Jump to content

User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

July 2012

TopGun

I noticed you said that TopGun shouldn't be editing anything related to DS, however the iban was lifted. Not sure if you knew that or not. Technically, he is under no restrictions other than that of a regular editor. [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How this issue continues to rumble on is beyond me. I have seen the arguments against site bans (they both do some good stuff and are allegedly net positives) but I just do not see it. I have had dealings with both and the next time it appears at ANI - as surely it will, probably before the week is over - I'll most likely be weighing in. The amount of admin time being expended is ridiculous given the numerous recurrent backlogs at various noticeboards. OK, that might be an argument for more admins and/or the current "moderator" proposal also, but neither are going to happen soon whereas a report at ANI is pretty much a certainty. Place your bets, gentlemen! - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It was really just my personal recommendation - he knows that if he edits anything to do with DS he'll get into trouble. Frankly, I'm sick of the two of them, but my Talk page isn't the place to discuss that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congrats -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian Revenue Service

I see you protected the page for undue screeds, however, that's a sock of User:Vrghs jacob who's been adding copyvio for two years now, here and on commons. If you come across this in future, you could delete the images too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so that's who it was - thanks for letting me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Heading

Thank you!! Tamarleigh (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem - happy to help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/TPS-43 vandal

This article has been been hounded by this asshole for over three years now. He's a kid from Colombia that hails from Colombia Móvil, his cable provider, and his school (University). I have been fixing his vandalism for over 3 years and slowly increasing the block (now at 1 year for the first offense). I got tired of this and finally after a long while, I protected the article. He continues now with the Talk Page Talk:AN/TPS-43. His MO is always the same, puts unrelated images or copyvio tags. Don't know what he has against this subject. Please keep an eye on the article. Anything fitting this pattern, from a Colombian ISP block on sight (block evasion). Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info - I've got it watchlisted now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the same as poking a bear.

I have responded to your point at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for this. I am grateful someone acted on this bizarre user. BatteryIncluded (talk)
Thanks, that's very kind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Rolandhelper

You can grant my unblock request if i schooled from 1 or 2 years? Thanks.--114.79.62.172 (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Many people have told you many times in your block log, that you will not edit Wikipedia, with or without an account. If you want to be unblocked, do it the right way, not by trying (and failing) to cheat your well-deserved restrictions. If you continue failing to heed this simple instruction, you will not be unblocked, ever. →Στc. 05:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You can grant my unblock request if I matured the English? Thanks! Regards,182.5.14.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a year after you STOP editing logged out from IPs, but probably nearer two. And please note that every time we find you editing an article, your edits will be reverted and the article will be protected to stop you editing it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@Roland: why do you edit the English Wikipedia? Why not expanding and helping the Wikipedia in your language out? mabdul 11:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Montenegrin sock vandal

Did if for the UMPTEENTH time in Thomas Schaaf, gluing everything with this anon IP (please see here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.228.40.103). Could you protect the article as you did in Luis Enrique Martínez García?

Thanks in advance with anything that can be provided, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 3 months. Hopefully that will help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Here's looking at you! Many thanks for the (prompt) assistance! Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! And you're welcome :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Template

Is concerted use of an infobox template by IP editors in a manner contrary to the documentation and supporting discussion of that template, after having been notified thereof, along with perhaps a bit of puppetry, reason enough to semi-protect that article for a week or so? If so, you might take a look, if you don't mind, at Talk:TLC_(band)#Lopes_as_current_member and the edit history of that article. If not, never mind, but thanks anyway. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bugging you too much, but here's another

Boing, I wouldn't bring this to you if you hadn't been involved with it already, but see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=The_Zombie_Diaries&action=history and http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=World_of_the_Dead:_The_Zombie_Diaries&action=history. I suspect, based on prior sockpuppetry on those pages, that the IP's are block evading and I have my suspicions about the other editor as well. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!

Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles.

Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Paulika1995

Hey, BsZ, I saw that you've dealt with this before. Paulika1995 is doing it again with the newly-created Season 1, 2010 that is duplicating the subject of Marele câștigător (season 1). I don't want to nominate the article per A10, since there's some new data on the page. Do you have any advice on how to proceed? Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Blocking an IP

Is there any point in blocking User:76.125.80.61, who is one of several regulars throwing abuse and being tendentious at Talk:Saini? I've no idea if they're meats, proxy socks or merely like-minded but most all of them are North America-based and they're concentrated in a couple of areas. I did compile an analysis recently but I think Q is, like you, rather busy at the mo. Sorry to impose. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't do any harm - 1 week. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Okey-doke. Let's see if it works as a shot across the bows. While the attacks do not particularly bother me, I am one of several among the experienced India-related contributors who is starting to query whether all of this effort is, well, worth it. With other things that have gone on and look likely to happen, the hole in the dyke is becoming more and more difficult to plug. Joyson is "sort of" back but CarTick and Sodabottle seem to have gone for good, Spiffy has an ominous message at the top of his talk page, Fowler returned and then went away again pronto ... and there are at least a couple of others. It wouldn't be so bad if there were replacements/additions coming through but I am blowed if I can spot them. YK has returned, btw, but with the best will in the world I cannot summon anything from my reserves of good faith there & so am keeping out of the way. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. Sorry I'm not available to do more to help right now - I've just had a big increase in my day job workload of late. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rschen7754 07:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

User:Timmy96

Hi there BOING, how's it going?

I see you blocked this user for continuing to upload copyrighted images to the football articles, after he said in Raphaël Varane "Want to be blocked" (please see here http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rapha%C3%ABl_Varane&diff=496799798&oldid=496646077). He also continues to engage in WP:COPYVIO after being told not to.

No worries for him, apparently has a neverending supply of anon IP, found these two today (see here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.25.198.193 and here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.31.209.79), in Thiago Motta added no fewer than FOUR pictures, already reverted it. There are at least 2,3 more i know of.

Attentively, from Portugal - --AL (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Really sorry I haven't had time for this just now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Redaloes is back

Redaloes has returned post-block and has made pretty much the same contribution at Kamma (caste) as they did elsewhere previously. This is POV pushing/puffery of the Rajus of Dhananjaya using an unreliable source. It wouldn't be so bad if they talked about it but in fact they have barely talked about anything since 2009. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, been very busy - I'll try to have a look as soon as I can. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I've indef blocked him - he's been violating policies for 3 years now without communicating with us at all, so we have to forcibly get his attention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

CSD mentoring

(talk page stalker) Apparently Boing is a bit busy and may not respond quickly. I did not vote on your RfA because I was on Wikileave, but my take on all this is that you passed RfA with flying colours in spite of the concerns that were expressed about your CSDs, which means that the community as a whole has no concerns about your use of the bit. DGG offered some very good advice based on the way he handles deletion worthy articles, especially the grey area for which there are no CSD criteria. I'm sure by now that you have easily understood that the grey area means PROD or AfD (which in my opinion should be translated as Articles for Discussion). Do as I do, be ultra careful with deletions, do plenty of background checks before you press the button, and if you're not absolutely sure, leave them to someone else ;) Successful RfA is successful RfA and closing 'crats don't lay down any conditions, so I don't really see why you need those two signatures at all, but if you insist, then you can certainly have mine :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit anal about good faith and such, and have asked two admins that are familiar enough with the concerns to "sign off". It is more about keeping my word than CSD, to be honest, as I put a pretty high standard on the bit and think I need to expect the same from myself. If you feel comfortable making that determination, then your signature would be welcomed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 11:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Boing would mind for a moment if I were to sign on his/our behalf. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... looks as if Boing is around after all ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have minded, but I was uncharacteristically alert for a change ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. I know that technically, I could have taken the initial request less seriously, or ignored it completely, but it have felt like lying to the community. I'm not in a hurry to jump in over at CSD, but it feels good to have the restriction lifted and to be "whole" as an admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 12:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gotras of Jats

Template:Gotras of Jats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sock

Let's see if i have better luck now...another sock by User:Aciyokrocky/User:Steadyfingers/User:Ensarux/whatever, this guy is going for 70 or 80! ("contributions" here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Man%C3%A7ester), he will not stop.

