Jump to content

User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

July 2010

macedonia ancient history - not valid

the section you reinstated is wrong. Ancient macedonia of phillip and alexander the great have nothing to do with the current republic of macedonia. These ancient figure were greek. You are mixing two difference cultures and misrepresenting ROM ancient history. It doesnt have ancient history. They arrived in 6AD in the balkan region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not mixing or misrepresenting anything, and I'm not even saying your change is wrong. I'm just asking you (as I said on your talk page) to fill in the edit summary to say why you're removing content - if you remove large portions of content without explanation, people are going to revert it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Andre Birleanu

Hi,

I don't believe my edits were disruptive and I merely sought to correct what were obvious fabrications on a user page. To be frank, I thought Wikipedia was concerned with the accuracy of their articles and it is a bit surprising that I've been threatened with a ban from editing.

Leah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.67.119 (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Making unsourced negative statements about living persons is a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and please note that you were only warned about possibly being blocked because you had ignored repeated requests to stop what you were doing - it's possible you didn't see them as you edited from several different IP addresses. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

RFA Thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated.

--White Shadows There goes another day 17:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That Photo!

Thanks for the revert in Woman on top (sex position). As soon as the protection runs out, some IP pops up and adds the photo. I tried 1 month, then a second one, then User:Ged UK did three months... I've now gone for a year.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why there's such an obsession with it - it's a really poor quality photo too! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section title

thankyou, so when I write any article ,you would correct it yourself but please don't delete it.--Saudahmed66 (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. (And I'm not an admin, so don't worry, I can't delete anything). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your message to me.

Hello there!

I just got this message from you: One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Undead appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.

My contribution was not biased or non-neutral. It is written in the Bible that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, every honest Christian knows that. Nor was it an anti-christian statement, it was factual and accurate. I even provided a citation, you can look it up yourself. Just because the Bible is full of ridiculous fiction doesn't mean my point was non-neutral ;) I didn't make anything up nor did I interpret anything that is not there. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.233.8 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Describing biblical stories as fiction is a non-neutral point of view, as I'm sure you understand (judging by the smiley above). If you have an issue with Christianity, please take it elsewhere and leave it out of Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Blatter

It seems to be correct [1]. Pichpich (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not vadalise sepp blatters webpage. I was making a factual change. Please see the below web page. I would like an apology.

http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/orders_list.asp?show=482 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.18.28 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That SA page appears to have been hacked - his name is not "Bellend"! See FIFA biography Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah that makes more sense. Sorry about that. Pichpich (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I foresee this incident will become more widely known.[2] -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL. I've saved a copy of the SA Presidency web site - it was too good to miss :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Jimmy Pitt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Jimmy Pitt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Sepp Blatter's full name edit

Hi,

Bit unsure why this was removed for "vandalism"? clearly not, clearly not my intention either.

Please justify why you have removed? Did you check the citation to the webpage of the south african presidency? This is new information that should be shared.

Please check my account, no previous history of vandalism either...

Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatboytall (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for using the "vandalism" rollback - I chose the wrong message, because that article has had a lot of vandalism lately. I appreciate you were acting in good faith, but the SA Presidency site is wrong. It is very likely the result of earlier Wikipedia vandalism - see here, and check Blatter's FIFA biography for a more reliable source. (Oh, and do you really think he would have a middle name that is English slang for glans penis?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And the SA site has now been corrected. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BBC Big Screens

Hi,

Instead of reverting back to a very out-dated page I would rather have an explanation or you edit it so that it is what you class as 'less promotional'. Did you even read the last re-edit I did, where I did in fact take out things that can be seen as being promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jowillis (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll reply over on your Talk page, where this conversation started. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

False positive report

The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. —Soap— 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Crisps

The article states at the top that it does not represent a world wide view on the subject. By listing the countries that refer to crisps as crisps it removes a lot of the americanised bias which is rapent throughout the artical please do not remove them unless you have a valid reason... they only serve to improove the article to a worldwide perspective instead of that of the americans.

Also how can it possible be considers unconstuctive. im a new user trying to improve this place, i thought it was supposed to be a community effort yeah you just bite me down and warn me on my first ever edit. when the edit was cleary made to try an improove the article.221.208.50.110 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bite you on your first edit, I warned you after your second edit when you undid my reversion of your first edit - if you disagree with someone reverting your change, you should then discuss it with them and not start an edit war of reversion-reversion. I've commented on the article Talk page, so please take any further discussion there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Palladium boots

You do realize that the one ref is actually a blog, correct? Take that away and it's got nothing. The Red Dwarf connection is more trivia than a claim of notability. I'd bet they weren't even mentioned by name in the show (but can't say for certain, as I'm not sure I've seen every episode). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The point is that a claim for importance has been made - the equipment of armed forces in Indochina. And even if that's not yet supported by good-enough references, I think it's enough to avoid A7 (which is not about unproven notability). If it hasn't sourced its importance claim, then it should be taken to AfD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I primarily wanted to confirm you knew the ref was a blog. Mind if I prod it for more refs? That allows a week for improvement. I'll even notify the creator 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, PROD sounds fine - I'll have a look and see if I can find any references too. (And sorry if my initial summary comments weren't clear). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I have seen every episode of Red Dwarf (numerous times), and you're right - the boots were never mentioned by name :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL I love WP syncronicity. Figures that you'd be able to confirm my bet. I'll hold off on the PROD for a bit in case you come up with something. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm off to bed now and I have a very busy day tomorrow, so it'll be tomorrow evening at the earliest before I have time to search. If you want to PROD first, that'll be fine by me - it might inspire someone else to search. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Or just remove the prod. I'll wait. Nighty-night! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
So, have you had time yet? I'm guessing that you're not still asleep... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, real life got in the way - I've added a note on your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

POV edits

Please do not make edits based on your personal POV. It is not "defamatory to the people pictured to have an implicit allegation of sex tourism made against them" unless you believe sex work is wrong. Since that is a personal viewpoint, it is improper to make edits based solely on that view. With regards to the other editor, you don't know their history; this is an ongoing matter that has been brought to a head by their refusal to "take part in the discussion in a constructive and collegiate manner". I appreciate your input, but you have misread the situation here. Thanks. TJ Black (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to place a warning on my page you should do so on Rak-Tai's as well. Also, it is generally inappropriate to remove editor's comments from an article's talk page. TJ Black (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the huge photo on the talk page - my mistake, should've previewed. TJ Black (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have not made any POV edits, and my change was not based solely on my own view - I have carefully explained my reasoning. My edit was also nothing to do with the "other editor" or their history, as both are irrelevant - my edit was based solely on the photo added. Now, I suggest you assume good faith as required by Wikipedia policy, engage constructively with the discussion yourself, try to achieve consensus, stop accusing others who simply disagree with you of vandalism, stop threatening admin action, and heed my warning about not engaging in edit-warring. Finally, I did not place a warning on Rak-Tai's Talk page, because he has not engaged in edit-warring as far as I have seen - I'm really just trying to help you avoid getting blocked, because I don't want you to lose the ability to have your say. I'm out for the day now, so I'll leave it to others to continue the discussion. Maybe talk later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You might also be aware that failure to assume the assumption of good faith is also a violation of WP policy. And the history is very much relevant, since if you had checked you would see that I've been trying to engage the other editor in discussion, just as you say, and they are the one refusing to engage constructively. For you to view the situation as I am edit warring while Rak-Tai is completely blameless is quite possibly based on your own bias. TJ Black (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Apologies for my delay in getting back to you - real life got in the way. I warned you because you were on the point of violating the WP:3RR rule, and I didn't warn the other editor because he wasn't. I was not doubting your good faith - I was simply acting on your apparent unfamiliarity with the rules. Anyway, I'll have to leave it to others to carry on that discussion, as I'm rather too busy now. Best regards. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

Sir,Fond Greetings.I am back with you after a lapse of nearly three months.I have worked on my article and in the process learnt a great deal,thanks to your initial encouragement and guidance.I have sought deletion review which is pending. May I request you to give my article a re-look and let me have your views.Eagerly awaiting your response.Thanks.Best regards.I have also posted another article - Seemab Akbarabadi.Tarun marwaha (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay - I've been rather busy in real life. I'm pleased to hear you are progressing with your involvement with Wikipedia, and I'll try to have a look at your article - but it might not be for a few more days. Best regards. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

LittleRedWriter

I appreciate your eagerness to help but your "help" caused an editing conflict. I have the "inuse" tag in place for a reason.

