User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

July 2011

Sincere thanks

So happy to know you are watching the Pattaya article. I am in USA for six months and return to Pattaya in October. As usual up to my neck in work. So double thanks to you. Your contributions are all right on. รัก-ไทย (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I have a bunch of Thailand articles watchlisted and I'm keeping an eye on them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Block request

You previously blocked User:Dbiela8293 for adding the real name of a porn performer to their article. Despite that block and earlier warnings, they did it again. Can you please indef? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done (by a talk-page stalker.) 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And thanks from me too :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

tag removal

hi zebadee, i received the wiki email that you restored my deletion of "john g. zimmerman" to wiki's list of photographers. i would appreciate your help--the reason i deleted the name is because when i added it to wiki's list of photographers the day before (july 1), a tag appeared on john g. zimmerman's wiki page citing partiality and a need for neutrality.i thought that by deleting the addition of his name to the photographer list, the tag on his wiki page would disappear. no such luck.

how can i make the partiality tag on zimmerman's wiki page disappear? why did it appear when i added his name to the photographers' list? thanks, Tesuro1212 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It was just coincidental, and was nothing to do with your adding him to the list. If you look at the issue history of the article, you can see that the tag was manually added by User:Freshacconci, here - and ideally that user would have added an explanation for it to the article's Talk page. Since then, User:Escape Orbit has edited the article to remove some non-neutral ("peacock") terminology and has removed the tag - see here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

incorrect blue link

hi zebedee, i found an incorrect blue biographical link on the page i wrote you about earlier today (july 2, 2.3-tag removal). --instead of a bio of contemporary photographer (John Dominis), the link takes you to a bio of a 19th century person with the same name. could you advise how to correct this? i don't know enough about John Dominis to write a bio myself. i tried adding an exclamation point before the name, which turns the name red, but with an exclamation point in front of it. thank you, Tesuro1212 (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Well spotted. The way to fix a link like that is to "disambiguate" it, so that instead of just the name (which links to the wrong John Dominis, as you discovered), we use something like "[[John Dominis (photographer)|John Dominis]]", which I have now done (it uses the "pipe" character, "|"). What that does is still shows "John Dominis", but will link to an article called "John Dominis (photographer)", like this - John Dominis. It's fine to leave it as a red link until someone comes along and writes an article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". >>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Wilders (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 July 2011

Richard Covert, Mayor of Cork 1662 & 1682

Although the book written by David Dickson, Old world colony: Cork and South Munster, 1630-1830 suggests Richard Covert Alderman of Cork as a huguenot--he was not. He was the son of Richard Covert, merchant of London and Cecily Fettiplace Covert. Richard is stated in Burke's Landed Gentry as such. The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland is another source. In The History of Bandon, Lady Freke's diary ties this Richard to the Covert family of Sussex, Surrey and London.

Richard was married to Christian King, daughter of Nicholas King, gent of Surrey. This Nicholas and Richard jointly owned land after landing in Irleand about 1656. I have contacted the City of Cork archives--they said there is no proof that Richard was a huguenot.

If you need further information, please let me know. Thank you for your consideration

Lynne

<email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaya55 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's not me that needs any information - I know nothing about it and won't be working on it. Every article has its own Talk page for discussing this kind of thing, and all I was saying to you is that that's where you need to discuss it - you should not place discussion *about* the article in the article itself. So what you need to do is present the above stuff on the Talk:Lord Mayor of Cork page rather than here, and if you're confident you have reliable sources to back what you are saying, just correct the article yourself. (By the way, it's best not to leave your email address on people's Talk pages, as it can easily be harvested by spammers) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxer back again

Remember this? We evidently frightened her off for a bit, but not permanently: recently she has tried again. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just knew they'd be back :-) Thanks for letting me know - I'll keep my eyes peeled -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help on the Freedom Debt Relief page. I just wanted to point out, that I do not work for that company. In fact, I've been laid off for 4 months now. =( I just randomly started updating various pages I found and that was one of my first so I just like to update it when I can. However, I did have a question on some of the points Ground101 made. I haven't been trying to suppress legal information at all. In fact, as you can see from my last edit, I added legal information and settlements on there. I actually have more I will be adding (including some licensing information I found on the contrary to what Ground101 said) soon, but I wanted to clarify if this type of information is ok? As you can see from my edit I was trying to make it more wikipedia friendly both content and formatting wise. I've never had to deal with a page vandal before and I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was until another admin pointed it out to me. I just don't want to be accused of doing the same thing so am wanting some clarification. I know your busy, so I appreciate your time. Happy 4th of July too! Elementrider77 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I haven't actually looked at the article and don't really know anything about it - the only thing I addressed was an editor's unblock request, which needed to focus on the sockpuppet charge and not on attacking other editors. If you want help with content additions to the article, the best place to ask is on the article's Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

• In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

• Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

• Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

• Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you've ...

