two editors at Book of Mormon who recently reinserted the content removed by Cilenthemaster were in the wrong (even though Cilenthemaster's very large removals were IMO highly POV), and I was also wrong to warn Cilenthemaster, rather than warning the other two? Then I'd probably better hand in my bit. Or is disputing by removal not a good way of disputing - there must also be an argument for the removal? (There was none.) Bishonen | tålk 17:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't looked in to this situation specifically, I only popped in to provide the link to the policy that discussed content removal and restoration. Not included in that little policy paragraph, but I think is assumed, is that the removal of content as disputed needs to be done in good faith for WP:ONUS to apply. I would think you would need to be able to make a good case as to why it needs to be removed, otherwise it's just disruptive.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But is the situation at Book of Mormon about good faith? As POV as the removals of sourced content were, I believe they were done in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. From the repeated edit summary by the removing editor, "removed misinformation about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", it seems the user believes the article would be better if it conformed to their personal religious beliefs. A very common situation where religious articles are concerned, I'm sure you have all come across it. So IMO there was good faith. But not a good edit. Bishonen | tålk 18:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

And the two editors... ...who recently reinserted the content... ...were in the wrong...? (sorry for all the ellipses)

This is what I was getting at wrt to the presumption of the status quo. The idea that any deletion of sourced, verifiable content can't be reverted without a discussion flies in the face of all our conventions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS is written in a way as to presume that the disputed content is being added, which is by far, the more common occurrence. But I would say that the inverse would apply, as well. If an editor is removing reliably-sourced, verifiable content, the onus is on them to explain why to the satisfaction of the other editors (the consensus of other editors, of course, not every individual editor). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is an ongoing ambiguity that has been discussed on the talk page of ONUS perennially and is going to keep biting people until something is done about it. I would say that removing something and then demanding a consensus to restore it is ONUS abuse and conflicts with other policies such as WP:PRESERVE, WP:STATUSQUO (most recently 5 months ago, 10 months ago) and the unwritten norms of Wikipedia. I tend to agree with MjolnirPants but I wish that the policy was clearer that ONUS is not a blank check to just remove stuff and demand a new quorum for its restoration, as the status quo has an implicit consensus, but ONUS would seem to contradict that as currently written. Andre🚐 18:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what MPants and Andre are saying, and I would add that a single editor who unilaterally removes something from a page has established only that that one editor thinks it should be removed, which is not the same thing as a consensus to remove it, so for that editor to assign ONUS to another editor who wants to put it back is simply wrong. Also, removal can involve a lot of context. Removing something that has been on the page for a long time is different from removing something that was only recently added. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I, too, have generally understood ONUS as applying to fresh additions of content, not to content that represents the STATUSQUO version. I don't think one could argue that it's intended to protect removals of policy-compliant material that represents the status quo version. The wording is regrettably fuzzy, and answering hypotheticals about content removals is difficult. In specific situations though, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Editing policy are often more helpful to cite than ONUS in my view. And where uncited content is in dispute I find WP:BURDEN is more helpful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the consensus being relevant is the point I brought up on this discussion on WT:Editing policy. As was pointed out in that thread, there is a gap between practice and written policy on this point. Andre🚐 21:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup!

Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm sorry you had to see the pathetic back-and-forth of my initial attempts, 28bytes (why is reversing move vandalism so hard?). Let's all hope I learned something from my eventual success. Bishonen | tålk 15:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Heh, all’s well that ends well. As my little one once told me, “unruining is hard!” 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent violation of the new rules on caste articles in spite of multiple warnings

Hi Bishonen, the user India Subcontinent, seems to be a caste warrior and has been violating the rules on contentious caste articles in spite of being informed and warned! Please have a look at User talk: India Subcontinent and the revision history of the article on Nai (caste)! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ekdalian. It looks like C.Fred is on it. Bishonen | tålk 16:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, right! Thanks. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent removal of sourced content from Ukrainian military units' articles

Hi Bishonen, user: SaintPaulOfTarsus has been continuously removing information from articles relating to Ukrainian military units such as 60th Mechanized Brigade, 20th Army Corps (Ukraine) etc. All of those informations were sourced and with reference. I haven't undo his edits yet. I want to ask should I restore those informations or not. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important context is missing here.