Sorry to bother you, happy weekend - --AL (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I don't really have time to look at this right now - if there isn't already a report raised, I'd suggest WP:SPI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: July Newsletter and August Drive

EdwardsBot (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here.

Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress).

Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead Space 3

Hi Boing, could you please semi protect this article for a while. There is a massive amount of IP vandalism. Once it's protected I'll clean it up. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
NP. I tend not to be around much these days as I'm very busy with other things, so WP:RFPP would probably get you a better response usually - but I happened to be here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I went through Special:Logs to see who was online, as RFPP can take quite a long time. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's cool -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Move

Hi Zebedee! Can you please delete this redirect: ¡Uno!, as the name of the article is ¡Uno! (Green Day album) to which it is redirected. I don't think that making a request for move will make any difference. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 09:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:RFD or WP:RM. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Very busy

Friends, stalkers, Wikipedians, I'm sorry, but for the foreseeable future I'm going to have less time free for Wikipedia, due to other commitments. This means that if you make requests of me here, I may not have time to help, especially if it is something I am not already closely involved with. So, if there is a generic venue or procedure for what you want - eg WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI, etc - you will probably get a quicker response there. Or if that is not appropriate, you may get a better response at WP:AN, WP:ANI, or by asking another admin who is involved in the topic in question. I apologise if any of your past requests were archived without any response, and I apologise in advance for any future requests that might sit here unanswered. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Boing! said Zebedee, per the Talk:G-Spot#It's a bit shocking discussion, should I be concerned that User:Fxmastermind is editing in this way at other articles? As can be seen, what he did there is sending out misinformation to people that can be damaging...and I can't help but think that this isn't the only article he's done this at. And encyclopedic-wise, he's certainly added unencyclopedic wording before, such as when he added "No, this is not made up." to the Asexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking quickly at his edits again, I see that he also did the same "I don't go by sources" editing at the Climate change denial article. I'm definitely concerned about this editor's edits now. But since I know how busy you are as of late, I'll ask Dennis Brown, who you are sometimes in contact with, to weigh in here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be a case of WP:DE via adding material that is improperly cited. At the very least, it is original research. Also, his signature is clearly against WP:SIGN, which considers an improper signature a WP:DE violation as well. Quoting: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." (emphasis in original) and it is common sense that the signature must be identifiable as that user either by having the exact user name, a link to their user or talk page, or both. He needs to change that now, or he can be blocked until he does. That would be pretty harsh, however, and only a last resort if he absolutely refused. It makes life much harder for everyone else that he does this.
I also notice his edit here [2] but he calls it unsourced material, when it clearly is sourced. As to http://4yous.info/japanese-man-22-cooks-his-own-genitals-and-serves-them-to-paying-dinner-party-guests being a reliable source, that is laughable, as is the choice of prose he added to the article. Obviously improper.
I didn't look deeply enough to see if it is a long term pattern or not, but if it is, then an ANI case might be the answer since no one action is actionable at this stage, but the sum total may be if we are talking about many disruptive edits. If there are enough instances for ANI, I would ask you ping me once you file. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Dennis. Since I encountered his "common sense" editing at the G-Spot article, I figured that this couldn't be a one-time thing with this user. It usually never is with such users. I'm likely to run into him again since he seems to gravitate toward highly debated or otherwise controversial topics at times and I'm often in such topic areas. If I see this type of editing from him again, I am very likely to take the matter to WP:ANI. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to look further into his edit history to see if there is a long-term pattern of this type of editing, but I'm positive that there is, and may look further later today or at a later date for confirmation of my suspicion in this regard. I'm never eager to take on drama, but this type of editing causes me to become upset. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In the interim, he needs to change that sig. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I've left him a polite but firm message about his signature. [3] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And I've alerted him to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
On his user page, he declares that he "tend[s] to ignore all rules" and believes that Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Judging from that and having seen more edits of his where he ignores sourcing (by either failing to provide sources or by failing to defer to what is already sourced), I gather that he's taken the WP:Ignore all rules policy to mean that sourcing is not a big deal and that it "gets in the way" of the "truth" he is looking to add to articles. Though he didn't specifically link to WP:Ignore all rules on his user page, he seems to be misusing that policy and the "Wikipedia is a work in progress" aspect of the Wikipedia:Editing policy. He also seems to be unaware of some guidelines and policies or doesn't understand them well. He certainly doesn't understand WP:MEDRS well, such as here, where, ironically if comparing to his "common sense" G-Spot edit I reverted, he argues that it's "hard to dispute this sort of scientific research." Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
He's confirmed that he doesn't understand a lot of how things work at this site. So perhaps he is more inexperienced than he is intentionally disruptive. Perhaps his disruption is never intentional; like I stated, he seems to be going by his own editing beliefs when editing this site. He definitely needs talking to on these issues/a lot of guidance. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm off to bed, but maybe you could hook him up with a mentor or adopt program. Or ask one of my friends at WP:WER, which covers some of these issues among others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Folks. I agree there are problems here, but it sounds like you two have this in hand pretty well, so I'll leave you to it (with thanks to Dennis for stepping in) :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've alerted Fxmastermind that I've sought help for him at WP:WER. Flyer22 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the troubling edits, especially the G-spot one, I agree and will refrain from any hint of unencyclopedic editing from here forth. My sense of humor is not appropriate in articles, and I believe I also disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, which is clearly against the rules. While it is said to ignore all rules, especially if it gets in the way of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, in reality there are a vast number of confusing rules, all of which can change, be viewed in different ways, and in any case even the hint of breaking some rule can lead to entanglement online, if one chooses to fight for some imaginary NPOV. So I apologize for the two (maybe three) edits that have caused such pain to so many. Won't happen again. I also apologized on the G-spot page. (edited because my sig vanished) (edited again, my sig isn't showing up for some reason, I have no idea why) User:Fxmastermind 16:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get my sig to show up. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed sig to default, works now. How confusing. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet examined enough of your other edits, but I wouldn't state that the ones noted above have "caused such pain to so many"; for one, it's not like they stayed that way for long, but I have accepted your apology. Some of your behavior and what you note about your sense of humor does remind me of another editor, but hopefully that's only a comparison, especially since that user attempted to remove your addition to the Asexuality article. As long as you get the mentoring you need, and edit according to guidelines and policies, you should be fine at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 15:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
) Theopolisme TALK 15:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Temporarily blocked IP is still editing through his logged-in account

Hi there. I saw that you refused the unblock request of IP editor 68.37.29.229 (talk · contribs) and then removed his ability to edit his talk page for the duration of his block. He is still editing as Housewifehader (talk · contribs), and is now continuing the tirade here and here. Is this considered block evasion, and is it possible to temporarily block this account as well? Thanks for your help. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As it is the person who is prohibited from editing while blocked, I think this does constitute block evasion - so I've blocked the registered account for a brief period. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Doughnuthead

