About Draft:Pakistan International Public School and CollegeEdit

Hi, I wanted to know about Draft:Pakistan International Public School and College about which you earlier said on talkpage that you'll look into it. After it's move from deletion log to draft space, I tried improving as much I could. Some references I added and other some which I posted in reply on talkpage with mention of the said school. Looking forward to what more could be done. USaamo (t@lk) 13:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@USaamo: Apologies, I'd forgotten about this, and I was just reminded about it when it auto archived. I've pulled it back from archive now, and I'll have a look before the archive bot gets it again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

u inmatureEdit

What's it like to know "u inmature"? :-) Deb (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I imagine it's similar to you being "zeb" :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Hi, you blocked Kitsa127 (talk · contribs) a couple of days ago and that account is now globally locked. But I suspect they're still being disruptive at Chuhra as an anon. No chance of a range block but maybe Chuhra should be semi'd for a bit? - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense. Let's try a week, and if it continues after that let me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see ....Edit

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019Edit

Sorry to trouble you, but I think we're being trolled at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 #One Source to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. The CDC has referred to the content of a preprint, and formed its own conclusions in issuing advice, which is exactly how we expect a secondary source to work. I think that Iluvalar is deliberately refusing to get the point that a secondary source provides the expertise and authority to interpret primary sources, which is why MEDRS requires secondaries. The deliberate attempt to undermine MEDRS in their comments there is apparent. Would you be kind enough to help find a way to avoid any repetition of that behaviour, please? --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother, we are fine. I understand the significance of the CDC. I think RexxS think I want to go rogue and delete the chapter or something. Not sure but I'll figure this out with him. Iluvalar (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
We're a long way from fine. Your latest suggestion implying you think it's acceptable to average two figures from different sources in clear violation of WP:SYNTH makes me even more convinced you need to be reined in. --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've offered a few words, which I hope will be sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. Let's hope so. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chowdhury Irad Ahmed SiddikyEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LennyBernstein (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a lookEdit

here and here Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

When you make a speedy deletion request, it appears at CAT:CSD and will be reviewed in due course - there's no need to ask an individual administrator too. I see both have now been deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Red PhoenixEdit

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

Hahaha! happy days, LindsayHello 07:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
How weird. I have had dealings with a Redphoenix over the last few hours, the latest being this. Definitely not admin material in this case. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thank you for making us smile, Boing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Your feedbackEdit

Good evening to you, can I ask you for feedback whether or not you think I qualify for adminship? Timothy McGuire (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timothy McGuire: I've examined this breakdown of your activity, and I'm sorry to say I don't think you would pass an RfA. Here are the main reasons...
  • You have 5,905 edits, but 4,125 of those are deleted. That includes 1,660 deleted edits to your user page, of accumulated information about supercentenarians, and 1,273 deleted edits to User:Deaths in 2013/sandbox before it was moved/renamed. At one stage your user page held more than 500,000 bytes of assorted supercentenarian stuff. It was eventually deleted in February 2020 under WP:U5, "Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". I have to go back as far as 2015 to find deleted article edits, and then it's things like lists of supercentenarians that have all since been deleted. Finally on this point, most people judging your RfA would not be able to see any of your deleted edits anyway, and many would probably decide solely on your 1,780 live edits (and of those, only 1,408 are to main space). That would almost certainly be seen as insufficient.
  • The second thing is your lack of recent activity, at least in your live edits. You had a burst of activity between 2013 and 2015, but very little since then. Even in the last few months you haven't reached 50 edits per month, and most of those have only been to your user page, again.
  • I think the deleted edits, the user page misuse, and the lack of recent activity would be enough for an RfA to not succeed. But I also think you'd encounter resistance for your singular focus on supercentenarians. Focusing on one specific topic means you can't show the breadth of experience you'd need to pass RfA, and you won't have encountered any Wikipedia policies, disputes, sanctions etc that don't relate to your specific topic. Also, your chosen topic has been a controversial one for some time, and it looks like you've been been working on a lot of material that the community does not believe belongs at Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm sorry to be so negative about your RfA chances, but it's a tough process and I need to be honest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, one other thing that is likely to count against you is your sock block in 2017 which included the use of account names that were clearly personal attacks - I'd completely forgotten about my unblock until I just checked your block log. I obviously think it was right to unblock you, and it was three years ago, but it's not good background for an admin candidate - at least not without having made many contributions since then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