Thanks!

LittleRedWriter (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)LittleRedWriter

Ah, sorry, I missed the tag on Raymond E. Fowler - great to see you working on the article! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's OK! I am writing my first full Wikipedia article so I do know I need help. It's frustrating though to go save a page and find an editing conflict. I'll be changing the tag soon so you can edit after that.

Thanks!

LRW —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleRedWriter (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If I can be of any help at all, please do feel free to ask. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Susanna Chung

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Susanna Chung to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for letting me know - it's actually been changed slightly since I tagged it to say she's won an award of some sort, and I wouldn't have gone for CSD if I'd seen that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Perfect Crime (band)

Hi. I was looking at The Perfect Crime (band) just as you PRODded it. I've speedied it under WP:CSD#G10 as it's clearly an attack (I guess that's what you were referring to in the PROD template). I think it's safer to delete it and recreate a decent article later. I've not looked too deeply into whether they're notable or not, but their MySpace profile includes a review from the local BBC so there is potential. I'm not sure the status of the infobox image (File:ThePerfectCrimeMugShot.jpg); the author of the article uploaded it under CC-by-SA, but I suspect this isn't the case. matt (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call - I hadn't even found their Myspace, so I didn't know whether they actually existed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi (Kingdom of Sardinia and Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica)

Hi Boing. I'm unhappy of this situation. I reverted the IP/fictious user edits considering they had evident vandalistic goals. I'll hope you'll help me to solve this situation. By!--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I suggested in my latest message to you, please discuss any disagreement you have about the articles' content on the appropriate Talk page. I'm sure your intentions are honourable, but a continuing war of reversion after reversion is only going to get the two of you blocked from editing. I'm afraid I can't help with the content dispute myself, as it is a subject I know nothing about - but if you discuss it on the Talk page you should hopefully get some help from more knowledgeable people. (But I will keep an eye on the pages, and I will deal with any obvious vandalism if I see any). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've no problem to speak about the topic. The problem is that the IP/user's goal are not clear, for the moment I did not create more than vandalisms (especially in the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica). To start a talk, the positions of the other user must be explained by him. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't care who starts the discussion. I also really don't care too much about who is right and who is wrong - I'm just warning you that if you get into a reversion war over a content dispute, you will both end up blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
And you will be pleased to know that the other editor in the dispute has now been blocked indefinitely, so it look like it is all settled - see User talk:TonyTamTam. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

GoldVillage

Thanks for your report on User:GoldVillage at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have decided to give the editor a final warning, but I really do mean final: one more incident and I will be happy to block them. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help - I think it's someone genuinely trying to be constructive, but they appear severely lacking in social skills. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, another admin, evidently less tolerant than me, has now indef-blocked the user. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you were right to go for one more chance, but I guess User:GoldVillage can appeal the block - it'll be interesting to see how they go about it this time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Talk:Tandelsham

I have nominated Talk:Tandelsham, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Tandelsham. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, note to self: "Make sure you're nominating an article for deletion, and not its Talk page, or you can end up notifying yourself" :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re endorsed prod at Battlegroup Modern and WWII rules.

Well spotted, I hadn't read it thoroughly enough to see that. Interesting to see that the uploading user has just removed that part: I wonder if they are aware that Wikipedia pages have a history tab? -- roleplayer 13:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so they have - hehe :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Are you an administrator?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. (By the way, there's a nifty little tool here which you can use to check an editor's admin status). Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have considered for a long time nominating you for adminship.What do you think?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It's very kind of you, but it's not something I want to do at this time, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm sure BsZ is flattered, but it's probably best that you focus on learning your way around here before worrying any more about adminship. In general, the community does pay some attention to who nominates candidates for adminship, and a nominator who is currently seeking adoption (or just recently adopted) would not be viewed as positively as a long-standing, respected contributor. That's not to say your efforts aren't appreciated, of course, but again - your best bet is to focus on your own efforts and learning how Wikipedia works.  Frank  |  talk  16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to echo what  Frank  says here. And while my availability is too unpredictable to be able to offer myself as a mentor, I'd be happy to help with any questions you might have regarding Wikipedia policies and practices - just ask here (but be prepared to be patient). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Still, the thought occurs that at some point you might decide it's a sensible idea to get the extra buttons..... well I think it would be FWIW. So if you do fancy running in the near future ... Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Very kind, thanks - I'll certainly keep it in mind for the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Caution on User:Ironwater/Holder of the end

Is it really wise to be trolling on this page? Yes it's fun to add our cute one offs, but let's keep the discourse professional while on the page. Extend all the protections of Wikipedia policy until the MfD gets acted upon. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, do you think it came across as trolling? That wasn't my intention - I meant it as a humorous play on the idea that it was a series that readers were invited to add their own versions to, and I added mine. But if it came across that way, I'll go remove it, because that really wasn't how I meant it. Thanks for the feedback. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It's just kinda trolling to be advocating deleting it with one hand and adding to the list with annother. Hasteur (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, fair point - it was poor judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thaksin

How is he more of a politician than a business man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IheartThailand (talk • contribs) 03:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's as a politician that he is predominantly known, don't you think? And I think he's actually handed over control of his business to family members, hasn't he? I actually have no objection to "businessman" being added, but "politician" should not be removed. If you disagree, please discuss it further on the Talk page, not here, as other people won't be reading this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Campo

My name is Jamin Potamkin. I contributed along with other relatives of mine regarding my uncle Randy. I do not appreciate that people are removing information that has been put up regarding Randy. If Cathy Kent (formerly known as Cathy Boswell, Cathy Campo, Cathy Lee DeFranco) wants to she can add information to the article, but, she can not change facts. I can back up the things that I have written, can back up what my cousin wrote. The things that Cathy wrote don't make sense, and she changed them after they were on the site for over like a year and a half! now i can change and add more information to the listing, in response to the deletions by Srnec Iron, etc.

      • (This article/listing was written/contributed by at least two (2) of Randy Campo's blood relatives. The information contained is accurate and can be backed up and verified. If someone going by the name of Cathy Lee Kent (fka Cathy Boswell, Cathy Campo, Cathy DeFranco) wants to purport that information is not accurate, then add that information, do not, erase information that others have contributed. If others keep changing and erasing information from here regarding Randy Campo, <personal information/claims about other people removed>

now if someone wants to remove information that LOVING relatives of Randy, people that REALLY loved and cared for him, put up to honor his memory you can, but, Randy and Ricky have loving caring relatives that remember them and will continue to monitor the information that is on this wiki site. and let's ask cathy, rita, jess, and matt why none of them ever put any information on this site regarding Randy and only want to change accurate information. furthermore, who the heck are "Srnec", "GrahamHardy" and especially "Ironholds" to change information on here regarding Randy Campo?