The content I removed on 20th Army Corps (Ukraine) was sourced to MilitaryLand.Net, a source deprecated at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RSN 1, RSN 2, and RSN 3). The user seems to be arguing here that this consensus can be unilaterally ignored because the RSN discussions took place 2-3 years ago.

The content I removed on 60th Mechanized Brigade was not sourced.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 09:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:SaintPaulOfTarsus has removed sourced information from pages relating to all of the newly formed Corps of the Ukrainian Ground Forces and subordinate brigades associated with them by claiming all those informations are not backed by enough references. By removing the source from the articles first and then claiming articles are not sourced properly is simply ridiculous behaviour on Wikipedia. And this user specifically targeted over 100 Ukrainian military units articles in this deliberate pattern since August, 2025. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any content I removed can be categorized as content that was:

1. Unsourced

2. Sourced to MilitaryLand.Net

3. Misleadingly sourced to irrelevant citations

You have made mass inappropriate edits to Wikipedia articles so it should not be surprising or controversial that that has been met by mass reversions.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 09:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even after getting banned from editting Wikipedia for 1 day as a punishment for engaging in edit warring 4 days ago, user:SaintPaulOfTarsus had continued to unanimously remove informations from the wikipedia articles after the ban expired without consulting with any of the other editors who have added those informations there in the first place in any of those articles' talk pages. I have not counteracted with those edits due to Wikipedia behaviour guidelines till today. Today I have brought this issue before you to get a final judgment and settlement without engaging in edit warring.

Thank you Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you've both been edit warring a lot at 20th Army Corps (Ukraine)! Good thing you contacted an admin at last. There isn't exactly a formal consensus on the unreliability of MilitaryLand — not in the sense that it appears on this list — but all three discussions that User:SaintPaulOfTarsus links to suggest that it is indeed unreliable. I understand that things may have well changed significantly in the last few years, User:Kalpesh Manna 2002, but I must agree that you need to start a fresh discussion there if you want to argue that 2022-2023 is too far back. For other sources, apparently a lot of articles are involved here, so I suggest you — one of you — had better post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I'm far from a military buff myself. Bishonen | tålk 10:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Engaging in the same behavior over which you blocked before

TabahiKaBhagwan is now back to removing any perceived critical content from the lead of The Kashmir Files [28] despite your last block from you.[29] He is similarly removing the sourced content also from The Bengal Files.[30] He is also using no edit summaries, and both pages are under consensus required restriction. I note he was removing content from The Kashmir Files also in 2024 as this warning by Black Kite notes.[31] Orientls (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siteblocked for a month. Bishonen | tålk 13:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Block request

Could this AIV report please be actioned concerning BLP violations and disruptive talk page behaviour? Entranced98 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Entranced98, I'm busy. Once you've reported to a board, I'm afraid you'll have to let the admins take their own sweet time. Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

No worries, just thought I'd ask as the noticeboard was quite backlogged at the time and the IP concerned was doing some rather rapid-fire disruption. They've been blocked now though. Entranced98 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Bishonen | tålk 21:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Bish