Hi, regarding the ban of Doughnuthead, I feel it would be appropriate given the fact that if he does return under another sock, then his edits can instantly be reverted under ban evasion. Also i noticed that he has a tendency to request unblock, well if he's banned then he would need to contact Arbcom, he wouldnt get anywhere with anyone in the community. Finally, being banned would mean that he would be on the Wikipedia:List of banned users page, which would show he is an actual banned user and not just an average indef-blocked account. If you have anymore info on him please share it with me. Regards.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think a ban would have benefits, I wish you well with it, but I won't spend any time helping you, sorry - I mean no offence to your good intentions, but WP:DENY is my approach to such people, which means I won't waste my time on them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fair enough, Beeblebrox made a point that if we did ban him then his socks could be reverted under ban evasion, thereby making Revert, block, ignore easier to accomplish.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

More on IP editor 68.37.29.229 (talk · contribs): continued rants

I really hate to bother you again, but IP 68.37.29.229 (talk · contribs) is really out of control. I have tried to stay uninvolved with his copyvio rants (and occasional threats), but he is continuing with others: [4], [5], [6] [7]. In addition, he has incorrectly opened SPIs for TBrandley (talk · contribs) [8] (moved here) and TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) [9] (since moved here) What can be done? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The sock puppet investigations are seriously ridiculous, honestly. I'd be happy to get a checkuser so this crap can end. Just being honest. TBrandley 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Perhaps we should open a new thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. TBrandley 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I have created a new thread. Please see here. TBrandley 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Boing!--The matter seems to have been settled. Thanks anyway! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

OK folks, looks good -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Iamthemuffinman

There are a couple of notes under his block notice, regarding his edits with his global account. I know that is off enwp, but not off project and they are clearly vandalism, and plenty of them. Not sure if that affects the block duration here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You should feel free (this goes to both of you) to up to indef, but it'll hardly make a difference.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the account has been globally locked, so it doesn't really make any difference - but someone has upped the block to indef now, as a formality. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

RFC

I'm guessing someone needs to hat the "WP:BLP" section since it is utterly and completely irrelevant to the RFC/U itself. Maybe more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should - it really is irrelevant. I'd expect it to be controversial, though, with people arguing that BLP is the cause and YRC's behaviour a symptom (and Coren is weighing in too - though he's quite right). It would take someone bolder than me to do it - and I think my adding my own view section would probably make me too involved. It's a shame this is bringing out such venom on both sides - but unfortunately that's not unexpected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading back, my statement might seem like a shot across the bow, but I think a shot for fairness, not for YRC himself. I knew it was going to get a little ugly, my only concern is fairness. And now it seems Fluffernutter has joined in the quest to keep in calm, good for her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's good - the escalating "Wikipedia vs Wikipediocracy" tribalism was starting to look nasty. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Trying to keep the comments on topic is like herding cats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to get in the middle

Definitely not a lot of straightforwardness or easy of communication. I'm starting to think that an unblock would lead to a reblock on competency grounds. I'm sorry to have gotten in the middle of that migrane-inducing thread. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean - I think I'm walking away from it too, possibly in the direction of some paracetamol ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Code help

Can you tell me the code of the Immediate requests here so that I can add it in my user page --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I get it as part of {{Admin dashboard}}, but if you just want the "Immediate requests" table on its own you can use {{Admin dashboard/header}} -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Added! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It fits there nicely :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'll have to copy paste code to sandbox and change most of the codes. Because most of those are not for me. The only thing I am looking for is users with helpme template. --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I've put a simple code extract that just shows Wikipedians looking for help in my sandbox - help yourself if it's any use. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify and the future of wikification

Hi! There is an ongoing proposal at the project talkpage concerning the future of wikification, including possible deprecation of the {{wikify}} template which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of the wikify project. To update your status, go here.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Wikify

Nomination of Bicycle Shaped Object for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicycle Shaped Object is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. My post on AN/I

Hey Boing (you don't mind if I refer to you in that manner), I just made a post at AN/I under the section entitled "Users Still-24-45-42-125 and The Four Deuces - Section Blanking at Conservatism:", but as you can see it was archived before I'd gotten the chance to save my edit. I nevertheless felt compelled to post my suggestion anyways, in the hopes that it'll guide the involved parties to a solution regarding how best to proceed. I also intend upon posting it at the article's talk page, under the discussion regarding the disputed subsection. My question is, was it appropriate of me to post that suggestion on AN/I despite the discussion having been archived? It was a bit disheartening that I couldn't get there in time to give them more concrete suggestions on how to pursue dispute resolution; I don't think 3O would be sufficient in this case.

By the way, in case I'd forgotten to do so, thank you for your recent participation at my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments there and hope I'll continue to see you around Wikipedia. =) Kurtis (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see a problem with your comment - you're basically expanding on the suggestions regarding using WP:DR, so it seems like a helpful addition to me. (On RfA, the whole thing looked pretty positive to me, and I think you'll make it next time). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! I actually agree, the RfA was definitely much more proactive than I'd seen before. I feel much more enthusiastic about editing this site now that I feel much more confident that its community is so accommodating and easy to get along with.
And yes, I basically did expand on the suggestions made regarding dispute resolution, but I don't think following every step there word-for-word is going to resolve this dispute. The problem is that there's no clear agreement on what to do, and unfortunately both sides have taken to treating their opinions as hard facts. But if we can get a broader range of people participating there, then it might help to gather consensus one way or another, thereby diffusing the situation. Hopefully it'll work. =) Kurtis (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Seacoast United page move

Hey Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for the notice with the Seacoast United page. I should have tagged the page to be moved but dug myself into a hole trying to correct details and confusing it with other pages. I've made the updates to the page from my saved profile. Please move the page when able. I'd also suggest the Seacoast United page become a disambiguation page, as there are now 3 soccer teams that use that title: Seacoast United Mariners, Seacoast United Phantoms (NPSL) and Seacoast United Phantoms of the PDL. Thanks! Fhurion (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

New version of the article looks good, so I've made the move to Seacoast United Mariners, deleted the temporary version at User:Fhurion/Seacoast United Mariners, and I've turned Seacoast United into a disambig page as you suggest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Composite Index of National Capability Article

What do you suggest is the correct SD code for personal research and not a single cite? Many thanks. Twobells (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There isn't one - and it does have citations (though clearly not sufficient). As it's been around for several years and has been edited by a number of people, I think you'd need to take it to WP:AfD. And please do not re-add CSD tags once they have been declined - take the article to AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, will do. Twobells (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's cool. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Franklin Paladin

Hey, BsZ, just letting you know that, on this page, the G7 tag you removed was actually replacing a malformed U1 tag placed by the author (he wrote it as {{dbuserreq}} instead of {{db-userreq}}). Why the change in rationale, I don't know, but it's a pretty safe bet that the author was asking for it to be deleted after all. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I hadn't spotted that. I've deleted it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP ban clause

Hi - please note and change your comment if required - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#YRC_Proposal

I have updated my position -

I think that the civility condition and the one RR restriction would render this BLP discussion clause as unnecessary and extreme punishment - if I cant revert and I cant make a single rude comment without being site banned then as I am not a BLP violator then I can be allowed to comment about living people but not allowed to edit content about such.