Richard Frank Campo (1953-1977)

and just so you can know this is for real and to stop messing with the real blood family of Randy and Ricky, i will give you all my contact information: <personal contact information removed>

please assist in making sure that what the CAMPO family wants up in honor is up there and not what cathy defranco, campo, boswell, kent and rita grazzioso, campo, battaglia concocted up.

sincerely, JMNP (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Jamin

Hi, I'm sorry, but it's got nothing to do with whether what you added was accurate or not, or how much you loved the person - the problem is that you have not provided any sources to demonstrate that the person is sufficiently notable, according to the requirements of WP:N, for an encyclopedia entry. Murder is tragic, and you have my sympathy, but just being murdered on its own is not sufficient notability - and no amount of adding "This is correct and I can comfirm it", or adding personal details (which I have removed from here, as it is not a good idea to post such information) will change that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD of God Hates Us (Avenged Sevenfold song)

Why didn't you just leave the PROD template? -Reconsider! 10:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, that's weird - there wasn't a PROD template there when I started editing to add my AfD, and I didn't get an edit conflict when I saved my change! Had I seen the PROD (or had the software given me an edit conflict as it should have done), I'd have been happy to leave it and support it with a PROD2. Not sure what to do now that the AfD is there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Best to just leave it as AFD, although there's really not much to discuss. -Reconsider! 11:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I saw the recent edits by you and other users. I took out both business man and politician because he is neither. He is known for being a former PM of Thailand, but realistically he is best known as one of the richest fugitives and a wanted man. Therefore, I will agree to leave out both business man and politician. If you insist that he is a politician please explain to me how is he currently a politician? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IheartThailand (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, As I said, please discuss this on the article's Talk page, not here, as there are more than just the two of us interested. I'll start the discussion there, and we'll see what the consensus says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have undone that change, as it doesn't reflect what the man is known for. Furthermore, the proper venue for this discussion is Talk:Thaksin Shinawatra.  Frank  |  talk  21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks  Frank , I've started a discussion at the article Talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you said here "One link per disambig - can change it if the place should ever get its own article" and unlinked the redlinked entry in the dab page. As I understand it, the rule is "One blue link per dab page entry", and redlinked entries like that town are perfectly appropriate, if accompanied by a blue link. See WP:MOSDABRL. PamD (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right - I've reverted my change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!


Stats
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars.

GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July
  • Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest.
  • Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+).
  • The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc.
  • The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono.
  • Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+).
  • The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK.
  • The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey.
  • The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr.
  • The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW.


Gold Star Award

Gold Star Award Leaderboard
Articles Words 5k+ Articles
1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13)
2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8)
3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7)
4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6)
5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5)

Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Smile

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, Kayau has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


You've been popping up quite a lot on my watchlist this week, so I thought I'd give you a smile. I wonder what your username means. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind :-) I thought it was very good of you to offer adoption to Gobbleswoggler - I think you're probably exactly the kind of person who could most help him right now. As for my username, you can find out about it here. Best regards, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian Channels

What is wrong with showing what channel DIY Network is on in Canada on Bell TV. Saying that "This is not about the Canadian channels" when i was clearly just telling people what channel it is on Bell TV, just as it says the channel for DirecTv and Dish Network. Is discriminatory and unjust. (unsigned comment by User:The Spock)

Hi. Rather than being "discriminatory and unjust", there is a whole separate article for DIY Network (Canada), which describes how the network is carried in Canada - there's a hatnote at the top of the DIY Network article that tells you. The article DIY Network is exclusively about the network in the US. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi I'm am sorry for the mixup as I didn't know there was a DIY Network Canada page. I sincerely apologize for my mistake and I hope you accept my apology, thank you for correcting my mistake and showing me the right direction for where to put the TV channel. The Spock
Hey, no problem - it can be hard to find our way around here sometimes. Best regards. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Sigh

He's a kid with a new toy. He's not going to stop and listen till someone takes it away and slaps his hand.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree... Maybe it's time we reported him to ANI and tried to get him blocked until he grows up a bit... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's sad, especially as so many people have tried to help him, but I think you might be right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, maybe not a block, but perhaps a ban on embarking on anything without prior mentor approval? His mentor has already suggested he works on football stubs, but he's completely ignored that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
That would be the perfect solution indeed. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's a bit late here now, but I don't mind putting an ANI together tomorrow morning - unless anyone one feels like doing it this evening (I'll offer my support to it if someone else does). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be perfectly honest with you, I'd prefer it if you started this thread, but that's only because you've kept a closer look on him than I have and you're much less likely to overlook something; but I'll be one of first to support this sanction. ^___^ Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 21:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that makes sense - I'll put it together tomorrow morning (it's 22:42 BST here now, and I'm a bit too tired). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No need to hurry; have a pleasant sleep. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 21:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No need now - see User_talk:Gobbleswoggler#Enough_was_enough_a_long_time_ago. G'night. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Idea

How about a note, as seen in several cases on List of the verified oldest people?  Frank  |  talk  01:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just having a look through Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological) now, and what I see is...

  • Gobbleswoggler 4, shown as failed on June 11 - actually started June 4, closed June 4
  • Gobbleswoggler 3, shown as failed on June 4 - actually started March 7, closed March 7
  • Gobbleswoggler 2, shown as failed on March 7 - actually started Feb 12, procedural close June 4
  • Gobbleswoggler, shown as failed on Feb 11 - actually started Feb 11, closed Feb 11

Looks like 3 and 2 are the wrong way round, and I think 3 should be moved from June 4 to March 7 in the table.

But I'm not sure what to do with Gobbleswoggler 2 - the last Oppose !vote was Feb 17 (which could be seen as its effective failure date - I suspect it was actually untranscluded then), but procedural close wasn't until June 4. I think the options are either to move it to Feb 17 in the table, or just swap 2 and 3 and so move it to June 4, with a note as you suggested. I think I'd prefer Feb 17, as that would show a better chronological table, but I'm really not sure -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DRV

Hello. There is a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4 concerning the restoration of an userfied version of an article on whose AfD you commented. You may be better able to determine than I whether the concerns in the deletion nomination are met. Regards,  Sandstein  06:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been rather tied up with other things this week, but I'll try to find some time to head over there and see what I can do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"massive amount of outsourced trivia"

I work in Geraldo's office. He wrote that himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamanyone (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that might make it a copyright violation too then. But even if not, we don't fill Wikipedia articles with massive lists of trivia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that a copyright violation? Geraldo wrote it, emailed it to me, and asked that it be posted to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamanyone (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a number of problems there. Firstly, Geraldo shouldn't be writing his own article or getting other people to do so, because that's promotion and is not allowed. And secondly, it's still unsourced, and you just saying he wrote it isn't sufficient (see WP:RS to find out about sourcing articles). But it's all moot, because, as I say, Wikipedia articles don't carry massive great lists of trivia - it's an encyclopedia, not Facebook. But if you disagree with me and think you can add all that, you are welcome to start a discussion on the Geraldo Rivera article's Talk page and try to gain a consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Campbell

While I appreciate your concern about potentially libelous comments, please note that the edit I made was taken from the article sourced in the sentence directly preceding my edit. Should I change my edit so that it precedes the source text, instead of following it?