Hope you’re doing good. I was banned from editing some specific category of pages on wikipedia few days ago by you, and i accept the fact that it was due to my own mistake. I learned from my mistake and didn’t violet the ban after i came to know about it as i totally respect your decision as it was due to my own carelessness. But now i can assure you that i’ll be more careful and will edit constructively like i do by preventing pages from vandalism and removing unsourced claims from various pages. (have been appreciated by many contributors for my works like prevention of castecruft and vandalism) I would like to request you to remove the ban and let me contribute constructively on the topics of my interest and knowledge. Also, i promise that i won’t repeat the mistakes i did regarding the citation addition and if i do you can directly block me this time, i won’t appeal for an unblock. Thanks HistorianAlferedo (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jaguar padding by... I think your unblock request would be improved by fully explaining why you wrote, in the edit summary here (which was the removal of Bishonen's block message on your Talk page}}, fed up of all this even after doing good changes on wiki. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alferedo, you had received, and ignored, many warnings and explanations about sourcing, on your page and on article talkpages, before I finally took the step of topic banning you. In August I myself gave you a very sharp warning about poor sourcing in caste articles. You removed that, with this rather unexpected edit summary. Not taking warnings seriously, including ignoring NitinMlk's many explanations on article talk, was a very bad idea. Now you say "I learned from my mistake and didn’t violet the ban after i came to know about it as i totally respect your decision as it was due to my own carelessness". But why didn't you learn from all the advice you got before it came to a ban? And therefore, no, I'm not prepared to unban you. You will have to appeal at WP:AE or WP:AN as per my information here. At AE, your appeal would be reviewed by uninvolved admins; at AN, by the community. It's also possible to appeal at WP:ARCA, where your argument will be reviewed by ArbCom, but I advise against it. They're very slow, and if they decline your appeal, you can't then go back to AN or AE. I also suggest that you wait a while before appealing, and take care, in the meantime, to demonstrate good sourcing practices in other areas. Unfortunately, you haven't edited much so far since the ban. You really should; it would help your appeal. Note that you can also actually edit about caste on other language Wikipedias and on Wikimedia's other projects (you are only topic banned on the English Wikipedia). Doing that well would make an excellent impression! Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen, sure then i’ll appeal again after some time when you’ll have trust on me. Have a nice day. HistorianAlferedo (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HistorianAlferedo: If you want to appeal the TBAN, you'll need to stop making edits like this and this. Ancient Indian groups that are claimed as predecessors to modern castes fall under the topic of "caste or social groups, broadly construed". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGTP

What do we with users who use LLM? diff. I have already warned them. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, looks like we've got a sock diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my little Ponyo. Bishonen | tålk 00:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Edit war

You appear to be engaging in one. IraqiShawarmaQueen (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think so? You are mistaken. Please compare my warning on your own page. Bishonen | tålk 19:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Sounds like you have some axes to grind. Have a nice day, pal. I am trying to be civil. IraqiShawarmaQueen (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not succeeding. Bishonen | tålk 19:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Okay IraqiShawarmaQueen (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring (contentious caste related article), WP:OWN, avoiding discussion and personal attack

Hi Bishonen.. the user, Orthodox Yash, has been repeatedly told through edit summaries to initiate a discussion on the article talk page per WP:BRD, but the editor has chosen to engage in edit warring instead! Can you please have a look at the revision history of the article on Chauhan (surname); the editor initially tried to replace sourced content without discussion and replace the same with clan related information citing poor sources! After being reverted, they tried to move the article unilaterally (again without discussion) and change the surname related article to an article on a clan (caste promotion)! I repeatedly requested the user to discuss (through my edit summaries). In spite of posting a warning for edit warring, they continue to ignore and reverted again! Moreover, please look at this personal attack; clear violation of WP:CIVIL. The user is aware of the discretionary sanctions on caste and related articles! Would request your intervention. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After all these violations (edit warring in spite of repeated calls for discussion, WP:OWN attitude and personal attack), I just noticed that the user has initiated a discussion; hardly makes sense at this point of time! I would wait for your response before responding to any discussion (too late). Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too complicated for me and too late at night here, Ekdalian. But I have blocked for 48 hours for the personal attacks, to be going on with. For the rest, if it's still an issue, you'd better appeal to another (smarter) admin. Bishonen | tålk 19:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your prompt action! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen has already taken action for the personal attacks! I believe the user needs to learn how to edit in a collaborative project like Wikipedia! In fact, the user has also misused the rollback feature of Twinkle during their latest revert (no edit summary) while engaging in content dispute related edit warring. The user seems to push their Rajput related POV in most of their edits! I would like to request Bishonen and other active admins to have another look at the violations and unnecessary edit warring (in spite of repeated calls for discussion). @RegentsPark, DoubleGrazing, DougWeller, and Vanamonde93: would request you to revisit the same especially since this is a contentious caste related article! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ekdalian: it's not clear (to me) what you're asking to be done, but given that the user is already temp blocked, and I've declined their appeal, I suggest we wait for their block to expire and see how they go forward from there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, I believe the user should be formally warned for using poor unverifiable sources (for example this edit), edit warring instead of engaging in discussion (per WP:BRD) and overall battleground attitude! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been warned for various issues, including by you for inadequate referencing. If you wish to add another warning, by all means, do; I'm sure this doesn't require five admins (well, four plus a doppelgänger). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Bishonen and DoubleGrazing! I completely understand the point; we need to wait for their block to expire and then watch their edits as well as their overall behaviour (battleground attitude, etc.)! Thanks again for your time. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian, as part of the overall behaviour, you may also want to note the sock. Not promising. But we'll hope for the best. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for sharing the information! I shall closely watch their future edits. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest LTA