Any chance of some administration regarding this? Edit warring for days now re: unsourced statments. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Forgot heading here but have now added; forgot IPA alert there but have now done that, too. At this rate of errors, I will need a lie-down in a dark room. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Strangely enough, after the few occasions we've met, I've needed a lie-down in a dark room too - though that could be the alcohol, I guess. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Not my excuse today! I'm tiring of having to fix stuff - eg: take a look at User talk:EruTheLord - and perhaps should step back for a couple of hours/days/weeks/months ... years? - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you're doing fine there ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamma pageEdit

[60] Ayres, Alyssa; Oldenburg, Philip (2002). India briefing: quickening the pace of change. This book has been used in Kamma page. I doubt its reliablity also it is superfluous . Kindly remove the citation. EruTheLord (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think a source should be removed and that its removal would be uncontroversial, do it yourself. If you think its removal might be controversial, start a discussion at the article talk page and seek a consensus. If you want help with your doubts on a source's reliability, you can use WP:RSN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


Hi, any chance of you keeping an eye on Jangid? I think there will be a further move without consensus before long. I've left a comment on the article talk page and also on the user talk of the person I have just reverted. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a little list, and I've got it on my list. And a bit of move protection won't do any harm. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Damn, I also think we have some suspicious stuff going on at Chakkala Nair. Going to be another of those days, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Eyes peeled there too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of this but I'm pretty sure it is wrong. I'd guess they were trying to archive in some way because they've cleared their talk page in the past. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, no worries - fixed here. That dark room is going to be beckoning again. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that - I've just deleted the leftover blank talk page as a test. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
But things are still not right - User talk:PinkeshSharma. Hopefully, you're less confused than I am. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ach, yes, I think it's fixed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(and I'll delete the latest leftover redirect shortly, when I'm convinced the latest move has been seen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC))


Hi, there is something wrong about Durgvanshi aside from the terrible sourcing. Someone has just created it but, honestly, the Rajput caste area has been done to death and it is implausible that this one never surfaced before. So, I searched the logs and wonder if this is the same blocked/banned contributor yet again. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted CSD G4. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, the content was uncannily similar to the previous version from April, and someone else independently creating it in almost the exact same form four months later seems unlikely. The new author's account was created several months after the previous author was blocked - though that's CU-stale now. I'd prefer to look a little more closely before I'd go for a block, and I don't have the brainpower for that right now. But I might well come back to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
And Favonian has sock blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I hadn't noticed the sock block. I might ask for speedy of their other creations still in mainspace because they're terrible. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


See Talk:Varya_Rajputs. As with the just-deleted version, practically all of this new version is irrelevant and/or synthesis, including by use of a multitude of supposed synonyms and alternate spellings. It's a while since I've seen such a mess but it looks like the creator has a bit of a knack of doing such. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And the other half of it has appeared at Chaudharies_of_Ambota. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a mess. It's too much for me today, though, as I have other demands on my diminishing number of grey cells. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I've nominated Chaudharies of Ambota at AFD, and I see you've pruned Varya Rajputs quite severely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Very severely, and the one remaining source is dubious for the purpose used. They're building a house of cards, as with the recently deleted article. The sources don't even use the term Varya and they use umpteen other words that may or may not be the same community. I thought Praxicadae had nominated the Choudharies one for CSD but have been out of the loop - mother locked herself out of her garage and so could neither get to her car nor her freezer. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I had to decline it as a G4 as the content had not been present in the deleted article. In fact, there was no mention of Chaudharies in the deleted one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


I've just been so curious what they would pull out of their ass with that one. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, might be time for talk page access to be disabled for that one. Seems to be going nowhere fast... Glen (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Glen really want to see what they pull out for this one though. Then yes, I agree! Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, on my watchlist already :) Glen (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking next blatant lie, revoke TPA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
But really, what are you thinking? "It's not my profile! Someone hacked it!" "someone is framing me!" "331dot is TaffyAU!" Praxidicae (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm TaffyAU! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks GivingEdit

Thanks for your useful information i'm glad you telling me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamilMirchi2 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Some EffortEdit

Though good work done, Making some effort not to frustrate will be added advantage. EzinneAnwuri (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@EzinneAnwuri: I'm not quite sure I understand, but please feel free to ask for help with understanding what Wikipedia is about and how to use it - and please do go back and read my comments on your talk page, which you have removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)