As for the sentence about a diamond industry expert being able to analyze whether a stone is a diamond or not, does that need to be sourced as well? I would have to search the website of the Gemological Institute of America, and/or the Jewelers Vigilance Committee, so please let me know ahead of time before I start the research. --204.246.229.130 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. Yes, if you just arrange it so the citation of the source comes after the information you are adding, that should be fine. I think I'd leave out the bit about a diamond industry expert being able to analyze whether a stone is a diamond or not - it's not because it's unsourced (it's so obvious it doesn't need a source), but because it looks like a personal observation by the editor, and our own observations/reasoning are not allowed (even if correct). If a published source had said it, then it could be added. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! It is intriguing that the location of the stones is still disputed, though, isn't it? I did try looking up a published source about analyzing stones to see if they are diamonds, and also asked someone I know in the industry about whether their origin could be determined. He said that part is sometimes possible, but not an exact science. There is a source cited at the article about the conflict diamonds of the Marange diamond fields, but other than that I wouldn't know where to look. --204.246.229.130 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes - when we can tell which planet a meteorite came from, it seems strange we can't track down a few diamonds. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent point, LOL! I did read that the authorities in South Africa are currently doing an investigation. Surprisingly little has been written at www.kimberleyprocess.com, either. --204.246.229.130 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Big chilli

Thanks for your comment. It also irritated me, and I never heard BKK called by that name. I always read your great edits, and agree with them. Regards, รัก-ไทย (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism

This page was modified to clarify the comments in the article into a neutral context. To use the word "myth" implies it's a made up story and that this is a fact. Narrative or Account better explains this in a neutral way. By putting myth in you will cause readers to take this as fact. Narrative or Account better explains that you are just referring to a given text (Genesis narrative) without any slant on it's validity. I was not experimenting so I did not use the sandbox. The other bit added about light was for clarification also as until it is proven (which it actually never can be) that light was not faster millions of years ago (for example) or that the nature of the universe has changed since then (which again we cannot know or prove otherwise) it is best to have this to avoid a reader taking information as fact when it needs to remain neutral until that fact is established.

I would appreciate the changes be reinserted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.218.96 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The "myth" argument was done to death long ago it has been settled by consensus, and I have no more power to override that consensus than you do. If you don't like it, ask on the article's Talk page and try to get a consensus to change it, but do not unilaterally change it from "myth". If you have any further issues with the content, please discuss them there too - we work by consensus here, and that's the place to try to achieve it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Endofskull's talk page.
Message added 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amrik Virdi‎

"The article has one source." Actually, it doesn't. The "source" is a reference to a book which was written in 1995. The subject of the article was born in 1989. The source is about a gang, not about the subject of the article. It is still, technically, unreferenced... as the source does not corroborate any of the claims. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK - I'll revert my removal of the PROD (and I see our messages crossed in the ether ;-) ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism

Sounds like you think because you have unilateral powers to rollback changes that makes you correct.

There are no references for me to cite as you say in the warnings - I simply changed a few words to put the article in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. You claim I have violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, no, the article has. By saying Myth that is not neutral. It is slanted. An account or narrative is a neutral comment.

The same goes for my other edit. It is not vandalism it is simply making the article neutral as per the point of view policy.

If you want to use the word myth, it should have a disclaimer such as I believe it's a myth, or it is claimed to be a myth or thought to be a myth. The article states it as fact which is not neutral. If you have an article on any topic it must be neutral and this is not. No one has proven the speed of light has not changed for example yet the article speaks as though this is fact. Were you or anyone alive millions of years ago and measured it? No.

Please reconsider your biased ideas here and revert the article back to a neutral state.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.202.221 (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Settling something by consensus does not make it the truth - it just makes it what's agreed upon. So the article still needs to remain neutral.

I never expressed my own opinions into it - I neutralised the wording.

Sorry I don't know how to sign a post.

I clicked New section but it seems to have added my comments to this other thread. Apologies.

124.6.202.221 (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I explained before, there has been much discussion about the use of the term "creation myth", including the actual definition of the word "myth" itself - it does not actually mean "false" or "untrue".
And whether you like it or not, Wikipedia does work by consensus. If you think about it, you'll surely see that it can't work any other way - without consensus, we'd need some overall authority as to what constitutes truth. Is that you? Me? Who?
A change from the current consensus is only possible by having a discussion and attempting to gain a new consensus to change it, and, as I have already explained to you, I don't have the power to do that unilaterally. I reverted your change because it was contrary to the current consensus, not because of any personal opinion. If I reinstated your change, someone else would remove it again - just look at the article's history to see how many times it has happened recently.
As for the speed of light thing, that wasn't the reason I reverted your changes. But the article does seem to have a link to creationist ideas for explaining the "horizon problem", and that seems fuller than your single statement, so I don't think that needs to be added specifically - but again, you are welcome to disagree with me and seek a consensus to reinstate it if you wish.
So, I repeat, if you want to reinstate your changes it will require discussion with far more people than just me, so you will need to take your case to the article's Talk page at Talk:Young Earth creationism.
-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
(PS: Don't worry too much about adding comments to the right section here - as long as you make it clear what you're referring to, I can fix that up. And, as I presume you have discovered, you sign yourself by adding "~~~~" to the end of your comments.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers 124.6.202.221 (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Batista

Apologies for hitting revert twice, the page timed out when I tried to revert and hit it again only to revert my own revert :( Gsp8181 21:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I've done that too - no worries :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cask'n Flagon

Fair enough. (As a cask ale drinker - who uses a pewter tankard - I can't help wondering when there was last a cask of ale on the premises...) Peridon (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yes, I expect that's a very good question :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Bakrasulat,god of doom and master of all weapons

Hello Boing! said Zebedee. I am just letting you know that I deleted Bakrasulat,god of doom and master of all weapons, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks - I wasn't sure enough of bad faith to tag it G3 myself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wet gangrene

I thought that it would be better to redirect it to Gangrene#Wet gangrene, instead of deleting the page; hope you don't mind. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, good thinking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

AZRAEl

im sorry about the changes ive done, i just want to correct those things you put about azrael, to clear it out heres my vision, i study about azrael so heres the record. im very obsess about "angel of death".. thats why i change many sites regarding this kind of issues,hope you will understand my point.

Stories & Records:

1) Azrael is a Hebrew name using Azra (Help) with the "iel" suffix (God). 2) Kaab al Ahbar claimed Azrael was the name of the Angel of Death. 3) This name does not exist in Jewish records for the Angel of Death. 4) This name does not exist in Christian records for the Angel of Death. 5) The Prophet Muhammed did not use this name in the Quran. 6) Kaab al Ahbar is the only known source who provided this name.

and

Shaykh al-Albaani:

This ("the Angel of Death") is what he is called in the Quran. With regard to the name Azrael, which is widely known among the people, there is no basis for this, rather it comes from the Isra'iliyat.

Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen:

"The Angel of Death" is well known by the name Azrael, but this is not correct, rather this was narrated from Jewish sources. So we should not believe in this name, and we should call the one who is appointed over death "the Angel of Death," as Allah called him in the verse:

these is the verse:

The angel of death, who is set over you, will take your souls. Then you shall be brought to your Lord” {al-Sajdah 32:11}

Azrael was not named the Angel of Death in the Quran, or in any other reliable source.

if you want i can give you my study and send it you.. sources dont hesitate to ask me..

-plan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plancable (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's not up to me to approve changes. In fact, I wouldn't know enough on the subject to decide anyway. You will need to discuss this on the article's Talk page, which you can find at Talk:Azrael, rather than here, so that anyone interested can offer their opinions - and then only make changes if you get a consensus there agreeing with you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Website's reliability discussion at BLPN