...started admining in this space, could you add List of Nadars to your watchlist? I'm WP:INVOLVED in the article as I've edited it in the past. However, there's a current set of edits that needs monitoring. See the last discussion on the talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've got it watched -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just found the time to check over it, and I've blocked User:Rrjanbiah for 1 week for the personal abuse at Talk:List of Nadars -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, I normally don't pay any attention to those things. I was more concerned about him introducing deliberate errors in the article - changing sourced content to something completely contradictory (he didn't even remove the references for that!) This is one of the few such lists which almost entirely sourced -- took me a while to get rid of all the unsourced bits. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI & accusations of being a paid editor

You may want to see WP:ANI#Muckraking by new user? and the link [1]. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to ANI was 666. Does that extend the conspiracy theory? ;) - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Chuckle - I guess it must, yes! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Syndrome

I don't think it was necessary to Afd this article as you may see here the author removed the speedy tag which is inappropriate. —  Abhishek  ^Talk 19:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know they did, but I was going to decline the CSD anyway as it clearly isn't a blatant hoax, and so G3 was not appropriate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok! —  Abhishek  ^Talk 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Just saw a couple of my edits got revdel'd amongst some others at ANI. What's that about then?Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. They were intermediate edits that I revdel'd to get rid of some personal outing allegedly publishing an editor's Facebook page details - it was nothing you did, but the outing was preserved in your version and other intermediates. My explanation is here. I might be wrong about the revdel, but I thought it best to act on the side of caution -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Fine. I just wondered if I'd accidentally committed some sin! Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

IP edit warring and being disruptiove all over the place

I noticed you just deleted Young Astronauts Club. I was just in the process of bring that situation to ANI. The user(User:CarmygnCanteri(also operating as IP 108.57.29.149) has also sought to hijack the dab page YAC with the same info and are edit warring on U2 to change the nationality of the band. Can you offer any assistance ? Heiro 20:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You noticed they just recreated Young Astronauts Club?Heiro 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And reinserted the edit warring at U2 as their logged in account? I'm at 3rr on these issues with them and dont feel comfortable reverting myself, sorry. Heiro 20:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Young Astronauts Club deleted again and protected against recreation, YAC reverted and protected, U2 reverted and protected, User:CarmygnCanteri indef blocked, User:108.57.29.149 temporarily blocked, and all articles are now on my watchlist - let me know if you see any more -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the cleanup. I think I got all of their others, but on those issues I had reached revert limits. Keep up da good work. Heiro 20:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Teamwork :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Right on. Judging by this [2] and [3], this WP:TRUTH warrior will more than likely be popping back up when their block expires in 2 days. I'm about to be extremely busy IRL for the next few days, so prolly wont be around to watch them. Have fun, lol :-) . Heiro 00:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fun? Yes, right, thanks :-) My eyes are peeled -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Boing!

I am Jamaican and from the last cenus it showed that Portmore has over 300, 000 people while Kingston has far less and since Kingston in within another parish so people usally consider Kingston and St. Andrew as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burning Amber (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide sources to support that, then you can change the article accordingly - but please note that you cannot go on what you believe "people usually consider", only on official numbers and designations -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Dalahäst's talk page.
Message added 06:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dalahäst ^(talk) 06:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Drawers

Boing, at present I think there are four sock drawers. Shannon1488, KondottySultan, SumitKachroo and Prashantv79. The first two we are pretty much on top of (but another article will attract them soon - Ezhava. The third one will need some updating soon based on the contributions. The fourth one will need some matching in that set of articles to actually do a fresh SPI (Utcursch might be of help on that as he has edited in that space before). I'd bet you a month's wages from the Prince that the four aren't related. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think what you suggest is probably right - we'll see what the relist for another CU brings up (and no, I'm not gambling away my hard-earned 12 grand!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, can you add Iyengar to your watchlist. I've had to fully protect the page as there's really nothing but reverts on two sides and the prior protection expired yesterday and the reverts came back again. See the contribution history of the editors involved. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's on the list -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Section

Deleted page of tony knight i set on bio of saint artjunkie new member reported to WIKIPEDIA AND ALSO REPORTING TO POLICE FOR HARRASSMENT THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A VANDALE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.217.194 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 July 2011

Is that like in Martha and the Vandales (Oh no, that's not it, is it?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A self-drive business in Yorkshire? - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that could be it! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

• From the editor: Stepping down

• Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

• News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

• Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Nobel Laureates by university affiliation & Golden Triangle (UK universities)

After receiving your message I took the liberty of addressing it here. The 3-Revert Rule was no longer an issue after last Wednesday. However, I did do a one page edit on one topic webpage and one other page edit on another topic webpage (see: aforesaid title webpages) on Saturday. In addition to that I addressed such issues on talk pages which I didn't believe constituted an edit in the same way as a topic webpage edit that everyone else sees the results of. That being said, censorship of truthful, admittedly accurate and verifiably cited information is wrong and unethical. And you know it. Wikipedia allows a plenitude of contributions so long as such said additions are backed up by verifiable citations. There is nothing more to understand from such a fair policy. Yet, what I have seen was open butchery and censorship of topic webpages in favor of verifiably INCORRECT and uncited or even miscited information. One other editor took the extreme measure of deleting 95% of a topic webpage which is downright unethical and wrong as well. If it isn't censorship, then it certainly doesn't constitute a scholarly contribution either. When I edit such said webpages I will do so more infrequently, but I will not tolerate inaccurate information on an open and free electronic medium that calls itself an encyclopedia, since my english legal training prevents me from doing otherwise.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on your Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Help

