Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

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

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

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

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

@Bishonen Ji

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=User_talk:Bishonen
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---