Hi Bish,

Our friend the "women are shorter than men in 100 percent of couples" LTA has returned. Hilarity ensues.

Cheerio, Generalrelative (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Swedish equivalent of the useful Southern US put-down "bless his heart"? Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Acting as a tall female admin, I've semi'd. Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

.. and here's me thinking I'm safe. - Walter Ego 08:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should show this guy a picture of myself (6') and an old girlfriend, Sarah (6'3"). The cognitive dissonance might be enough to paralyze him for a few months. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this one seems to be powered by cognitive dissonance. Years ago I showed them a picture of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman and it only got worse. Generalrelative (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The poor soul has clearly never had uppies from an Amazonian mommy... I feel bad for them, missing out on one of the fundamental joys in life... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October music

story · music · places

My story today is about a mezzo as a thinking person, DYK? (The nomination wasn't by me, which probably helped to a short review.) - Look at the video if you have a few minutes. I never saw her on stage, but (in 2022) the last Carmen production at the Bastille Opéra that she was in, - see music. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday, Margaret Medlyn! (I found the article - not by me - when searching for someone whose birthday is today.) - I took a cat pic, presented by Rosiestep today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 50th birthday, Alain Altinoglu!) - I let the video begin with a closeup of the octobass ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud to have brought two performing women to the main page. Sadly, death kept both from performing more, one sooner the other much later. If you have little time just listen to the one who died young and see if it touches you (in today's story). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 18:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I am sad that I had to bring two more people there. At least the video in my story is cute, made for children. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

marked to be sung "Happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My latest: Roberta Alexander, - listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

300 years ago: another one, Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79, on the occasion for which it was written, Reformation Day - it's not only Halloween today. You are invited to the peer reviews for another candidate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda! Bishonen | tålk 21:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Caste warrior: persistent violation of WP: ECRCASTE in spite of warnings

Hi Bishonen.. the user Sundhi caste seems to be a caste warrior, as the username suggests! The user is only interested in the articles on Sundhi & related Shunri, and is persistently violating the extended confirmed clause for caste articles in spite of warnings! Please have a look at the user talk page. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ekdalian. The user has actually edited their own talkpage, before there was anything else on it, so in a sense they do know about it. But that may not necessarily mean that they know to look for warnings there, so I've blocked with some information in the block log. Now we shall see. Bishonen | tålk 09:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, once again, for your prompt action. Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva editor who is seriously WP:NOTHERE