Hello. Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) raised my BLP edits as an issue at the BLPN (WP:BLPN#The_Giving_Pledge), challenging The Giving Pledge's official website as unreliable. I've been monitoring the BLPN since then, and in an attempt towards progressing towards resolution, listed a comment you made ("Nobody is saying that the charity's list is unreliable") as evidence that you agreed that that TGP's website was reliable. Arthur Rubin disagrees, saying "I don't see any of the editors here other than Protonk (talk · contribs) saying the web site is reliable"— I want a clear resolution of this BLPN issue, and hope you'll continue to participate in the discussion. Thanks. 67.101.7.100 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That discussion is about more than whether the website in question is reliable, so I'd urge those involved to look at the whole picture rather than focusing on that specific point - and sorry, but I don't really have time to get involved any further myself. (Oh, and I did not actually say I thought the site is reliable, just that people were not arguing that it isn't - that's a whole different thing) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I understand, though part of your comment raises a concern. Since the original discussion _was_ whether the website in question can be used as a source in a BLP, it's not clear what to do when the original "plaintiff" expands the complaint. If "look[ing] at the whole picture" now becomes the issue to be resolved, that presents quite a challenge towards resolution, and risks making discussion attrition becoming the mechanism for resolution.
Perhaps you could offer advice. Since you don't want to be involved, let me ask it in a hypothetical way, which doesn't depend upon you needing to assess whether I'm summarizing actual positions accurately. Let say there are three editors agreeing that it is not a BLP issue for one of the three editors to use a primary source as the citation for a simple statement about a living person's pledge to do something charitable. Does that agreement constitute BLPN resolution? If not, what's next? Thanks. 67.101.5.66 (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but as I said, I don't have time to get involved any further. You should air your thoughts in the discussion itself, not here, and try to work towards a consensus. Best regards. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for revert on ANI

My mistake, see - User_talk:Schwyz#August_2010. Schwyz (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, No prob. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

About Kirunaball

Hi Boing!
Would it perhaps be better to send Kirunaball to WP:AfD?
--Shirt58 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that might well be a good idea - an AfD discussion might help to expand on what is needed by way of sources. I would certainly have no objection if you removed my PROD and took it to AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Done.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I've added my comment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sopher99

Hello Boing! Your report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive631#User:Sopher99 has now been archived. I was thinking of warning him, but need to see a list of diffs. E.g. (a) Inappropriate speedies, (b) inappropriate removal of 'unreviewed article' tags. Can't warn him that he may be blocked for doing X again unless there are clear examples that I can present to him of where he has done X in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. I've just looked over Sopher99's edits since our last contact, and they look good to me - I see no further removal of "Unreviewed" templates, and no inappropriate CSD tags - just addition of various tags that look fine. As we have had a response, it looks like communication might finally have gotten through, and I think we might be OK to leave it for now - I'll keep an eye on their contributions and can come back to AN/I later if I need any help (and I'll include diffs for any future errors). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BKK

We seem to share some common ground in both the Wikipedia and our real life environment. Let me know if you are interested in an F2F. --Kudpung (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - I've sent you an email. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello, I am sorry about making the amendments to Osgood-Schlatter's Disease. I did not intend to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I am trying to learn and appreciate your feedback (though it was a bit frightening). I now understand and so have added the treatment with the official references (book - published in paper and electronically ) to the clinical trial, and have made no reference to the sellers page at all. There are millions of kids who can benefit from the treatment, The background is interesting. A mans daughter was cured by Jenny Strickland and they wanted to make this treatment available to most of the worlds children at a very low price, enabling even poor families to benefit. I hope that this time I have done the addition correctly. I am not trying to vandalise Wikipedia...thank you and sorry, Suzanne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzypow (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for letting me know - as long as it doesn't look promotional and it has a reference to a neutral source, it will hopefully fare better - as I'm not an expert in the field, I'll leave it to others to review now. (And sorry if your initial experience here was a bit intimidating - I know how it feels from having some of my own stuff removed in my early days). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Thanks from the GOCE

Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The Raptor You rang?, or SMasters (Talk).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

The answer

Part of the answer to your question can be found in the answer to question #3 here. Killiondude (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks - not sure how I missed those. I've modified my Q -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

User:Sopher99 NPP

Greetings. I noticed you left a note with this user about NPP. The user marked this page patrolled and didn't address any of the major issues it had. In looking at the patrol log, the user moves through things quite quickly. Any ideas on what to do here? Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 20:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this ANI thread. Does that need to be reopened? Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have a look through their contributions a bit later and see if I think a new AN/I report is needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look through their recent contributions, and things do look better than they were, though they are still making mistakes. The most common one now seems to be misuse of the {{unreferenced}} tag. What I think I'm seeing is a keen user who would potentially make a great contributor, but I think they may need some mentoring. I've tried leaving a message again, and will keep a close eye on them over the next few days - if mistakes continue, I'll try again at AN/I and see what they suggest there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. One of the challenges is that the user rarely responds to me (or others), so it's hard to know if s/he understands what I'm getting at. Thanks again. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I create page about local TV?

That MRTV Thailand that I was getting problem in April. I know that I did 4 months ago was nonsense. But can I create that page again? But as you said, sorry, no reliable sources available. Can I create page without reliable sources. I figured out now.--125.25.209.11 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you already know you can not, as you have been told many times - if you can not find reliable sources, you can not create an article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

hello

can you be specific about what you want me to do to verify the page and how I can do so as I am genuinly trying to create this page on wikipedia.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavist (talk • contribs) 09:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I presume you're talking about DJ Prime. I've answered on the article's Talk page, but in case it gets deleted before you have a chance to read it, I'll repeat what I said here:
  • Wikipedia is not a social web site (It's not like Facebook or MySpace, for example). It's an encyclopedia, and only carries articles about notable people. So to justify creating an article about this person, you need to show how he satisfies the criteria set out in WP:BIO, and support any notability claim with reliable references according to WP:RS. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you very much for guiding my hand to make sure I can make the best page possible. I will find the sources and will change the content of the page to look less like a social network wall post and more like a factual article. Sorry for taking up your time with my crappy article, should have known better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavist (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please be aware that even if you write a better quality article, it will probably still be deleted if you can not demonstrate that the person is currently notable - a personal opinion that he has future potential will not be sufficient. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ok

thank you again well informed I shall be Arkavist (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicely signed :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikify Drive

Since you signed up for the September 2010 GOCE event, I wanted to invite you to participate in a similar event: the September 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. In case you didn't know, "Wikification" is the process of formatting articles using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and adding internal links to material. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors. Thanks!

 ℳono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 00:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

This is Marskell

Catch me up. I tale it there's been another RFA transclusion after I went to bed. Dlohcierekim 09:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, transcluded again here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm ready to block for disruption. He says he won't answer more questions 'cause he's going to bed, then tries again after the people he was talking to went to bed. Don't know why Xeno and Rlevse did not WP:ANI; it's only out of my intense respect for them that I have not. Dlohcierekim 09:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Have to say I agree - he's clearly evading all valid attempts to establish his claimed previous ID, so I think he's a fraud. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Malleus and I think Mike thought so too. Xeno has extended an incredible amount of AGF. Dlohcierekim 09:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Vandalism

You have rollbacker rights right? well there is major vandalism on List of countries by number of troops, By user Enok, he changed the entire page by something he created on the sandbox Sopher99 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the editor was actually asked to update the whole page from the most recent International Institute for Strategic Studies report - see Talk:List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops. If you disagree with some of the new numbers, then you should discuss it on the Talk page - but it really doesn't look like vandalism (vandalism isn't just getting things wrong). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sopher99 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

GOCE drive has begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks!

... for the feedback ... responded on my talk. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you say "Go away"

Saying "Go away" is inappropiate. Don't use it. And I'm making movie and do I need reliable sources?--125.25.14.239 (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You can not use Wikipedia for your own non-Wikipedia purposes, and the actions you did on those two pages constitute vandalism. If you continue, your IP address range may be blocked, or the pages you want to edit may be protected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
But if my IP address range is blocked, that means whole continent (South East Asia) is blocked from editing. And how can I make a movie that have Wikipedia in script?--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
And why the warning I got is the last warning? Because you confused with your Thai vandal that vandalized Myanmar Radio and Television article? And what are 3 more warnings I get first?--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't care how you make your movie, and I'm not interested, so please don't bother me with talk about it here. And no, IP address ranges can blocked a lot more selectively than "the whole continent", if necessary. And also no, the warning I gave you was not a final one. I will not reply to you further on this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I gave the final warning. I'll pick this up. GedUK  07:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, cool - you do realise this is one of the Thai IP editors who has been giving us headaches for a very long time regarding TV stations (especially Polish ones, for some reason), don't you? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know much about Polish TV. I'm hardcore of Hungarian, Czech and Slovak. Not Polish. Not that one. Sorry.--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have already investigated and have found Thailand and Poland IP edit warring together. I suggest to lock TVP1 and TVP2 articles forever.--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't discuss this on this talk page, use mine. TVP1 is already protected, and I'm watching TVP2. GedUK  07:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. I will not using this page anymore. I will use yours.--125.25.14.239 (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?!