Hi! Thanks very much for your help so far with my name change request, as you can see it has been approved. You mentioned on my request that you would be willing to help me out with the article I am trying to write on Forum Invest, which is currently missing third party confirmation to make it credible. If you could take a look at the article and let me know where you think I should start adding and changing things I would be really grateful. I know you're very busy so any help however small will be very appreciated :) thanks! MariaPopovici (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, I'll be happy to help - I've had a quick look at it at User:MariaPopovici/Forum Invest, and it first needs some reliable sources and then needs a bit of rewriting so that people don't see it as too promotional. I'm probably a bit too busy today, but I'll see what I can do over the next few days. If you want to work on it yourself first, I'd suggest the first thing to do would be some web searching to see if you can find anything that satisfies the reliable source requirements - just list whatever you find in the References section and we can convert them to proper refs later. English language sources would be preferable, but Romanian ones would be acceptable too - Google translate does Romanian, and that should be enough to get a basic understanding of a translation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a bunch of links with some text to explain who they relate to. They are mainly in Romanian (sorry about that!) and are news articles about the forums organized by Forum Invest and confirm that the list of people invited actually happened. Are these the type of sources that help with the article? It is quite difficult to find publications to reference, so I hope we are not in dire need of them. Are good quality videos of the conferences a valuable resource? They can confirm that all the people on the list attended the events organized by Forum Invest. I will also add in a section about the founder, his CV almost, take a look if you can and if it is not necessary then let me know and I can remove it. Thanks so much! MariaPopovici (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I won't have time today, but just one important point - Wikipedia relies on notability, so what we want is sources verifying that a topic has been covered in some depth by others, not just that a topic exists and is accurate - have a look at WP:N for notability guidance. A section about the founder might be too much, unless he is independently notable and covered by reliable sources in his own right -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I am going to be away for about 10/14 days so I will not be able to edit much on here. But if you are still willing to help out I will drop you a line when I get back. Is that alright? Thanks for all your help so far! MariaPopovici (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, that would be fine. I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to help this week, but I've been very busy with a lot of other Wikipedia things. I'll try to have a look over the article while you're away - and yes, please let me know when you're back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am back now and will be working on the Forum Invest article this week. I hope that you will be able to help and look over some of the links I have added to support the article, if you have some time. I am also waiting on some links from more notable European Institutions which have mentioned the company so that I can add them as well. I will also work on rewording some of the text so that it does not match the company's website. As usual, any help that you can provide is greatly appreciated, please let me know of any changes I can make to ensure the article complies with all of Wikipedia's regulations. MariaPopovici (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Got myself a problem while I was writing up an SPI

I've been reported by a new user for edit warring on Kurmi. This happened while I was writing up an SPI. Brief outline of circumstances are at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Another possible sock. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I've commented at the 3RR report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It is such a waste of productive time for you, me and others. It seems to be spreading and I am starting to wonder if there may be some sort of offwiki thing going on that basically involves getting people to stalk me. I am not paranoid but they are out to get me. <g> - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please check the timestamp to verify what Sitush has been saying. He was reported earlier for violating 3RR rule, and then he made this report to you and the socket puppet report. Please help. TomPaul67 (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Pssst...in cases like this I think TP redirection per WP:SPI/AI would be appropriate. I rarely do it, but cases like this merit it I think. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Do you think so? I was thinking the duck evidence should be kept easily visible, as he's almost certain to be back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I hold the other view I guess: I think ducks go well with beans! But I understand where you're coming from. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Ducks, beans ... and now elephants. I do not have a memory such as elephants are alleged to have & comparing beans is a necessary act for me. If the beans are hidden in the history of the duck then I would be even less clueful than my present state, or at least put to slightly more work for no reason that I can understand to be necessary. Am I missing something here? The elephant in the room, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  I understand the other view too - balance between spilling them to the miscreant, and leaving them for others to see. I agree it's tricky. Anyway, all this talk is making me hungry - I had beans with breakfast, so I might go to the Chinese takeaway and get some duck (I don't think they do elephant) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  No elephant but they may have some powdered rhino in a brown bag under the counter. Cash only. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm, perhaps not at the end of a long and tiring day. I went for the duck. And from the shop next door, a bottle of wine, which I'm now about to magically turn into an empty bottle - so I will bid thee all a good night -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yadav

There is also likely socking at Yadav. I note your recent revert but the edits immediately before it also removed cited content - I realised that I was way over the limit for reverts & so did nothing about it.

I am inclined to get some other admins involved in these issues. Fut. Perf and Salvio have both stepped in recently & I feel that if we spread the load a little then perhaps the message might start sinking in. Is it ok with you if I float the idea with them? - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely, please - more hands would be very much welcomed at the pump -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And I've reverted further at Yadav -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have contacted both the admins named above. I am also going to be keeping an eye on Amitkumar900, who came out unconnected in the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shannon1488 but I think probably should have been included in the one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sumitkachroo. They have not done many edits yet but the account was created within hours of Sumitkachroo being blocked, they have just responded to a really old article talk page point made by Sumitkachroo & have a another similarity probably best considered to be of the beans variety. Will see what develops. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Already on my list ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping by to let you know I've added the various pages to my watchlist and that I'll be happy to lend a hand when I can, although lately I've not had as much time for Wikipedia as I'd like: when I'm online, I'll be happy to earn my 12 grands too... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks, and much appreciated - I'll pass your name on to our paymaster -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I second those thanks. I wouldn't start ordering your new car or whatever just yet, though, as Prince appears to be more of a pauper when it comes to actually paying out the profits from his rubber plantations. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

edit on Yadav page and inclusion of word 'Shudra'