Youreallycan 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I've added to my comment. Though I would recommend you avoid BLP discussions as far as possible, I'm happy to leave that to you to decide, and I still support your proposal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of a talk page

Please see this thread for why the deleted page was restored and why your re-deletion should be undone. Thanks. JamesMLane t c 08:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I restore it, it will almost certainly be deleted again by someone else, because we do not keep talk pages of articles that do not exist or have been deleted. I note that you were the only person opposed to the deletion - all the other comments favoured a merge of the contents - but if you feel the article was deleted improperly, you are welcome to seek review at WP:DRV.
Anyway, what I've done is I've userfied a copy of the deleted talk page for you at User:JamesMLane/Political positions of Paul Ryan, so if the article is created again and you feel the old discussion is valuable, you can copy it to the new Talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
When the article is created again, that old discussion will become irrelevant. It's valuable now to explain the absence of the article. Inasmuch as every other politician who's similarly situated has a "Political positions" page, it's not unreasonable that someone might type in "Political positions of Paul Ryan" expecting to find such an article. It was deleted without an AfD process. In light of these facts, what would you think of re-creating the article as a redirect to Paul Ryan#Voting record and political positions, so that a reader making that logical assumption actually reaches our content instead of a dead-end notice? Then this material could be restored as the Talk page to the redirect page to explain why it's just a redirect. It shouldn't be necessary to go through DRV to achieve that much. The original deletion was solely an admin action rather than an AfD result, so restoring it to the extent of a redirect should also be doable by an admin. We really should be prioritizing the needs and convenience of the readers.
While you're at it, would it be possible for you to userfy the deleted article for me? It took me some time to set up the structure, and it would be useful to have access to it, even though the re-created article (down the road) will have different content. Thanks! JamesMLane t c 14:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds like an excellent solution, so I've done exactly as you suggest. I've restored Political positions of Paul Ryan and have made it into the redirect you suggest - that also has the benefit of retaining the page history, which actually would be needed for copyright reasons if any of your original text was in fact merged into the main article. You shouldn't need a userfied copy of the article, as you can now get any previous versions from the history - your original version is here. I've also moved the talk page back to its original place, and have added a comment to say what I've done. When the time comes to recreate a full "Positions of..." article, it should be fairly straightforward - but do feel free to get back to me if I can help with anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! This is the best interim solution short of a full-bore confrontation on DRV. It's really ridiculous how much time has been wasted on this Wikimaneuvering. If people had just shown a little patience and left the "Positions" article in place to be expanded, you wouldn't have had to spend the time to make these multiple edits (or to read my griping). JamesMLane t c 18:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Time on my hands...

Hi! I was just scrolling through my CSD logs when I saw this ... which prompted me to ask, well, "what is something?" Is there any concrete definition for "no content"? In that specific case, I assumed that as the article was simply a restatement of the title, it would quality... but, again, I'm still learning and I'd appreciate any guidance you could fling in my general direction. :) Thanks! Theopolisme:) 05:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clearer, I'm not talking about the current revision - which is fixed up quite a bit - but rather, the one that I tagged. Theopolisme :) 05:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I tend to see a one-sentence statement that says something about the subject as being enough to avoid a {{db-nocontent}} deletion, even if it only says something minimal. In this case it said where the school is located - a restatement of the title would simply be a restatement of the name alone, without the location information. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright - thanks! Was just looking for something concrete... Which you gave me. 'Theopolisme>:) 13:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 09:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 09:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Precious

buying of beer and firm stance
Thank you for offering to buy beer to help "passionate Wikipedians" to settle scores in "the best interests of the project", and for standing firmly for consensus against "autocratic rights", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 September 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Very kind, thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Dickmojo

Thanks a lot for carefully following up on this guy's unblock requests and the article talk page. Asking for a review at ANI is also excellent form. I considered doing so as well due to the WP:INVOLVED nature of my block, but decided against this as it seemed to be entirely allowable by the relevant policy and I didn't want to draw attention to the material I'd revision deleted for fairly obvious reasons, especially as the editor was likely to appeal the block anyway; hopefully this was the right call. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that approach was just fine - blatant BLP violations are generally considered one of the WP:INVOLVED "cases which are straightforward", and this was pretty blatant. Not drawing too much attention to it was a good call too - but sadly, the nature of the editor made that pretty hard in the end. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Iranian cuisine

Thanks for the note. Yes, I did try to discuss the toppic. See Talk:Iranian cuisine. But User:اردیبهشت is not interested in discussions. Currently, he is banned for editwarring (also in other disputed articles) and removing scholarly sources. --Lysozym (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so I see, thanks for letting me know. Collegial discussion would be good, but just unexplained removal isn't really acceptable. Let's hope the latest action will help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Iamthemuffinman

I'm leaving you a message as you seem to be familiar with the case. It seems they were blocked across all projects on 5 August for what they've described editing when drunk and angry. They've appealed on UTRS #3075. Secretlondon (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I don't have a UTRS account, so I can't help directly there. But all I really know is what can be seen at User talk:Iamthemuffinman - I declined an unblock request for obvious reasons, and I temporarily revoked talk page access to try to stop him making things worse for himself. I did get a couple of emails from him as a response, but they weren't what I needed for restoring talk page access (they weren't problematic either, so no issues there). Other than that, there isn't really any more I know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Wilson affair

Hi! Sorry to bother you with this, but as you were fairly active the other day in handling the issues around Julia Gillard, I thought you might have the answer to this. In the new article, Wilson affair, the first edit contained libel in relation to Bruce Wilson, making factual claims about alleged actions. Given that this was the first edit that created the page, is revdel possible? - Bilby (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, and I've done it. In fact, I've gone as far as RevDeleting all bar the latest version, as it looks like it has taken quite some time to remove all the potential BLP violations. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll send it to AfD, but I wasn't sure of the process when there are problems in the first edit, and I was more concerned about that side of things. - Bilby (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
OK - it's on my watchlist now too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GOCE news and September drive invitation

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:

  • The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
  • September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Curious

I am curious as to why this page was deleted. My PR company is working on adding the news articles and support for me being one of the youngest stem cell pioneers in the country.

Also, why has this person not been deleted: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/David_M._Williams

Please enable so they can continue their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.23.34 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you mean David Mitchell Williams, then it was deleted because it did not make any suitable claims of importance - it essentially just listed the subject's jobs, and was entirely unreferenced. See WP:CSD#A7 for the minimum needed to avoid speedy deletion, WP:N for the notability that will be needed for an article about a person to be retained at Wikipedia long term, and WP:RS for the kinds of sources that will be needed to verify that notability. Also, Wikipedia very much frowns on PR agencies writing about their clients - it is much preferable for articles to be written by neutral disinterested parties - so you should at least show them the project's Conflict of Interest guidelines at WP:COI. (Finally, as for why David M. Williams has not been deleted, I have no idea - I am not responsible for not deleting articles that I didn't delete, especially when nobody has asked for them to be deleted.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am lost

An inexperienced, apparently young, contributor is in action and I am lost. They've had a few warnings & blanked their talk page. If you take a look at Special:Contributions/Umais Bin Sajjad then you will see some items tagged as possible cut/paste reinstatements and/or moves. How the heck do I check this out? - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted and warned for spam links too - I think we just have to escalate warnings and then block if necessary, and it may need a careful check of his contributions. I'm off to bed now, but I'll have another look tomorrow (though I won't have time early - got a busy day's work). You not coming to Manchester meet this time, btw? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No probs. The tags are carefully worded and could be false positives but I have no means of checking other than by looking at the (empty) page log. Re: Manchester: it does not look likely - I have been stuffing myself with Tramadol of late due to problems with my hip and the meds are screwing me up. Well, perhaps that is not the best phrase: I think that I have said before that one of the screws in my hip has broken away from the bone and as a consequence I officially have a screw loose. As my mother has said for the las 49 years The thing seems to be floating around big time right now, and I'm not due back at hospital until November. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Krizpo