Obviously, I'm not getting something on the word count script for this month's Copy Editing drive. Would you prompt me a bit......I want to work on some articles.....but I don't know how to make the word count script install? Thanks for any assistance.Buddpaul (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've looked at your vector.js page, and it looks like the script is installed there fine. Once I have it installed, under the Toolbox section in the column over on the left of the page, I see a "Page size" link. Are you sure you've refreshed your browser properly, to flush any cache? Maybe quit and restart the browser? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I got it worked out about 2 minutes after I sent you this! ........thanks anyway. Would you mind doing a 1-minute look-behind on some of my work.......am I doing it right? Am I posting my word count stuff (etc.) correctly? thanks! Buddpaul (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to - off to bed tonight though (it's already 1:30am where I am) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Howdy......you awake yet? Buddpaul (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Really sorry about that - I've been taken ill with some sort of virus and spent the last couple of days in bed. My head's not up to any challenges at the moment and I won't be getting back to copy editing for another day or two, so it might be better if you could get someone else to look over that for you. Sorry again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

October drive

Sorry, guys. The wikification drive has been bumped to October. You might have noticed already, however. I'm amazed how many people came on as soon as I sent out the invite. With a few more, we can easily meet our goal. Just remember. Concentrate your firepower on the 2008 articles, and you should have no problems. Great work! Also, if you have time, please also invite other users to participate. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers. Since you had some involvement with the User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Out of retirement

I thought I would let you know that I've decided to return to Wikipedia, only in a semi-retired state instead of completely retired. Life has somewhat settled down for me, and since I'm ditching pre-calculus I'll have a little more free time on my hands. The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 00:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to hear it :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Daviessimo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of Cambodian singers

On your RFD on User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers article seems to be good on userspace. And you're calling all users kids. This article seems to be edited by American editor, 37 years old and another Thai kid, 12 years old. I have already posted who are who here. And in the notice you said "including some who are kids who have a known history of making unreferenced and unsupportable additions to pages related to SE Asia (and usually having them deleted)." - YOU MEAN ME?? I EDITED BURMESE TV. I've found out the American editor is 37 years old, and not editing pages related to SE Asia (except Vietnam). He interests East European TV. And not 12 year old either. He is Thai and he's 12 years old but he likes Polish TV. I'm adult but I won't tell you how old am I. But I'm younger than you. So you think everyone who are younger than you are kids? (I'm not claiming you're old, but you said you lived in Thailand half of your life, and another place is "25 years", so you're 50 years old, i think, sorry if I'm wrong.)

Can you make the interview of American tomorrow? The best way to make intervie is to leave on the talk page of the article he edited frequently, Vietnam Television and Magyar Televizio (I don't have Hungarian keyboard, sorry). I don't have time to interview because I will be away tomorrow and I will come back on September 10.

By the way, why can't that stay on User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers? We must discuss first, also with that American 37-years. Don't touch List of Cambodian singers and User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers until we finished. I'll have to ask Tw3435, who is perma-banned, via his talk page.--180.180.109.229 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The RFD is only for the redirect left after I moved it to List of Cambodian singers, where I have proposed it for deletion. If you disapprove of my deletion proposal you can contest it by removing the PROD template from the article itself, and I will take it to AFD for discussion instead. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And why should it be in mainspace?--125.25.236.126 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Because that's how encyclopedia articles work - articles go in mainspace. Users can keep work-in-progress articles in their own userspace temporarily while they're working on them, but not permanently - and User:Ganerer is clearly not working on it (and never has been) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
But User:Ganerer/List of computer pranks, why it's there? For 4 years already--125.25.236.126 (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It's being discussed for deletion at MFD, because I thought it seemed like a far poorer candidate for a real article than does List of Cambodian singers, but if it survives MFD it will be moved to mainspace. Either way, move first then nominate for deletion, or nominate for deletion first and move if it survives, the outcome is the same - the article ends up in mainspace or deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not to be in Tw3435's side or anything, but why JohnCD blocked Tw3435? He isn't a vandal. I've checked all his contributions, but he had no edits since March 2010, he only move the page. But why did you call me kid? And why shouldn't these two pages stay in Ganerer?--125.25.236.126 (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
1) Ask JohnCD, not me (but do bear in mind that some of Tw3435's will have been deleted, and you can't see those). 2) I didn't call you kid, as I did not address you personally. 3) I've already explained why the two articles cannot remain in userspace, and if you still don't understand then you'll have to go ask someone else. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Tw3435's edits are sometimes good, and sometimes bad. e.g Tamási Eszter, List of television stations in Crete, List of anchors in channel 7 (Thailand) are all good edits. But after March this year he hasn't edit, only move pages. And I've asked Tw3435, as I see he's not a bot. (He catched me, I lied that he is a bot controlled by a Burmese people). And no more progress with Myanmar articles?--125.25.236.126 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, I'm not interested in discussing Tw3435 here - I've no idea who he or she is, and I had nothing to do with the indef block. If you wish to discuss Tw3435, you'll have to go find someone who cares - I've suggested you ask JohnCD if you want to know more. Now, I think I've explained the situation regarding the two articles quite sufficiently, and if you wish to take part in the deletion discussion process, you know where to do it - not here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Further - stop trying to order me around here, and don't tell me what I can and cannot edit! If you want to say something about any specific articles, say it on their Talk pages, not here, because I'm not the only one with an interest. And if you want to chat to someone, go find somewhere else to do it, and leave my Talk page alone - I will remove anything else you add here, as I did with your last comment, without further reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Concern review

Hi, I'm the 37-year-old (now 38) American. I want to review your concern on List of Cambodian singers, but I was shocked when I clicked on "View history" on User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers page, the edit count is reduced to 3. 2 by you and 1 by "Thai adult" who recently talked to you.

This is a strange one. It was moved to user space In February 2010 by someone who has since been indef blocked for page move vandalism, and I've just moved it back to main space as I see no reason for it having been there (The user whose space it was in, User:Ganerer appears inactive and to have had nothing to do with it). Since then it has been heavily edited by a number of IP editors, including some who are kids who have a known history of making unreferenced and unsupportable additions to pages related to SE Asia (and usually having them deleted). It is completely unreferenced, and one of the IPs even claimed "NO SOURCES NEEDED FOR THIS ARTICLE, IT IS NOT A MAIN ARTICLE" in an edit summary. The whole thing is a mess - I'm sure a good article could be written, but I wouldn't trust a word of what has been written here, and I think deleting it and starting afresh with proper sources is probably the only way to go.