See i am a Yadav and we are not shudras,the references given on wikipedia page to prove us 'shudra' are totally sense-less and insane nor they are authentic.Its an attempt by some anti-social element who is trying to malign our image.If we were 'shudras' we should have been under 'Schedule Caste' under Indian constitution but we are not under 'Schedule Caste'.Indians have too much importance towards one's caste and 'Yadav' is a very strong caste with atleast 10 billion population in India so dont play with the emotions of these many yadavs.there will be mass boycott of wikipedia by yadavs and if it not corrected then we can take the legal route also through court.A good site like wikipedia ooesnt deserve to spread false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthyadav (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You were told that all you needed to do was explain your concerns on the article Talk page, and provide a reliable source which supports your claims and discredits the sourced material you wanted to remove - then if a consensus agrees with you after discussion, the article can be changed. But you chose instead to make a legal threat, and so I have no option but to indefinitely block your account as per WP:NLT. You will not achieve anything here by threats and bluster, but if you are prepared to withdraw your legal threat and, instead, discuss the issue in a civil and constructive manner at Talk:Yadav, I will be happy to unblock you - please feel free to respond on your Talk page, which I am watching -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as a technical correction, there are only around 1.2 billion people in the whole of India, so there can't be 10 billion Yadav - did you mean 10 million? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sir I want to make a point to you thant Yadavs are large number in population and form one of the largest castes in India. Putting Shudra status hurts sentiments of so many people. They are Aryans and Aryans are not Shudra. Please take this point in view. Some writers may write without much research. I will be thank full to you on behalf of my group. This is a genetic study that shows Yadavs as Aryans( Khaktriya Aryans are not Shudras)

Hey you may unblock this user:Areeb_cool

Areeb786 (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I don't unblock people who are socking, and if I hadn't seen this SPI report I would have simply blocked your new account too - but I'll leave it to its outcome now. If you want to be unblocked, you need to request it on your original account, User:Areeb cool - but this little escapade won't do your chances of success much good -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed on WP:NPOVN

Just in case you care, one of the caste SPAs (this one from Talk:Kurmi) has opened a discussion criticizing the behavior of you, SpacemanSpiff and myself (as "admins", even though I'm not one), as well as Sitush and MatthewVanitas. It's at WP:NPOVN#One sided opinion of Admin and user Sitush and Matthews on the page Kurmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi if you feel like commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what, if anything, I really need to say, but I might make a minor comment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm sure that's a sock of a blocked user. There's one of them who calls MatthewVanitas "Matthews" - I'll need to do some digging to see who it is -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Prashantv79. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Is an SPI on an IP worthwhile? They've avoided the auto-block and checkuser won't link IPs to usernames, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same, but I suspect probably not. And I can't help thinking it might be better to let his NPOVN report run to its conclusion anyway - it should at least demonstrate that he's not going to succeed that way. What's interesting is that IP 174.139.114.107 geolocates to California, and is allocated to "VPLS Inc. d/b/a Krypt Technologies" - an anonymising proxy service, perhaps? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've flagged it in the NPOVN discussion. Someone may want to pursue it.

I notice that Dougweller has commented there, although I have had no response from him regarding the issue that I raised. I might go out and lay a few more bricks - my argh! re: dealing with TT2011 needs to come down a notch. (And the wall needs building: I should take advantage of the lovely weather in Liverpool, problem being that the wall and myself are in Manchester!). - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's quite a nice day here - come over any time :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now a beach on some Caribbean island would suit me fine, but I need to wait for the next payment to come through from Prince. Apparently I am now blackballing people. This is from one of the group of people whom I have previously mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackballing, eh? Is there no end to your depravity? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone saw on my user page that I went to Cambridge Uni & so automatically assumed that means I am familiar with and a participant in the activities of the gentlemen's clubs of London. I don't play golf and I am not a member of the masons, either. BTW, I seem to have moved from Liverpool: one complainant today believed me to be an Indian writing from Japan. I do like to move around. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that Sitush has TP'ed the houses of editors with whom he disagrees, written them fake "secret admirer" letters to convince them to show up for a rendezvous only to be humiliated on hidden camera as they stand there alone in the bar lobby holding a red rose, and on at least two occasions stolen their hubcaps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stealing hubcaps? Hmm, maybe he really is from Liverpool -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(referring to Sitush's comment above) Moved to Japan? Then you should stop by my place. It might be easier to conduct the Cabal activities (btw, do we have a name for our Cabal? I mean, I know we have a real name, but we can't tell people that; I mean, a name suitable for the public) in person rather than by our usual combination of carrier pigeon and cryptic classified ads. In any event, the weather's pretty good here, holding steady around 33, and fireworks season is almost upon us. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yuma Daily Sun

If you had bothered to look at my article, sources I cited, mostly books, used the title with Daily in it. Thus, that seemed to be the right title. Now, you seem to have deleted my article with references...Why would you do that? I would've understood if you'd made the mistake of changing the title but keeping the sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you would like to politely ask me to expand on why you were wrong in what you did, I'll be happy to explain. But if you only want to bluster with your "If you had bothered to look" nonsense, you can go find someone else to help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you remove info with sources? I guess I could've moved the original page with the right title, and edited it with sources, etc. But I saw it after I'd created the right page. Still, I'm sure you'll agree that now the page you left is devoid of sources, with the wrong title, and thus pretty useless.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I can now see what you were trying to do, but you simply went about it the wrong way - and there are very good reasons not to do it the way you did. Now, if you want me to explain further and help you to do it the right way, stop arguing and ask me politely to help you - though I have important things to go and do now, so you'll have to wait until I get back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a Sadomasochism playroom. Pls get back my page with sources and the right title lol.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, please yourself - but should you decide to stop demanding the wrong thing and politely ask for help, you will be welcome here on my Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who deleted a page with the right title and sources. Jesus. Why can't you just do it? I don't have time to argue about this. Just fix it. Do the job. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Because if you want to change the name of an article or change its sources, creating a new one and deleting the old one is THE WRONG WAY TO DO IT! I left you a perfectly friendly message on your Talk page, telling you quite civilly that if you explained what you wanted to do I'd be happy to help. But you responded arrogantly and sarcastically, and have continued in the same vein, and now you have blown your chance of getting any help from me. So go ask someone else for help, or work it out for yourself - just don't bother me here any further -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry I over-reacted a bit yesterday - I've left you some more helpful suggestions over on your Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. All the books I cite have 'daily' in the title though. But I'm not from Yuma, I'm not sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted your userfied copy now. I see what you mean about the title - doing a bit of searching finds quite a lot of sources calling it the "Yuma Daily Sun". I wonder if adjusting the opening sentence to say "The Yuma Sun, often referred to as the Yuma Daily Sun,..." might be a good way to go? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for clarifying about the Talk Page CSD. I was unsure how to handle that. I was not clear if it was appropriate to remove other editor's comments. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 20:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