If you're still active at the moment, would you mind reblocking User:Krizpo, whom you just unblocked a few minutes early? About one hour after you unblocked, he immediately resumed the same edit at Religion in Africa that led to the last 30 day block. If you prefer, I can contact the blocking admin (FPaS). Qwyrxian (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh - I've made it indef this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The house designers

No doubt. My status is trying to figure out how to get back to sleep. I did not unserstand this edit. But then, half my brain is asleep] Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request, told them they can't have a company account, and that they should create a new username if they want to edit as an individual (there's no real point doing a rename if there's no account history to keep). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh Jeez. That was so obvious. Must have been more sleep deprived than I realized. Dlohcierekim
No worries - I'm often in the same state myself :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

IP problem...

...taken care of. Block evading. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan Thompson

You shoud not have removed the addition to the Alan Thompson page because it is 100% true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenose1988 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You must not add a negative allegation or accusation to an article about a living person unless you provide a reliable source for it - see WP:BLP for general biography guidance, and WP:RS for what constitutes reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep on changing pages, you can't stop me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenose1988 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 26 August 2012‎

Blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Vanish

If we do not delete user talk pages is there something i can do to change the name? I permanently leave Wikipedia. My main wikipedia was greek wikipedia. Xaris333 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you want to remove your current name, you could ask for a "courtesy vanishing" - instructions on how to request it are at WP:VANISH. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Heading

really y would u delete my stuff wats the point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettyme123 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:N to learn about the notability required for a person to have an article on Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Method in my madness - I was being polite

Look at the spelling in the last request by TPO - 'favor', 'favorite' and 'behavior'. Might be using a US based spell checker - but those of us who use spell checkers usually make sure we've got a Brit one (if we are Brits), or watch things if we are using the 'wrong' sort. He's Indian, for my money, as many of them posting here use US spellings. The use of 'sir' is another indication. Doesn't prove he's MC666 - but I doubt his claim to be Brit unless CU separates them by a few thousand miles, which doesn't seem to be the case. (I like the word 'seem'....) Peridon (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, he's Indian all right - he has been evading his block from an IP address, which gave it away (it's in my talk page history if you want to check). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Zaytuna Farm

Hi

It seems you deleted a talk page I wrote on: (which was supposed to get a discussion going as to why the Zaytuna Farm page had been deleted and not re-instated..) - can that page be put back please as I think the discussion is valid. [Can the Zaytuna page be put back after it is deleted or does it need to be rewritten?]

59.120.203.119 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia does not carry talk pages about articles that do not exist or have been deleted, and if I reinstated it nobody would see it (or it would just be deleted again). If you wish to contest the deletion of Zaytuna Farm, you should use Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you wish to copy your comment to the Deletion Review, it was as follows...
  • "Isn't the importance of this page (and the Farm) irrelevant because it is an educational institute? can this page be reinstated?"
-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. have posted to User talk:Lectonar, the original deleter. Plmoknqwerty (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about "promotional tone"

Hi I have a question regarding what you and the other editors consider to be "promotional tone".

I am trying to put a page up Wikipedia about a few companies that I enjoy using their products and feel like they are important enough to have their own page. I believe that it is unfair that you claim my pages are too promotional when they literally have like 5 lines detailing their history. While at the same time you allow Moleskine to have a full page up with images and links to their website and to me sounds very promotional "in tone" yet that is okay. I am confused as to who decides what is too promotional and would like your assistance in this matter. Should I just create 1 page with all this information rather than make separate ones for each company branch? Would that help?

Also I've added 3rd party links to my pages yet they don't seem to be good enough for you. I would just like to have some help here. I don't see how it's fair that Wikipedia picks which companies can get their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH514 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have explained the problems on your Talk page, so its best to stick to discussing it there in order to keep the discussion in one place - I will reply there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Promise to never upload an image

Thank you for unblocking me! I promise to never upload another image.--Sage94 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Cite templates' "access-date" parameter is deprecated. Use "accessdate" instead.

Hi, Boing! said Zebedee. I noticed that you are using the "access-date" parameter with {{cite}} templates. That parameter is deprecated and should no longer be used. See Template:Cite#URL for up-to-date documentation. Please update your workflow accordingly. If this was added by some Wikipedia tool, please message me. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know - I did it manually, not using any tools. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiktonary templates

Hey Boing - thanks for taking care of the ones I tagged for speedy deletion - but there are more! I created a thread, linked here - could you take a look? Thanks, Theopolisme 23:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just off to bed now, but I'll have a look at it tomorrow if it hasn't been sorted by then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm on my way to the an/i thread and thence to the articles in question/ Dlohcierekim 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

History of Kerala

The story of Saint Thomas's journey to Kerala in 52 CE is a myth created by evangelists in nineteenth century. Some of them argue that Christianity reached Kerala before the arrival of Hinduism in the state!. If St. Thomas had landed in India at this time, the entire Asia would have been christianized by 200-300 CE. If Christians or Muslims conquered a land, they will destroy all other religions of that place. India is the only country in the world that resisted the culture attack of both religions.

In 52 CE, christians were a minority even in Europe. Christianity flourished in Europe only after the christianization of Roman empire during the fourth centuary CE. Then it slowly began to spread in the world. The fact is, the christianity is reached India during Portugese era only. About 15 priests accompanied Vasco Da Gama on his first vist (The first ever visit of a European by ship) to india The false story of Saint Thomas's visit to Kerala is rejected by famous historians like M._G._S._Narayanan Anoop.m (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is we can't just take your word for it - you need to provide reliable sources for your change and provide them as proper citations so that people can check. Have a look at WP:RS and WP:CITE to find out how to do that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

About Metheus

I'm a linguist, a poet, and an activist. That's not ethical to delete the article of my biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeteMetheus (talk • contribs) 11:06, 28 August 2012‎

The article made no indication of importance - see WP:N for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

"Whatever it is you're doing that causes it, you can't be unblocked until you stop it."

(Re User talk:Chargrilledawesome) Note that they would not be unblocked even if they stopped it, since the disruption caused by the html text inserts is not why they got blocked. See racist vandalism buried in diffs. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, yes, I'd completely missed that, thanks - I saw the weird html early in the diffs and had thought that was the reason for the block. I've adjusted my comment. (And if I'd spotted those diffs, I wouldn't have been wasting any time on him). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I figured you missed it. I myself almost blocked for disruption before seeing the vandalism. Thanks for clarifying your comment. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Heading

RE: Oscar Flight merge with Malmstrom general article. I don't just think you made a mistake -- I know it.

Extended content discussion
I've also posted all of the references and discussion proving that:

(1) there was no full flight failure of missiles anywhere at Malmstrom AFB on 24 March, 1967; this was established and documented in 1967 by Lewis D. Chase, UFO officer at the time; (2) there was no UFO sighting anywhere near Oscar Flight on the date in question; the only sightings on March 24 were nearly 200 miles away; the are no other reports; (3) none of the "witnesses" saw anything that might be a UFO, and this has been established by their own statements; declarations of confirmation are simply not true, as anyone examining the testimony of the three men mentioned could easily determine by simply looking at the evidence and reading the statements addressed by these same "witnesses"; (4) not one element of the paragraph under examination can be verified or confirmed. (5) your apparent support of the information in the Oscar Flight paragraph suggests that you simply accepted the claims made without attempting to verify them. Is it usually so easy to publish a fiction as a fact, or have you just decided that statements regarding the USAF don't require verification?