Why not telling them it's Tw3435? And did Tw3435 get indef blocked? Why didn't you let me know? For the reason for having it there, I don't want to talk now. And it seems like Ganerer user doesn't exist. Heavily edited by a number of IP editors - But that's history isn't useful anymore after an anonymous editor has reverted to the old old old version.--125.27.54.210 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss it on the article's Talk page if you have something to say, not here. And if you disagree with my PROD nomination, remove it and we can take it to AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
PS: Because I moved it, the history is now all at List of Cambodian singers. As for User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers, an IP has been messing about with it without understanding about page moves and page histories. I've reverted the IP's change now, so the article and its history is at List of Cambodian singers, and User:Ganerer/List of Cambodian singers is a redirect. And if you want to discuss it, the place to do that is Talk:List of Cambodian singers. (Also, if you expect people to inform you of things like this, you'll need to create a registration - I'm certainly not going to run around trying to track down dynamic IP editors who refuse to register). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reported for speedy deletion. I think I understand what you said. If you can't leave it in userspace. But tell me more why do you have to move it?--125.27.54.210 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And I've reverted you, because there is no valid speedy deletion criterion - your only alternative, if you disagree with PROD, is to go to AfD. Now that you have had your speedy removed, you cannot re-instate it. I've already explained why articles cannot stay in user space indefinitely - see the section above, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And it should be AfD.--125.27.54.210 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well take it to AfD and don't Speedy it then. Or if you don't know how to do that, you can just remove the PROD template (which is a valid way to contest it) and I'll take it to AfD. Oh, and the place to discuss it is Talk:List of Cambodian singers, as you have already been told. I will remove any further discussion that you add here, without reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--125.27.54.210 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Speed Deletion

No Company Did not invented Door Visors.

what i will do is remove my name of the company and only give detail about the Door visors which will be beneficial for public (38.119.107.110 (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)).

Please keep the discussion on the article's Talk page - I'll copy this over there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

St. Bernard's College, Lower Hutt

Hey Im not vandalizing, cameron adams WAS a proffessional bodybuilder and he IS the current principal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cammywammy (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

no that guy has left for a ministry of education thing for 2 years and Cameron Adams is acting principal.

If you think the school web site is wrong, you must provide a reliable reference to prove it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your vandalism on Islam and violence page

What are you calling "hate site"? and how come you vandalize and remove so much data? Nothing is "mine" POV, all is sourced!Barrasita (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A site you linked to is clearly aimed at promoting anti-Islamic hatred, and is not a reliable factual reference for encyclopedic content. Also your additions were clearly very one-sided, and violated Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. And how come I removed it? Because I'm a Wikipedia editor, and we are all here to enforce Wikipedia policy and create a high-quality and balanced encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_4.
Message added 17:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied again. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

GOCE newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!
GOCE September 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs

Participation report — We have 71 participants in the September drive. 95 people signed up for the July drive, and in May we had 36.

Progress report — We have been making solid progress in eliminating the 2008 articles from the backlog so far. If we continue to focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Overall volumes are lower than expected though, with nearly a thousand articles yet to be done if we are to meet our overall target. If you have not yet participated in the drive, we recommend you do so. If each person who signed up edits one article per day from now till the end of the month we can eliminate another 1,065 articles from the backlog. All contributions are appreciated.

Announcement: credit for 10k+ articles — Participants editing a 10k word article may claim credit for two 5k+ articles on the leaderboard. Those that edit a 15k word article may claim credit for three. Regardless, the article is still counted as a single article in the tallies.

Reminder — Articles from the Requests page can be included in your tally, even if they do not have a copy edit tag. This is a great place to go if you are interested in finding a higher quality article to work on.

This newsletter was prepared for the GOCE by Diannaa (Talk), S Masters (talk),  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK, and The Raptor Let's talk.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Guild of Copy Editors at 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks

Boing! said Zebedee, wished to thank you :) Sincerely. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you were successful - congrats! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

About the speedy

Hi, I just want to get your opinion on what to do with the speedy. I created a wikipedia page about the massively-multiplayer online role-playing game Runes of Might and I got a warning on criteria for speedy deletion. I put on hangon (thanks for correcting me with putting it below the speedy), and explained it on the discussion section of the page. The thing is, Runes of Might is actually called Runes of Magic, however, the middle east server had to change the name in to something different. They are the same game but because the servers are different, Runes of Might is been changed. While creating the page I used Runes of Magic information and I added some more information from Runes of Might's own website. At the end, they are the same game called different... Is the Runes of Might page going to be deleted? or what should i do about it? By the way, I work for the company, Tahadi Games FZ-LLC. The reason I created the page is make an awareness about the game for our players and to the ones who would like to know/read about the game. It is not an advertisement, just a brief information on the game, Runes of Might.

Similar thing happened while I was created Tahadi Games wikipedia page yesterday, I got an error saying the content is the same as the website, tahadi.com. True, I used the information which was on the website and added more from my side.. Thanks in advance. Regards, Dilara Kocaer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violadelesseps (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think with the information you've provided, speedy deletion of Runes of Might without a proper discussion would probably be a mistake, so I've removed the speedy tag and opened a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runes of Might (I'm not recommending deletion myself, as I don't know enough about it, but hopefully that discussion will generate some useful thoughts). As for Tahadi/tahadi.com, it is important that Wikipedia does not carry material taken from other sites, as that would be a copyright infringement, so what you would need to do is rewrite it in your own words. Oh, one last thing - as you are involved with the company yourself, you might want to check out Wikipedia's guidelines on avoiding a conflict of interest, at WP:COI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your instant reply and removing the speedy tag. I understand your concerns, so I have explained more on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runes of Might. About Tahadi/tahadi.com, I hope it will be okay if i just rewrite the article, as i said before my intention is definitely not to promote or advertise neither the company nor the game. I have always respected the way wikipedia does its own business and I would never want to violate any of the rules. Regards Dilara. Violadelesseps (talk) 15:06 19 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good - I guess we'll have to leave it to the community now, and see what the consensus is. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

I've made a new ANI notice. Come and discuss --125.25.251.159 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Link available on Tw3435's and Paul 012's talkpage (filer stopped me!)--125.25.251.159 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The AN/I noticeboard is for issues that require admin intervention, not for discussing article content and sources. This is clearly not an admin issue, and so I shall not be discussing it there. (My original AN/I notice was an admin issue, because I needed admin help to stop the disruption that a number of IP editors were causing at the time). If you wish to discuss article content and sources, you should discuss it at the Talk page of the article itself, at Talk:MRTV, though I have no real interest in discussing it myself - my interest extends only to checking that updates are properly sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

About G10

Hi there!

I saw your edit summary and tagging. Although the page was originally an attack page, the criterion does not apply when there is a "good" revision of the page, so there is no need to re-tag a page as an attack page if the attack has been redacted later. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that makes sense, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks!

Hey Thanks!

Yes, I just created a Wikipedia Commons account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman3535 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, Commons does seem to be the best way to do it - I've done my own image uploads that way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

About "Full Name" of Bangkok

Hello, sir/madame

I saw your comment about my last edit in "Full Name" of Bangkok and just doubted your comment mentioning a grammatical error. So can you please let me know to which part it belongs? Like, I edited many parts of the article (Khmer loanword, Thai romanisation, Pali and Sanskrit romanisation, or the simple sentences in English) and do not know in which part the error occurred.

Thanks for your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suasysar (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I should have explained myself - I'm off to bed now because it's late here, but I'll be happy to explain my thinking tomorrow. Best regards. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Replied on User talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Small images

Per your AIV on Sloebs, while fair-use images generally have to be 300px or less to comply with FUC #2, it is indeed far from the only requirement (I blocked him for the usual 24 hours). Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - looks like there's no fair-use justification there to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

About Touch Me and Say

This book is published recently, so I strongly believe that it should not be deleted before giving it a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatin229 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You should explain your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touch Me and Say, not here. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Guido Westerwelle

Homofuerst is indeed vandalism: see the discussion here. The English phrase "the first openly gay person . . ." was already in the article before this repeated vandalism started, as you can see via the history tab. Textorus (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I hadn't spotted the literal translation, thanks. I've got the article watched, so we'll spot any recurrence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Textorus (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK!