Hello! I am bringing the conduct of User:Amsocuri to your attention. Even after being told, that as per WP:CT/SA, they cannot edit articles or comment (except for making non-controversial edit requests) at talk pages related to South Asian social groups and Indian military history, they have continued to do so. When I brought it up on their talk page, they resorted to making WP:PERSONALATTACKS, responding first with "Stop being senior editor, i understand your anti-Hindu nationlism agenda. Noticing you since you had 300 edits. Well don't worry. Grokipedia is also coming." and then later "You are a Islamist ?? who are trying to portray RSS and HINDUTVA as if it's Moslem's Al Qayeda and ISIS?? Don't act in front of me, i know you since you were child at Wikipedia." This can be seen at their talk page. Furthermore, they have previously engaged in Hindutva POV pushing edits and reverts.[32][33][34] In this edit,[35] they removed the inclusion of sourced content with the edit summary "Abdulla trying to establish anti india narrative here also". This editor is absolutely not here to build an encyclopedia and I think they need to be blocked. — EarthDude (Talk) 15:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way they talk is quite strange, but looking at their account’s date which is only 2 months old, it seems they might have used another account before, which could possibly be a sockpuppet. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 15:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) They may have experience on another wiki. But their editing is a problem. I will warn them one final time. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EarthDude, Grokipedia, hahahahahahaha, funny guy. EvergreenFir, you may wish to take a look at their response to your warning. I've indeffed. It strikes me that I should have removed tpa also, but that can be done next time they make a lovely comment. Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I walk away for a few minutes and miss getting to respond to that gem of a comment?! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the timestamps are amazing altogether, aren't they? Look at the time of my block, too. Bishonen | tålk 17:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks a lot for your quick action! And yes, their talk page comments were very funny to read haha

. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZDRX They might have been a sock. Amsocuri was one of only two editors who attacked me for supposedly calling RSS a "paramilitary". The other was the sock account Whynotthat.[36] Extremely strange, considering that the inclusion of the term "paramilitary" for the RSS was decided through community consensus long before I ever even began editing Wikipedia so I have no idea how they got me into this lol — EarthDude (Talk) 16:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECP edit consensus

Hello Bishonen,

Would you have time to spare to take a quick look at the Kiryathil Nair Talk page? There was an Extended Confirmed Protection edit request which was approved by one editor and then reverted by another, so a consensus poll had been requested. If you could give your opinions, it would be helpful in reaching a conclusion. Thank you, Bishonen. Taliparamba (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't give my opinions, I'm afraid, Taliparamba. You're micromanaging your own edit request in an unacceptable way, instead of letting it play out in the normal way - the way that the EC protection is designed to ensure. I've put a note on Talk:Kiryathil Nair explaining this. Bishonen | tålk 10:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I was not aware of this 'canvass' policy. Actually, an admin called "Peaceray" had posted a welcome notice on my Talk Page, saying I could ask for help or assistance. Since he/she was an admin, I thought all admins were people you could reach out to. So I looked up the list of admins, and randomly picked 5 admins who had high number of edits, meaning they were active in editing. I didn't ask any admin for support, only their opinion. In any case, I didn't know this would be considered as canvassing.

And the "TimSmit" editor seemed very friendly, he left a nice note on one of my ECP requests, saying it was a high quality edit. Since he was friendly and polite, I thought I would ask him to take a look at another ECP request. I didn't mean any offense.

I will familiarize the canvass policy, and won't repeat it. Thank you, Bishonen. Taliparamba (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the opinion requests from the admin's Talk pages, thank you for letting me know. Taliparamba (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason you approached Tim Smit was that they had agreed with your edit request on another page? That makes it worse, not better. Really, you must not at all try to select somebody to review your edit request. Bishonen | tålk 12:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Yes I will remember that, thank you. Taliparamba (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Bish family"?

I don't understand the alt accounts (Bishapod, Bishzilla, etc). Can you please explain? Thanks. FishOnSkates (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fun! They aren’t used for socking. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, Bish is far too glorious to be contained in a single account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, FishOnSkates, you can see the alts' specific roles in the Bishonen Conglomerate here. Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

It appears the Fish Conglomerate is also growing! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fish? Wow, I'm in two conglomerates! darwin^fish 07:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I bothered Doug last time...

Mechanical Keyboarder is edit warring across a couple of articles to insert poor grammar and OR. See Nazism with [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] (spicy edit summary in that one, but at least they've started using them) [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] and [49]. Also see Fascism with [50] and [51].