The only way you can accept these claims as based in fact would be to ignore or refuse to examine or even acknowledge facts that were documented in 1967. I've provided statements made by the very same witnesses used to support this claims that make it very clear the extent of dishonesty inherent to these issues. Is it normal procedure to accept as a point of fact claims confirmed by witnesses when those same witnesses insist that such confirmation has never existed? Is there any reason to accept as credible claims that are contrary to already documented and archived records insisting that such claims are not merely interpreted poorly, but are completely wrong?

I have no intention of getting involved in this matter with wikipedia any longer. I've already addressed these issues and more. What I will do, however, is chronicle the discussions and conclusions reached, whatever those conclusions will eventually be. And when I'm finished, people will be able to judge for themselves whether they can trust wikipedia to publish reliable information that has been reasonably verified, or whether wikipedia is just another noisy website electing to publish complete nonsense without bothering to determine whether some factual basis exists to verify it or not. The paragraph under examination is simply not true; the only way you can accept these claims as having any truth to them would be to ignore everything else: the documents, the historical records, the testimony of all of the witnesses, and the context of the issues raised. You can either delete it, or you can tell the whole world that facts, validation, and confirmation aren't necessary for wikipedia to establish an incident firmly rooted in actual history.

Whatever ... you guys do what you want; I've provided you with all of the evidence necessary to prove that this nonsense is untrue. If you refuse to examine that evidence, any associated legacy will reflect that your policies as faulty, your retention of details is arbitrary and requires no establishing undertone, and your dedication to provisions of accuracy in the reporting necessary for a credible publication is non-existent. Apparently you can live with that, so good for you. It's nice to know that professional ideals related to our reservoir of knowledge are no longer necessary, and that we can now address any claims whatsoever that our imaginations can invent as actual history. I'm sure teachers everywhere will applaud your open-mindedness and your refusal to be burdened by questions of doubt or the credibility of your publication.

James Carlson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.70.229 (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have made no comment on or contribution to the article's content, therefore I cannot possibly have made a mistake about it. All I did was revert your clearly contested removal of sourced content, which you had made without consensus. What you need to do is discuss it on the article talk page, clearly and concisely, and wait to see of there is a consensus agreeing with you - and do not edit war to make your change while the discussion is in progress. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Then why would you leave a message stating, "The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page"?

You did make a mistake by restoring the removed content. It should never have been up, because there is nothing in it that can possibly be verified, and because there a large number of known facts that prove the point. There is documented proof as well that proves the falsity of this claim.

Extended content discussion
The only reason the deletion is contested at all is because everyone has refused to examine the evidence arrayed against it. Every element of the paragraph in question can be proven wrong; there are also a large number of statements by other witnesses that confirm this. In any case, whether you erred or someone else did, it's a point of fact that nobody could possibly have tried to verify the content of this paragraph. A list of references is useless if nobody is going to look at them. I can list a dozen magazine articles off the top of my head with little difficulty. If I tell you that these sources suggest that Christopher Columbus was once considered to be the Messiah, there would be no argument raised unless you were to first examine those resources. In addition, if I produce resources that provide you with incorrect data, there would be no argument unless you attempted to verify those references. The fact that this one paragraph was never verified before merging it with the general article represents the only reason that this paragraph has now been published on wikipedia.

The simplest review of the sources used to support this ridiculous addition also support the conclusion that nobody examined any of it before publishing. There are claims made in the paragraph that are not addressed by the resources presented. How exactly could there have been any attempt to verify the claims under these conditions.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but I have provided absolute proof of the fallacies inherent to this case that nobody is willing to assess. And yet the paragraph was merged to the general article without the slightest attempt to verify the contents. Given that the phrase "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" is featured on almost every single page, the refusal of anyone to ensure this qualification is insulting at best.

In any case, you guys do what you want; as I've stated above, I have no desire to produce more arguments to those who refuse to measure the arguments I've already provided. My assessment will depend entirely on the conclusions wikipedia editors have contributed. This far, I haven't seen any willingness at all to prevent the distribution of nonsense in lieu of reliable facts. If this is the best that can be provided, it's hard to understand why wikipedia insists there are policy guidelines to prevent the inclusion of fictional claims, because the egregious neglect of any such application to a couple of sentences easily researched tend to suggest otherwise.

James Carlson— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.70.229 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if my response above wasn't clear. What I meant was that I have no opinion on whether you are right or wrong about the content, just that you are going about it the wrong way. I reverted your change for purely procedural reasons, and not because I disagree with you over the content - you removed cited content, and three separate people contested your change and reverted you. The next stage is to discuss it on the article talk page and seek consensus, not to just insist you are right and make your change again - that constitutes edit warring, and even if you are right, it is not the way to go (and it can even get you blocked from editing). Arguing your case here will make no difference at all - it's a content disagreement, so please seek that consensus on the talk page before you make your change again. Some policy pages that might help are WP:Consensus, WP:BRD and WP:EW. (And please don't be offended, but brevity is often the key to successful discussion - few things turn people off more than large walls of text) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Usurpation

Sir i just want to ask that, the talk page of the previous user name has various entries as older one including signatures, which has now moved to my usurped talk page, tell me how to delete the talk page for this new usurped username to have a new start. I also had asked to the administrator who had me usurped my newly created username which is this only. Good day ----доктор прагматик 16:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope soon i will see you. --доктор прагматик 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about if I change the page to get rid of the old signatures and replace them with the new one, and then erase all the previous versions from the history? That would keep the talk page (it's generally better to keep a record of past discussions), but your old signature would no longer be visible. If that's OK, I think I can do that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems a good solution. Perhaps, i do not know but, cannot i have my talk page with a red link. Please do what ever you feel right. Thanks again --доктор прагматик 17:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I don't see any reason why you can't just have it deleted and start again - I don't see anything in it that anybody would need to keep if you don't want it. So, it's gone! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--доктор прагматик 22:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Realtime admin доктор прагматик 22:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Glossary of 'carny' slang

I have restored the redirect page Glossary of 'carny' slang you speedily deleted under criterion R3 (recently created implausible typos or misnomers). This title has existed since April 2010, when the Carny page was moved there. The page was moved back about an hour before your deletion, but this was not a newly created title. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK - I'd thought it was new, and I saw no glossary at the target -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Paris Giselle

As this is the 6th iteration, I am tempted to afd to get some SALT. I deleted for A7. Creator has not responded to messages. Just reposts under various titles. Dlohcierekim 15:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good - I was just doing some searching and found nothing at all, so I was was thinking of going for A7 (or even G3 hoax) myself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Was prodded as possible hoax. Dlohcierekim

Great minds :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk page, etc

I accidentally moved my user talk page to User talk:Qxukhgiels56/Userpage (2), upon moving my userpage (for the time being). I am requesting that an admin move my TP to the original title.Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Done - see User talk:Qxukhgiels56. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Elsewhere

Perhaps you and Hammersoft could interact on somewhere other than EP's talk page? Having an extended conversation with a third party on an editor's talk page whilst they are away always struck me as rude. Kind of like hosting a party in a neighbor's house while they are away. Nobody Ent 20:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, fair point -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

About Lair paradox.