NP. You were right that something needed to be done, and it did look like it was moved over from when the user was developing the article on their own page. But then some article Talk had been added to it. So I thought it best to remove the earlier user talk and leave the article talk -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Vesey pics

Whatever you did on Commons, I see it worked. If you want to repeat the trick, there is another one here. I meant to point that out in our original discussion, but carelessly linked the first one twice instead. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I'll try and remember what I did and do it again :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

44 sections of discussion over 1 word

It's somewhat vexing to realise that, just on Talk:Kurmi we have 44 sections almost entirely dealing with the inclusion of the word Shudra, and it would be far worse were it not for the frequent barring of IPs from the articlespace and even the Talk. It's really not something we can back down on, because there are dozens and dozens more articles which contain inflated Kshatriya claims for labouring castes (note how the old version of Varna (Hinduism had essentially no modern castes of any significance listed as Shudra, but had quite a few listed as Kshatriya despite deep doubts). In the big picture, it'd be great to figure out some sort of way we could tackle the issue in a manner other than laborious house-to-house fighting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2011_land_acquisition_protests_in_Uttar_Pradesh - unbelievable. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, yes, I think we do need to do something about it - just not sure what -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that the first point is to determine whether the problem is the article or the contributors. Since the only significant debate regarding the article has be in relation to the shudra/kshatriya situation, and since the arguments for change clearly fail to meet the various policies and guidelines, we can eliminate that side of things. It is not just you, me and MV because Qwyrxian has also commented in a broad "it's ok as it is" message, Jnorton7558 has refused a request to change on RS grounds, Tnxman307 & Avicennasis refused a request of grounds of vaguity/non-RS etc. Plus, of course there have been proven socks & almost certain meats on the other "side".

The debate, particularly with TT2011 and Yogesh, continues to rumble on across various forums/talk pages and has developed a life of its own at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. In pretty much all of the places where the debate has occurred, it has been initiated by the same small group from the other "side" & is tendentious beyond belief. There have also been various warnings issued, all to people from that "side". We know that group of people have real issues with systemic bias etc and that is an opinion which they are entitled to hold, but the problem is that they cannot leave the bone alone, often fail to understand and/or accept policy, ignore suggestions that they take the matter to an appropriate forum where they really could get their grievances heard, considered, and generally have been plain disruptive.

Should the matter arise once more then I am tempted to go the ANI route, on the grounds of disruption and competence. One person on that "side" has already received a topic ban from Indian history articles etc but appears to continue to support generally in the background (this is Zuggernaut), and some form of limited topic ban for the others may soon be appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's too complex for AN/I, and as it's multiple people it isn't appropriate for RFC/U - maybe we need to ask on AN for advice on the best avenue? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The complexity concerns me, wherever it goes. But it is looking like it does need to go somewhere. There have been a fair few admins involved around the fringes of this already but I am unsure how familiar they are with the detail of events. Will AN understand the complexities any better than ANI? Or have I misunderstood your point? Apart from the obvious, that is: this is now a lengthy "incident". - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, AN won't understand it any better, and I'm not expecting people there to be able solve the problem - I'm only suggesting that we ask for suggestions there as to how we should go about it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. So I need to draft something up in as neutral a manner as possible and which somehow manages to encapsulate the various issues in a couple of short-ish paragraphs. Yikes. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think a couple of short paras would do, no. I think I'd be tempted to put together something in some detail in user space, then go to AN and ask "Where should we seek help with this?" Hopefully a number of people would endorse it first - I expect I'll be happy to once I've seen it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Started a draft but am holding off because RegentsPark and Salvio have now hatted the ridiculous thread at WT:INDIA, basically telling everyone to take it to the article talk page or DR, which is pretty much what I've been trying to explain for days now. Will see if this brings some order to things. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I noticed Barek has protected Nair too, so we're starting to get a few more admins involved, which can only be a good thing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your userbox

Hi. I'm just letting you know, if you don't mind, I have added your userbox User:Boing! said Zebedee/Userboxes/noadmin to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/User groups. Cheers. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks - I guess I should really have done it myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

• News and notes: WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

• In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

• WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

• Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

• Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder

• Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am falsely accused of vandalism

User:Bevinbell has falsely accused me of vandalism and reverted many of my recent edits. I removed additions made by Norm mit because I saw them as spam; one could agree or disagree with my edits, but they were made in good faith and were not vandalism. I note that you removed one of Norm mit's additions yourself (at Khmer language) and that Bevinbell did not revert you. Could you please explain to Bevinbell that I am not guilty of vandalism? 203.118.185.209 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a comment at their user page (though I believe I was mistaken to remove that link) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was mistaken, do not now beleive that anon was sockpuppet nor vandalizing, honest mistake and unfortunate timing. Bevinbell 07:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bhuggyavbangychanhahandramalanagar

...appears to be a place in India, too (when you search for it, as one of my user pages, not yet moved to main article space pending reliable references). Too many hoaxes, too little time, best to remove unless they can can be verified- Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK - it will need sources though, as you say, or people aren't going to believe it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zuggernaut. Just FYI. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They were clear & I apologised ... but look at this diff at Q's RfA]. This is never-ending. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I was surprised by the SPI outcome, but it's good to know one way or another. And wasn't Qwyrxian's answer good? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cookies for Advice...