Normally, I wouldn't ask for intervention for something that's only been going on for a day, but this fellow seems bound and determined to hide his edit warring behind a bunch of minor edits, and he's inserting OR while displaying a battleground mentality. And there's a long history of edit warring, OR and editing without summaries on their talk page. With 4k edits and a talk page full of warning templates, I don't think they have any excuse for behaving this way any more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, John. See, Hammerpants, ask Doug and I'll do it; ask me, and John does it. Now we'd all like to know who'll step in if you ask John. Bishonen | tålk 07:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I'm just going to have to go find another editor who needs a gentle reminder to play well with others, then. To be clear, this is a joke. I have no intention of stirring the pot by hunting down disruptive editors.

F O R S C I E N C E ! ! ! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your administrative work on Wikipedia. BTW, User talk:Rosgiull was crazy, that user got me messed up with Rosguill. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishonen is still a little flustered by the recent pandemonium on Bishzilla's page. Examines the barnstar gingerly.] It won't scream, will it? [Touches it. No, it doesn't scream. Relieved:] Thank you, young Rafaelthegreat! Bishonen | tålk 21:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Edit request

Hi their, I have some sources regarding Jadaun I think you may add further on behalf of me as I am not a ECU , "They claimed yaduvanshi Ahir lineage specifically" So can u add Yaduvanshi ahir for clarification Or remove whole line as this is creating confusion, Thanks. Also, please have a look on Karauli state a user revert edit saying vandalism further if my edit was correct please restore it. Asyoukniw (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]^[2]^[3] Asyoukniw (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cunningham, Joseph Davey (2020). History of the Sikhs. Abhishek Publications. p. 28. The Raja is admitted by the genealogists to be of the Yadu or Lunar race, but people sometimes say that his being an Ahir or Cowherd forms his only relationship to Krishna, the pastoral Apollo of the Indians
^ Centre for Research and Publication, Vīrasiṃha, Suraj Mal Memorial Education Society. (2004). The Jats their Role & Contribution to the Socio-economic Life and Polity of North & North-west India. Originals. p. 110.
^ India, Rajasthan (1968). Rajasthan [district Gazetteers] Alwar. Printed at Government Central Press. p. 135.

Asyoukniw, please make edit requests on the talkpages of the relevant articles, for example on Talk:Jadaun (clan), rather than on my personal talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 08:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, but What about karauli state . Asyoukniw (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. You shouldn't have edited that article at all, since you don't have 500 edits and 30 days, as you seem to know when you mention Jadaun. I'm certainly not going to reinstate your edit, as it should never have been made. Just leave Karauli state alone, please. You may put an edit request on its talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, at that time I am unaware of that rule and I came to know when I saw Jadaun page protection.Thanks Asyoukniw (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regard edit request

Hi @Bishonen, After Your suggestion I made a edit request on Talk:Jadaun ,but nothing happens,I request you to take a look. Asyoukniw (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to wait until somebody reviews your edit request spontaneously, Asyouknow. There's activity on the page, so it shouldn't take too long. Pinging @Ekdalian:? Bishonen | tålk 13:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I misspelled your name in pinging, Asyoukniw, or maybe you did. Pinging again. Bishonen | tålk 14:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I have responded to the edit request (not done for now)! Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Ekdalian, excellent answer which should help the new user. Bishonen | tålk 14:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Request

Hi Bish.. hope you are doing great. Can you please rev-del this degrading and abusive edit summary in Hindi! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've blocked the /64 range for 3 months. Your pal's IP is now blocked 4 times! The other 3 rangeblocks are for specific pages. But I feel a hard siteblock will do them a world of good. Bishonen | tålk 13:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much, Bishonen! Best Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, Bishonen. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
- There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
- There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
- This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

How to use Special:IPContributions
How automatic IP reveal works
How to use IP Info
How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levixius still editing in a disruptive manner

Levixius is still editing in a disruptive manner despite an indefinite single page block made by you.