I checked the sources that was in there before I edited, And it seems it is mantion "Crete"... So I just edited and did not added any new one.

Also, Epimenides was a Cretian. Well, it least in the myths. Ido66667 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. What you need to do is present your reasons for your desired change on the talk page and see what people say - I'll try to have a closer look tomorrow, and will try to offer some comments (it's late here ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay, but yes, you're right, the sources all say "Cretan" - I've changed it back to your version. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sep 2012

GOCE September activities

Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors

A quick reminder of our current events:

  • The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 14 (UTC).
  • The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin.
  • The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

LuLu Restaurant

WHY HAVE YOU DELETED AN ARTICLE THAT WAS SO GOOD AND...DAMN YOU. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPRECIATED! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN! I HATE YOU... YOU ARE THE WORST PERSON EVER!!! 112.204.93.3 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not carry restaurant reviews or other promotional material. Some restaurants can have articles, but only if they satisfy the notability requirements of WP:N, are supported by reliable third party sources (see WP:RS), and are written in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and if you manage to go through life without ever encountering anyone worse than me, you will indeed be blessed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Those weird users

Answered on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Added to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Bhati

you made a mistake by removing my edit. bhati is a very well nown tribe. u can search about it. unfortunately i dont have time to search for citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pk041 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You may be right, but "u can search about it" is not sufficient - if you don't have time to search for a citation to a reliable source, then I'm afraid you can not add it to the article. (You also removed some text that appeared to be sourced, without explanation) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


hey Boing, u need to check about bhatti, what u think what already written is well resourced, i am not admin of wikipedia but i did edit to correct it, and what about much of this page which is deleted by someone. please allow me to say you that you are heavily fucked up. you need to search on Bhati people.

Being abusive is not going to help. If you want to write about Bhati people, then *you* need to find the sources to support your claims - you don't get to write your own stuff and expect other people to go look it up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thorium Scam

Hello. I'd like a 2nd opinion. I just don't see this as meeting WP:CSD#G10. Dlohcierekim 20:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I think you're right. It's only sourced to what looks like a 2-part editorial, so I think there are sourcing problems, but no, I don't think it fits G10. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, and someone else deleted it just as I was writing my reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
OH, well. I don't see it going to DRV. IMHO there's too much expose sensationalism as is and the thing would have probably gone at AFD. Net positive. Dlohcierekim 21:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I agree -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Good catch

Like I said, good catch, I guess that's why you're paid the big bucks :). Callanecc (alt) (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Deeper Christian Life Ministry

Hi Zebedee,

I write in response to your message on my editing to Deeper Christian Life Ministry. My intention is to put on Wikipedia some information that many people want to now about Deeper Christian Life Ministry. I have seen Wikipedia as a rich encyclopedia that provides rich information. I have done that for Deeper life after seeing the beliefs of other Christian groups like Deeper life on Wikipedia ( Wesleyan Church#Beliefs, Church of the Nazarene#Doctrine and beliefs. My intention is to make an accurate information about Deeper life available (their beliefs) and not "proselytizing" as you have accused me. This is indeed not true about me. The editing I did was done with the idea that, many people hear about church names without knowing what they believe and teach. Wikipedia has helped me in recent times when I moved to a new place and wanting to have a foreknowledge of a Christian group (Wesleyan & Nazarene Church) before joining them.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinnagbenz (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, a couple of problems... Firstly, you cannot state religious belief as fact, so you cannot say "God's infallible WORD teaches and we believe...". But the bigger issue is the "beliefs" section itself. There are "beliefs" section in the articles that you link, yes, but they are for major Christian denominations, and are intended to help the reader distinguish between the various denominations and the ways in which they differ. But the list you provided was essentially just a list of mainstream Christian beliefs (which is what we would pretty much expect from a non-denominational church anyway), and we would not include a list of mainstream Christian beliefs in every article about every individual Christian church. If there are any beliefs that are specific to the Deeper Christian Life Ministry or upon which the Ministry specifically focuses, or which distinguish it from mainstream Christian belief, then a short section might be appropriate that sets out those distinguishing beliefs. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Swaram Sahay Society Wiki Page

Hi Boing,

Can you please let me know the reason why the page was deleted?

I have made the page in such a way that there is no promotion of the Organization.

Please share your inputs to make my page live in wiki.

Thanks, Hari T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari.viggu (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I thought there were a number of problems...
  • You may have tried to write it in a non-promotional way, but I'm afraid you did not succeed. It was very clearly written in the style of a marketing/publicity document, and not in the way an independent writer would write about an organization. A well-written article would describe an organization in a dispassionate and purely descriptive way, and not in the emotive way this one was written.
  • There were no sources provided and no notability shown - an article about an organization would need to be supported by reliable independent sources, writing about the organization in a non-trivial way (see WP:ORG for the notability requirements for organizations, and WP:RS for sourcing requirements).
  • It was in Wikipedia project space. An article on the organization would be called Swaram Sahay Society, not Wikipedia:Swaram sahay society - pages prefixed with "Wikipedia:" are about the project - policies, noticeboards, etc. (But even if named correctly, it would not have survived deletion, for the reasons above).
If your organization is sufficiently notable, I'm sure someone independent will come along and write about it eventually, and we would usually recommend that rather than someone connected with the organization writing it - see WP:COI for Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines for further guidance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Special theory and Qu'ran article

Thanks for correcting my speedy deletion notice on that page. Although I feel that the page should receive some sort of deletion, I didn't really know how to express the reasoning behind it. The notice you posted makes more sense. Cheers. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem - the various deletion mechanisms can be quite confusing ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Boggled

about Pikachu321 - did you read the edits Joe Decker applied revdel to? Peridon (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I did. I'm reasonably familiar with the "User A" and "User B" in question, and I don't see anything suspicious about the rename - one account's user page redirects to the other anyway, so it's no secret, and I don't see any evidence to suggest he's socking anywhere else. I guess it's possible Pikachu321 is User A/B's friend as he claims, but I don't think it's relevant - Pikachu321 told us he's very young on one of his accounts, and User A/B is significantly older, so I think he's just too immature to know what he's doing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Talk:Redheugh Gardens War Memorial

Legal threat collapsed and ignored
I am afraid that unless you restore the entirely reasonable request made by myself in the Talk Page as cited and now together with other contributions removed by yourself (Sir or Madam and whoever you in fact happen to be) you are certainly yourself going within a reasonable period of time (I suggest a fortnight) to be brought to the attention of Wikipedia control and if necessary both the local auhority itself and the related courts under the provisions of the legislation that had been cited (it is of course possible that what has been said in the article will itself and in any event be duly modified in the form requested but this seems unlikely I am sorry to say).

I can assure you that even if nothing happens so far as your various (I myself believe completely ridiculous) actions are concerned within these present conditions relating to the correct provision of information concerning the people of this country within Wikipedia as I have cited in relation to Redheugh Gardens War Memorial YOU WILL YOURSELF INDEED BE LIABLE (assuming of couse that you can be identified at all and if you cannot, then the peculiar character of Wikipedia, in complete contradiction to what is necessary in point of law, will have to be brought to the attention of the relevant governmental or legal parties both in the domestic and in an international form by myself I am afraid, since it is evidently extremely dangerous in all sorts of ways, as is now seems to be made perfectly clear).