Well, even though my talk page may be changing later, here is a good reward that will give you a break...

		Cookies!
		CHAK 001 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. You deserve some cookies since I felt that your judgement discussed from earlier seems appropriate in general. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 08:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's kind, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Artbitrary heading

--Bampublore (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)one user is abusing me please help me , please check my talk page . --Bampublore (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)--Bampublore (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really see any abuse, but I do see a lot of confusion and misunderstandings over basic issues. I suggest you take a break from editing and have a good read over the links in the Welcome message at the top of your Talk page - that should help you better understand the Wikipedia way of doing things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems may be spreading

This diff, and a previous removal of cited info, at Nambudiri involve someone who has had some involvement with the current group of India-related contributors. For now, I have left a note at Talk:Nambudiri#Origin and will leave it for a couple of days to give a chance for replies. Fortunately, since the Nambudiri community are indubitably Brahmins, the shudra issue is not going to rear its head. However, I rather think that oversight may be required. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's on my watchlist -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi article

Thanks for the message above the edit box. It is really astounding to see a message pop up when I opened the edit box. I hope you don't mind me disturbing you, but I do think that I should inform you about this. I have reported Sitush at WP/ANI and also mentioned you in the report.-MangoWong (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Extremely graphic ethnic squabbling (anti-Pashtun)

This IP has posted a thinly-veiled threat about "militias" and then an extremely coarse mockery about predicted future Pashtun suffering in Afghanistan (which I imagine looks even worse through South Asian eyes than through Anglo). Is this enough to just block off his IP, or anything really to be done for someone we can't easily pin down? My post here covers his diffs: User talk:84.59.190.210 MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours and done a RevDel on the intermediate edits - please let me know if you see it happen again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no way, at my level, that I can put a User on my Watchlist, is there? I've had folks messing around where I'd really like to know when they edit, since I see blantant patterns of poor editing, but without a way to track them it's hard to check back in on them, especially if they go dormant and then return to disruption later. More an issue with regs than IPs, but still. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, nobody can watch a user - what I do is bookmark their contributions page and check a couple of times a day -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is sort of what MW has done for you (BsZ) and other admins involved in the recent palaver, except he has sandboxed it. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it. I don't mind really - everything I do is open for all to see -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I was just pointing out that there is more than one way to do it. Happen I think MW's method is a little overcomplicated but s/he'll probably have reasons for it. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this

Please look at this edit[4], could you take some action on such insults to (a)India (b)Indian editors (c)Wikipedia policy makers, a provocative statement, as an admin, please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that does seem to be a bit of a provocative allegation - and I certainly do not agree with the sentiment apparently being expressed. I don't really have time to look at it right now as I'm just off for the evening, and it does require some digging into the background. But I will try to have a look at it tomorrow and offer my thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can provide enough to keep you busy for many evenings. Have a nice weekend.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(unrelated to above) I have pasted the blog link <link to personal attack redacted> on Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner talk pages, fyi.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested ...

... in this. There are some serious accusations being made + another repeat of the blog. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I somehow can't see that promoting those blog accusations is going to result in anything but a boomerang, but we shall have to wait and see - I won't comment there yet (bit busy anyway, but I'd rather sit back first and see what others might have to say) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hello BsZ, I just wanted to let you know you've been mentioned on my talk page, here. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Since 10.28.2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saw your notice at the top. Didn't want you to go through the trouble. What I said: “ Thank you” An editor since 10.28.2010. 01:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin.Thank you also for your careful work providing at least a tiny semblance of reason to the India-caste articles. I will myself continue to act only as an editor in that entire field, and its good to know that we have neutral admins willing to help the attempt to "bring that darkness into the light". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar edit from a recently blocked user

This edit on their talk page is the first since Vikraantkaka was blocked for a couple of days on 11 July. It is baffling (the first 4 characters may be "eyes" ?). Just a little concerned that something may be going on, or about to happen. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Curious - I'll keep my 3Y3 on it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Now deleted and protesting innocence. Again. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking Yogesh to ANI

Greetings Zeb, once I get some time this evening I'll be filing an ANI on Yogesh. Today he brough up "that blog" again, and despite his coy claims "I'm not saying it's true, it's just important to see how WP's credibility is damaged", he clearly implies that you, Sitush, CT, and I are under investigation by Jimbo and will get our comeuppance. Basically still clearly using the blog to undermine others. Also still throwing around vague accusations (bias, grudge, incompetence) that any legit editor would take to ANI, but by not doing so and just dragging them up he's being disruptive and basically constantly PAing. Of course, he did file an ANI and not a single one of us was criticized by outside editors. I hate to drag you into this since I know now the caste-crufters are claiming you're a pet attack admin and all, but just mentioning in case you want in on the ANI as PA'ed party, especially as YK keeps tossing around claims of "incompetent admin" which again is totally unsat unless you're bringing up an actual ANI (and he did, and it failed). Anyway, here's a discussion which includes some diffs; will try to file ANI later tonight: User_talk:MatthewVanitas#Malaise. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, buddy compared me to the Oslo bomber, then tried to weasel his way out of it being a PA without retracting it in the slighest. Stay classy, Yogesh. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll sleep on it and decide how to respond -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another caste-warrior attack account

Greetings BsZ, there's an account from Oct2010 that did nothing useful for about a week, went dormant, and just woke up to go tamper with templates (unintentionally making huge formatting errors) and make PAs. Can you take a look at this: Special:Contributions/Msreddy004 ?