On Tek Fog, he is falsely claiming that the report claimed "that BJP's Amit Malviya had powers to remove twitter posts on command,"[52] despite the source does not even mention "Twitter".
On Amit Malviya,[53] he is whitewashing the article to tone down the information regarding the subject spreading disinformation, and is instead treating the subject to be the victim of disinformation by adding unsourced content such as on this section here.
On Rajdeep Sardesai, he is edit warring[54] to restore BLP violation such as his addition of unsourced "Sardesai has admitted to conducting false reporting on multiple occasions, and has been asked to issue apologies and retractions", and is citing statement of Amit Malviya to accuse Rajdeep Sardesai of spreading misinformation.
On Scroll.in, he added unnecessary " entertainment website" and marked the edit as minor.[55]

These edits are all from just today, he has been causing disruption for months, such as on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus which he tried to term as a "genocide".[56] Orientls (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Orientls. Thanks for the information. It's a pity nobody affected by this disruptive editing has given the user a contentious topics alert for South Asia. I know it's a hassle, but if they had received that, they would have been more aware of the risks they were taking, and I could now perhaps have topic banned them from Indian subjects, or from some aspect of them (politics?). I would have considered doing so. Can't be done as things are, so I have instead given them the alert for South Asia myself. Let's hope it has a good effect. Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

He was alerted about WP:ARBIPA,[57] as such, topic ban from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, is still applicable according to the Arbcom ruling which states that ARBIPA "Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware."[58] Orientls (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were alerted in 2020, yes. The alerts are no longer reckoned to "expire" after exactly one year, but I don't think back in 2020 is good enough. Bishonen | tålk 22:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
- Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GypsyRoseBlanchard727

Hi, we received a VRT ticket at ticket:2025102610000402 thereby verifying the identity of this user. You may unblock since it was originally a soft block. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Matrix. Done. Bishonen | tålk 23:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

AN/I

I kind of mentioned you, albeit only indirectly. Just fyi. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

O Fortuna, velut luna! Good. That was clever of you to find that diff. Here's another, perhaps better. Bishonen | tålk 19:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism-only account

Noticed this fellow (Organocopper) this morning, adding a (copyvio) werewolf image to Hyperborea. Seems they've decided that image vandalism is their thing, today. See [59], [60] [61] [62] [63] and this 'very important edit' [64]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I can see them uploading a werewolf image to Commons (as "own work", ha ha), but adding it to Hyperborea...? What am I missing? Did the edit filter get it? Never mind, I've indeffed. Thank you, young Hammerpants. Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I don't understand how that could possibly be their own work, as that's clearly a photo of me celebrating my game-winning goal during the 2016 Semi-Annual Hyperborea Invitational Football Championship.

(The other team had some astrophysicist, a K-Pop singer and goddamn Hitler playing for them. That was a hard-won victory, let me tell you.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MPants, that photo got your hair color wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiring minds ask: "What hair?" JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Feedback regarding Unblock prep

Hi @Bishonen, mind giving me some feedback regarding my Unblock Prep, as the unblocking admin might contact you anyway? Do you think it will be successful? Would you say that I can edit main space on my own again? The Other Karma (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you should refrain from using WP:LLM for Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, none of my stuff uses LLM, and never did, please consider WP:NPA. If you don't trust me, just consult https://gptzero.me/ The Other Karma (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[65]. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:LLM correctly. The Other Karma (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, The Other Karma, I don't have the bandwidth for this right now. Bishonen | tålk 23:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

That's fine too, thank you very much for your time. The Other Karma (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Cunningham, Joseph Davey (2020). History of the Sikhs. Abhishek Publications. p. 28. The Raja is admitted by the genealogists to be of the Yadu or Lunar race, but people sometimes say that his being an Ahir or Cowherd forms his only relationship to Krishna, the pastoral Apollo of the Indians

[2] Centre for Research and Publication, Vīrasiṃha, Suraj Mal Memorial Education Society. (2004). The Jats their Role & Contribution to the Socio-economic Life and Polity of North & North-west India. Originals. p. 110.

[3] India, Rajasthan (1968). Rajasthan [district Gazetteers] Alwar. Printed at Government Central Press. p. 135.

[1]

[2]

[3]