I shall never forget the amount of time and trouble you in Wikipedia are now causing me in addition to all the others with whom I have been trying to get these matters sorted out for years without any success whatsoever I am sorry to say. I repeat that in the end it will have take the form of publication and information at an international level, with, in the first instance, due information to the United Kingdom monarchy, this being something which I hope will itself provide the necessary advice to all concerned.

Peter Judge

Zala

Hello I am ZALA Rajput And My Source for The Detail Is Here below

Chek my blog : - http://www.bastwa.ewebsite.com/articles/history-of-jhala-rajput.html

Ane Here also http://zalahistory.blogspot.in/

This All The Detail Is Perfect And I Want To You Mention In the history Of Jhala Rajput

Thanks And With Regards

I Am Sending Same Detail

First, please don't copy entire draft articles here to my talk page. Just a link will do, like this - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ZALA RAJPUT. But that draft article is no use for verification anyway, as it is also completely unsourced. Please read WP:RS and WP:CITE - if you want to add material to an article, you need to provide citations to reliable sources that support everything that is added, and blogs cannot be used as sources - anyone can write anything they want in a blog, with no verification. And we cannot simply accept your personal word that "All The Detail Is Perfect" - that's not a slur on you, but we cannot build a useful encyclopedia by just accepting everyone's claim for everything unless they supply reliable support. Further, you should not write Wikipedia articles by just copying material from elsewhere, you should write it in a concise form in your own words, and you should follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Seriously, you really should spend a little time reading and understanding WP:RS and WP:V. And if you need further help, I suggest you ask the folks at WP:Wikiproject India. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Doncsecz's block

Hello Boing! said Zebedee,

It is not true that Doncsecz is a sock account. He admitted it but his English would have yet to be improved so that he could convey any information in understandable English. A few days ago, he received a block for a duration of 24 hours for edit warring. Then he began sockpuppetting in order to evade it. Afterwards he received an indef-block on the grounds that he could be a (possible) sockpuppet of a banned user.

The matter is that : if he is not a sockpuppet of a banned user, then he does not deserve an indef-block, and hence, it should be possible to reduce ,say, to one month. Personally, I do think so that Doncsecz is a sockpuppet of a banned user, and therefore, I asked administrator DeltaQuad on his talk page (it was him who made this statement about Doncsecz origanally) to reconsider it. And DeltaQuad promised me to do so if he has time.--Nmate (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure - I'm not stopping him appealing against what he was actually blocked for, but I could not accept an unblock request that did not address it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy 5th Wikipedia Anniversary to you :)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee :) Greetings on your (belated) 5th Wikipedia Anniversary since your joining of Wikipedia on 4 September, 2007! Best Wishes. Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Very kind, thank you :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
  • Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 19 have copy-edited at least one article, about the same as the last drive. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
  • Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—August, September, and October 2011—by about 44%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 58 articles so far, to around 2600 articles. The biggest difference between this drive and the previous one is a stronger focus on large articles, so total word counts are still comparable.
  • Don't forget about the Copy Edit of the Month contests! Voting for the August contest has been extended through the end of the month. You don't have to make a submission to vote!
>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Offer to protect my user pages

Hi, I'll take you up on your offer to protect my user page - and then you won't have to do any more clean-up.

I realized at the time that making the edits I made this morning to the article might swirl things up again, but it just seemed the right thing to do - and it was presented in a way I could understand. But enough is enough. Thanks for all you've done, I would most appreciate my user page being protected.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've put a 3-month semi-protection on your user page and talk page, so unregistered IP editors will not be able to edit them - you're doing great work and you should not be subject to this harassment. I've also sent a new email to him to explain again that he is banned from editing all Wikipedia pages, including user talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks so much for helping to square things away - and keep things as calm as possible in the process - you're the best! CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind - it's all part of the teamwork effort! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Unblock request of Sadiq Khan.M

User:Sadiq Khan.M, whom you block while ago for copyright violations and general incompetence, might be ready to return to the community. His latest unblock request seems to suggest that he's - finally - got it. I'm putting the unblock on hold whilst awaiting commentary from you and/or Future Perfect, given the history on the page I don't want to unblock him unilaterally myself. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think he's done what was asked of him, and I'd be happy for you to unblock - there'll be eyes on his actions for a while yet, so we can check what he does. -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Duly unleashed upon the community - if you see him step out of line, I have no problem with you slapping another indef on him. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Anne Block

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:220_of_Borg#Anne_Block's talk page. Message added 04:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC).

Inappropriate deletion of "Outline of metaphysics"?

Hi, Outline of metaphysics is shown as a red link in the main contents page at Portal:Contents/Outlines and the deletion log shows that you deleted it with the reason that it duplicates the content of the topic article metaphysics. But one could say the same about any of the "Outline of..." articles compared with their corresponding topic article.

For completeness of the "Outline of ..." hierarchy, an Outline of metaphysics is needed-- perhaps the article you deleted could be improved rather than deleted? Would it be possible to reverse the deletion, or at least just move it to the incubator where it can be worked on?

121.45.223.144 (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It was mis-titled and wasn't an actual Outline at all - it was a personal essay on aspects of metaphysics, God, and all kinds of stuff, and it also appeared to have been based on something from elsewhere (so I should arguably have put a G12 tag in the deletion too, though it wasn't a straight copy). It is not at all suitable as a start point for an Outline. To give you a feel for the tone of it, here's a short extract...

Why do people feel the need to attribute the existence of the universe to a god? I think the unspoken assumption is that something complex, specific and defined, must have some sort of justification. it's hard for us to explain why something is "one way" vs the infinite plausible other ways it could have been, so generally, the human psyche will try to look for a justification. However, god does not solve this problem, because if the universe is created by a god due to it's complexity or one way-ness then the god would also need to be created. God just re introduces the problem and boxes it away somewhere else, it doesn't actually solve the problem. So let's try to tackle the underlying premise that gave rise to our need for a justification...

A genuine Outline would be welcomed - I wish you well with it if you want to give it a go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clarifying-- sounds like deletion was the only merciful thing for it. I might work on a genuine metaphysics outline in the future. Cheers, 121.45.223.144 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Kshatriya

You have twice reverted my edit on Kshatriya. I am not interested in a revert war with you and am not going to update that article.

Just so you know, I was not trying to insert the word in the Devanagari script which is the native script Sanskrit is most commonly written in. Go and have a look at the Devanagari page just so you can know what you are talking about.

IAST is the academic standard for transliterating Sanskrit words into English. All Sanskrit words in Wikipedia are transliterated to English using IAST, that is what I did in this article, and that is what all Sanskrit scholars and academics do in their books.

Kshatriya may be found as an alternative spelling in some dictionaries but that is not the right transliteration, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not wiktionary, so the transliteration should be to an encyclopediac/academic standard.

What is your problem?Srkris (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see User:Sitush/Common#Scripts - I guess that this is the issue. Consensus was to use IPA, not scripts or IAST. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that in addition to a Sanskrit word (transliterated or othewise), there is also an English word "Kshatriya", spelled just like that - look it up in an English dictionary if you don't believe us. So, as this is the English language Wikipedia, we use the English spelling as the primary spelling, not the Sanskrit script, or an IAST/IPA Sanskrit transliteration. They can be added (as Sitush points out, the consensus is to use IPA), but not as the primary spelling - we do not present an IAST/IPA transliteration of the Sanskrit as the primary spelling and then say "and Kshatriya in English". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee/Archive_14&oldid=1086461481"