Recent misbehavior:

• Removing one of Qs comments from my Talk w/o explanation [5]
• Repeatedly dumping the entire RFPP and RPP into pages by messing up the template [6]
• Yes PLEASE BOOT THIS Fool, he is intentionally mis-representing 'Reddy' after several attempts to correct it, I have been following it for quite some time and it appears that this fool lacks a day job.[7]

Xer older posts are kind of entertaining PAs:

• "Ohhh Yet again the d-Bag MatthewVanitas Ranting nonsense".... I would love to agree those claims, but I have asked more than once to prove the reasoning behind marking and locking the classification and I quote "ensure to get a good academic citation to backup what you claim". This time around please come up with a reliable source backed up by academic citation stating that "Reddy's were not kings or are not Kshatriyas" as opposed to your willy-nilly personal preferences without any verifiable publication/citations by or from reputable source(s). Good luck.Msreddy004 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• "@ Matthew Vanitas" - That is exactly my point 'Einstein'. When you do not have evidence to back up what you claim - why have you marked the classification as you please ? That purely show how immature you are and how low your thoughts are. I am sure someone from Reddy Community has taken you for a royal spin and I believe that suits well for a c0ward like yourself. Anyway here are a couple of links - knock your self off. . I am quite sure that is not good enough for you as your soo deep up yours 'you know what' & btw you still have to prove that you are an expert and the unbiased source of your reasoning (if there is ONE) to mark & lock this article's classification. Since you cannot prove otherwise by providing "quote 'reputable footnote'" it should be deleted - "Its very simple" in your own words. Oh BTW I google'd/bing'd & ask'd "Matthew Vanitas" and the result was four letter word starts with an "S" followed by "H" followed "I" and yes - YES you know this and you are RIGHT this ONE TIME , its ending with "T" - how true is that. Have a good day. Msreddy004 (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Reddy-centric SPA that does pretty much nothing but mess with pages and insult people. Thanks for your consideration. I did delete a few of his posts, but only because they were blatant trolling/attacks and would in no way lead to positive discourse, so thought it best to remove the bait from the equation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have a look at this as soon as I get a chance, but it's unlikely to be today now, I'm afraid -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

HELLO

make me da admin nowww. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.65.222 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It's a bigger undertaking than that. See WP:ADMIN - clearly something that you aren't even close to at the moment.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And, erm, you can't be an admin until at least after you've actually registered an account -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

84.59.190.210 is not going to give up

The IP, User:84.59.190.210 is clearly not going to give up with his vandalism and insulting other wikipedians. I won't even bother reverting him as he will not stop. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC))

Hi. I don't actually see any further personal attacks since the block expired - just content changes, which I presume are disputed. And I'm afraid I can't judge content here - you'd be best discussing content changes on the relevant Talk pages, or perhaps consulting an appropriate project Talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. You are not named: this is just so you know, given your heavy involvement. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - having a busy weekend, but I'll pop over and offer what I can asap -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - moved from WP:AN per request of Fowler&fowler. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi cite format

Any idea why Fowler&fowler might have changed some cites at Kurmi to Harvardnb format but left others as {{cite ...}} format? As I understand it, cite formats once established for an article should not be changed without discussion and they should not be mixed within an article.

Personally, I do not have a problem with Harvardnb but I know that a lot of people do not like it, a lot do not know that it exists, and if changing like this then one might as well go the whole hog and use the citeshort format so beloved at WP:FAC (& which I use if starting a new article). I could ask F&f direct but am not sure of my ground here. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am now sure of my ground - Qwyrxian has in fact made exactly the points that I would have made. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you remove an inflammatory section at Kamma?

Greetings, there's a section at Talk:Kamma (caste), Dumbest Debate on Wikipedia or Dumbest Debate EVER that is just a lengthy ramble by someone presumably taking Philosophy 101 in college, which says nothing really about Kamma but is just a drearily pretentious ramble about how I and another editor aren't brilliantly philosophical enough to see the big picture. It's kind of funny but pointless, but now we're getting IPs replying to it, and getting snotty when told to keep the topic on Kamma. I was going to just remove the chunk and its replies, but didn't want to be accused of CoI as though I were just removing it because it hurt my feelings or something. If you as a neutral admin agree it's non-pertinent, can you chop this unhelpful distraction: Talk:Kamma_(caste)#Dumbest_Debate_on_Wikipedia_or_Dumbest_Debate_EVER.3F.3F.3F.3F ? Thanks!