(Jonas Bronx (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

I've got a few minutes to spare, so I'm happy to help with a few. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (Jonas Bronx (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC))

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Howard King (referee)

Hi, The Red Avenged user is removing information (sustained, and with sources) without any justification, please be attention.Possible vandalism!!

best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.92.177 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the two of you are engaged in an edit war - I suggest you both stop, and discuss it on the Talk page, or you are both likely to be blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I (as other user's) try to keep the good information available to people. The Red avenged user feels uncomfortable and delete information without reason, I request your attention to the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.92.177 (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You don't need me to do anything here. What you need to do is discuss it on the article's Talk page at Talk:Howard King (referee) - explain why the material you want to add is notable and properly-sourced, and see what consensus the community comes to. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sustained and with sources? What about my sources who say referee Howard King got paid to give an interview, and that UEFA investigated the case and concluded that what he said didn't have nothing that supported it's truth?

Notice this link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article6850176.ece

"No one knows how much corruption there is in football; for obvious reasons, people tend not to discuss it — apart from the occasional whistle-blower. Howard King, the former top-flight referee, did tell salacious tales of being provided with prostitutes and expensive gifts by European clubs on trips abroad but he gave few details"

Few details indicates, information that isn't well supported...Why did only Howard King talk about corruption in football? Maybe because he just wanted to make some money off tabloids like News of the World who is famous for that type of behaviour. Why weren't any clubs banned? He talked of major clubs like the likes of Barcelona, Juventus... If he was banned who banned him? Note that there is only one source that says he got banned, there are 2-3 lesser sites that have a copy paste of the same phrase, I presume that they just copied it from the welsh newspaper site. On the other hand bigger newspapers like timesonline don't have any reference of King's ban on their article, which is odd. Ah and don't forget that this user 95.95.92.177 keeps on editing the wiki with mispelled content and bad editing, the reference of the ban should be put on Life outside football, because if it was truly given, it was when he was a ex-referee already. Bad editing to the bone due to stubbornness and childness...I already thrashed the same user in a forum with the information I have posted here and still he can't accept the facts...

I am going to edit the wiki one more time putting references of both opinions and with the largest number of references available, which aren't many, despite I having a source that gives a detailed recollection of the last decision about Howard King's case, which UEFA concluded that what he said didn't have any support. In my opinion this will never stop, only if you ban one of us, because I have already proved that King's claims were unsupported, here and elsewhere, while user 95.95.92.177 is still clinging on a phrase that isn't very detailed...For me the solution would be reverting the content of the wiki to that of 17 July 2010, where there wasn't any reference of King's ban, nor that of his interview to NOTW, because I can assure you user 95.95.92.177 is still going to edit the wiki, and I can bet that user John HowarKing72 and 95.95.92.177 are the same person, because both of us were discussing this issue during that period on a forum, and the information of King's ban, was available much before, without anyone referring it on his wiki.

Sorry for the inconvenience

11:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Red AvengedRed Avenged (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south-wales-news/merthyr/tm_objectid=16328527&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=ref-king-s-sex-shame-name_page.html
"He admitted accepting vice girls from participating clubs on the eve of crucial European matches and was given a 10-year ban from any involvement with football."
other:
http://worldreferee.com/site/copy.php?linkID=2651&linkType=referee&contextType=bio
"...There was quite some talk about King accepting vice girls from participating clubs on the eve of crucial European matches."
Facts.
He would invent a story to ruin your image? Obviously not.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.92.177 (talk • contribs)
As I have said, the two of you need to discuss your content dispute on the article Talk page and seek consensus there. And if that fails, you will need to move on to the next step in the dispute resolution process - see WP:DR. There's no point whatsoever arguing here, because it is very unlikely that any other interested editors will be reading this page, and I can not judge it here alone - and if you carry on arguing here I will simply remove it. So whichever version each of you think is best, argue your case for it on the Talk page. All I want to do is stop the edit war, and I will pop back later and see if you have stopped (I'm rather too busy at the moment, and have been for the past day). If you are still warring, I will raise an edit war report on the two of you and you may well both end up blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

mahmoud abbas

hey that article you listed for deletion has already been deleted once.think other tag applies no.correct me if wrong.LinguisticGeek 07:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A Speedy or PROD tag cannot be re-added to an article after one has been declined, but it can be added to an article that has been deleted before. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and it isn't about Mahmoud Abbas, it's Abdel Salam Fayyad - an incorrect infobox had been included. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

duh i got confused.btwn it's the same user who created them.thanks for elaborating.LinguisticGeek 07:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I only noticed the problematic infobox after your question prompted me to look again and I've removed it now, so thanks - with an article title like that, I had no idea who he really was at first :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Shilha (disambiguation)

For discussion of the reason this article is needed, see the discussion page on Shilha. I called it a disambiguation page based on observed practice elsewhere on Wikipedia; Romani (disambiguation), for example, links to an article on Robert de Baldoque, who was nicknamed "Romani" but in whose article name "Romani" does not occur. Trying to stuff all this into Shilha language would lead to needless confusion between languages which share nothing in common but not being Arabic and being based in North Africa. However, if you can suggest a name for it other than Shilha (disambiguation), that would be great. - Lameen Souag (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Boing! said Zebedee's Day!

User:Boing! said Zebedee has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Boing! said Zebedee's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Boing! said Zebedee!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I'm almost speechless - many thanks indeed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Public without the l

Hi Boing, I saw you picking up on one of my favourite typos, though I noticed you had to go to file space to find some . I use user:botlaf for that sort of thing - you might want to have a look as it can be quite useful to be able to screen out the false positives. BTW noticed your userbox about RFA, if you ever changed your mind feel free to get in touch. ϢereSpielChequers 14:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just thought "'Public domain' - I bet I'll find some in File space" ;-) I'll have a look at user:botlaf, thanks. And thanks for the RfA offer - I might change my mind in the future and take you up on it, but I've got a few things I've promised myself I'll do first -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Public school and Publication are now in AWB, Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Pubication I've also suggested public domain as it doesn't seem to get false positives. I don't use AWB myself, but if a query doesn't seem to generate false positives I tend to raise it there and focus my attention on the ones that need the ability to filter out safe pages and safe phrases. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Can't use AWB myself though, as I'm a Mac user. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm mostly Linux, so I don't use AWB directly, just indirectly by giving them cases where there are few or no false positives. That way I can concentrate on ones where I need to build up lists of safe pages ad safe phrases - which I gather is the opposite to the way AWB works. ϢereSpielChequers 10:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Re: Vinod Sekhar

Noted on your message. Will attend to it following the guideline soon. Give me two weeks to sort this. The reason of reverting as the page get vandalized quite often. Thanks for taking your time to advice as did not know the guideline on this prior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.24.15 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, you cannot leave that mass of puffery there even for two weeks, so I have reverted it again. A Wikipedia article about a living person is supposed to be a balanced and referenced account of what's notable about them, not an altar of sycophantic praise. So what you need to do is write it in neutral terms, reference every claim, and leave out peacock terms like "one of Malaysia's and South East Asia's most prominent businessmen and philanthropists", "earned his entrepreneurial stripes", "was responsible for some ground breaking businesses", etc - have a look at WP:PEACOCK for some guidance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!

Get ready.

The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin. Prep your keyboards, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please get your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar ". Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!

Regards,

Mono (talk · contribs) and WikiCopter (talk · contribs)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 05:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Are you into Milton Cardona

Wondering. (Spacestoned (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

I have to confess I'd never heard of him -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

changes in US military

did you see this?
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=United_States_armed_forces&oldid=387979724

the person with the IP address 62.240.82.100 put that picture there

then some other person with the IP address 72.130.106.5 removed the picture and the other guy came back and put the picture back up (20:43, 30 September 2010 62.240.82.100 (talk) (44,996 bytes) (Undid revision 387980111 by 72.130.106.5 (talk)) (undo))

Hi. Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee/Archive_6&oldid=1143360325"