Removal

Sir, Yadavs has large number of population and form one of the largest castes in India. Putting Shudra status hurts sentiments of so many people. They are Aryans and Aryans are not Shudra. Please take this point in view. Some writers may write without much research. I will be thank full to you on behalf of my group. this is a genetic study that shows Yadavs as Aryans( And Aryans are not Shudras)-- http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-7-28.pdf www.biomedcentral.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitendra dba (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I can only take a neutral point of view, as required by WP:NPOV, and in my capacity as an admin on these articles I cannot offer opinions on the content or validity of actual sources - all I can do is help judge whether policies are being followed or not. Please be aware that Wikipedia only documents what reliable sources say, does not change articles to avoid hurting people's sentiments, and does not engage in any original research or synthesis - which means we cannot make our own new deductions based on combinations of different sources. All of this has been explained many times on the various caste article Talk pages, and if you believe that the people currently working on those articles have not done much research, then you are very much mistaken - as far as I can see, they have researched many books, and have explained their research. You really should read those Talk pages, and their archives, and avoid repeating the same old same old arguments that have been raised before, and you really should revise your claims that editors have not done their research. However, if you now believe you have reliable sources that nobody has managed to uncover so far, which are better than those already presented, then please present them at the relevant article Talk page and try to gain a consensus to support the changes you wish to make - I will not myself take part in the actual content discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Link

The link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrtos (Myrtos Guide) is not a good one, it's a website about Mirtos (Myrtos) near Ierapetra in the Southern part of Crete, what do I see in how to get there ?. Kefalonia Island International Airport is the closest airfield from Myrtos and with the advent of low cost carriers; Kefalonia has got its own round of flights.

Everyone knows that Heraklion is the nearest airport; suggestion for accurate information about Myrtos in South East Crete:

http://www.myrtoscrete.nl/

Ron Vos (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's August Newsletter

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue IV, October 2011 Front Cover • From the editor • General news Membership • August drive results To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Threat of violence/personal attack

It is a little garbled but I think that an IP whom you recently blocked for 24 hours due to a threat of violence has pretty much just done the same thing again at User_talk:MatthewVanitas#3rd_opinion_needed. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again, for a week this time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

once again reporting IP 84.59.190.210

I reported this IP few days ago, but you said he was not making personal attacks. Here we are with personal attacks in Persian language. Forget about the Persian parts, here is the English one. I will quote it "give order to my uncles and cousins the execution of Pashtuns in the entire northern Afghanistan..."

Not only that, he is clearly vandalizing topics - it is not about content dispute.

• Lashkargah District - the IP is inserting estimates for Tajik people which do not exist. He is just adding random numbers with no references at all.
• Badghis Province - He is just removing sourced information for no specific reason. (Ketabtoon (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC))

Blocked again, for a week this time, I'll leave others to revert any inappropriate content changes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Gobbleswoggler

Hi, does this (combined with the IP's other edits) look suspicious to you? --BelovedFreak 13:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks like he's editing logged-out to evade his block, and has given the game away by making an edit on his Talk page - I've blocked the IP and informed him at User talk:Gobbleswoggler -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jat people

Any chance of semi-protecting Talk:Jat people for a couple of days? Someone IP hopping over a big range (or it is a co-ordinated group?) is inserting/reinserting garbage that amounts to an attack on the Jat community. I keep undoing it because it is simply gratuitous abuse and WP:NOTFORUM. They may go away if there is a short period of semi-pp. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - 3 days -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I was at 3RR, although might have got away with it due to the IP hopping. You may want to look at the recent activity at User_talk:Ss19751975 - depends how administrative you are feeling right now! Keeping lists such as List of Ezhavas and List of Kongu Vellala Gounders under control is nigh on impossible. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

• Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel

• News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay

• In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news

• WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close

• Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Ezhavas

I realise that you are not around much at the moment but if/when you get the opportunity could you please take a look at List of Ezhavas? There are ongoing issues regarding unlinked/uncited = unverifiable content, but in particular regarding the contributions of Ss19751975. I have tried to explain, tried using templates etc but it seems not to be sinking in. Of course, I may be wrong and I almost certainly have not dealt with Ss19751975 in the optimum way. I may not be an admin but feel free to trout me. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

banned IP continues to vandalize

Hi, sorry to bother you again. Since you know the IP, I came back to you. The IP 84.59.190.210 is evading his block and is editing under the following IP, 188.107.5.219. He continues to vandalize and call for ethnic cleansing here in Wikipedia. Any permanent or long term solution for this? Thank you for your help. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

• Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix

• News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

• In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

• WikiProject report: The Oregonians

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress

• Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

• News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

• In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

• WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

• Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

• Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

• Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

• News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all

• WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport

• Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care

• Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

• Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yadav redux

Just wanted to let you know that I undid your protection of the article talk page as seen here because I semiprotected the main article, and didn't want to have both pages protected at the same time. I admit that I didn't notice that the talk page was protected when I did it. I see you have some history with this article, so feel free to adjust as you see fit. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick reminder of Saturday's wikimeet

Hi Boing, this is just a quick reminder about the Manchester wikimeet this Saturday (17th September). Hope you can still make it. Mike Peel (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A deletion you had performed on Angana P. Chatterji

HI,

Appreciate your comments on Angana P. Chatterji , which you had marked as Libelous , I had referenced the FBI website an the Newsweek article to substantiate that input. I have nothing personal with the concerned individual , but have attended a few talks and realize the message posted on wikipedia is misleading for many without an appropriate background on the source of her funding and association with numerous organizations (now branded terrorist organizations ).

Most of her work is based on the agenda of a specific countries intelligence agency and mis-representation of facts. My main concern is all the trash she generates is now becoming reference material in other publications . I respect & adhere by your values to keep wikipedia clean of prejudice and hence find this borderline mis-representation disturbing.

Really appreciate your time to read my comments, would like any words of wisdom to to start making many of these articles more balanced , as they are currently a propaganda tool with all not so flattering comments being weeded out . thank you . regards MM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manja mali (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

---

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15