User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

July 2016

Hey- why do you think that page wipekart is not valid and tagged for deletion?

I can suggest you a bunch of such pages which is very similar to Wipekart, please let me know why those pages are still on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirajha (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wipekart is clearly a non-notable company, and companies only qualify for articles on Wikipedia if they satisfy the notability requirements at WP:NCORP. It's entirely possible that there are articles for other non-notable companies that have not been identified as such, but as I'm not familiar with all five million plus articles, I don't know which ones they might be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Shalom haverim2

Sockpuppet of globaly baned user Messina. Look at meta for this user--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see - looks like they're globally locked now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Pauline Riolo 1972 Liverpool

Google doesn't support the story. Even if she was murdered, is the crime notable?Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I see one match that claims to be an FOI result that includes her, but there's no attribution and I can find nothing else. I'm not sure it's an obvious outright hoax, but I've nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Guess that LTA!

Hi Boing!, I can't for the life of me remember which LTA it is which makes these edits - you wouldn't happen to remember would you? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I was just scratching my head trying to think too - it's familiar, but I can't place it. Thanks for the revert, btw. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries :) they have helpfully tagged themselves? Not sure what they're up to -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, what strange (though considerate) behaviour. I suppose I'd better block the account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock proposal

Although I am not questioning how you do things, I must ask why that IP (who is really CrazyAces489) you reviewed is able to ask for an unblock? Shouldn't the CrazyAces account ask for an unblock instead? He was blocked for avoiding his original block after all.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I'd simply not really thought through who it was. You're right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, no damage has been done yet. I have no doubt however as soon as that IP is unblocked CrazyAces will continue to use it to avoid his block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Block

Hey, I was wondering if you knew about this username under Exploding Toenails. They are constantly and consistently vandalizing The Challenge pages to what they have never looked like before. And I was wondering if there was any way of blocking them from editing because they won't stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clippers18 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am the one reverting the vandalizing efforts of Clippers18, not the other way around. Clippers18 has been repeatedly vandalizing pages for The Challenge (TV series) and using sock-puppets to circumvent blocks and page protections.

Here are two edit comments made by Clippers18: [1] [2]

Here is another edit comment made by User:2600:1008:b15f:b341:7d4f:d6b3:7912:3116: [3]

And another two by User:2600:1008:b10b:eb8d:edae:5918:31bd:8b09: [4] [5]

And another by User:2600:1008:b147:e982:ac:915d:6b52:3ba9: [6]

And another by User:2600:1008:b150:b112:cc68:3064:7a11:c6a2: [7]

And another by User:2600:1008:b116:a43d:6825:1e94:978e:ce05: [8]

And another by User:2600:1008:b124:6298:b458:67cd:26e8:a1a2: [9]

Based on the nature of these users' edit history and the style/grammar/tone of their comments, it is clear that Clippers18 and the other six users are the same person.

In fact, this user has already been identified as a user who has been blocked for six months.

Knowing this user, they will probably attempt to erase this very edit to this talk page.

— Exploding Toenails (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I don't have the time to investigate this. Someone should be able to help at WP:ANI if you take it there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Boing! said Zebedee: have a gander at the edit history of The Challenge: Rivals II... _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound dismissive (though obviously sounding dismissive nonetheless), but I have no time for and no interest in trivial popular TV - I think mindless pop culture is one of the scourges of Wikipedia and would not be unhappy to see the whole of it nuked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm quite interested in thirty reverts in 24 hours though no worries, _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked the two of them for edit warring - if it continues after the 24-hour blocks expire, someone will probably block them for a lot longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Boing! Sez Me Too :) cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've also given it a 24h protection, as one of them was clearly editing logged out too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

this feller? Good move _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article proposal

Hello Boing! I want to recreate a page named "ALISIA ENCO" that was deleted by you for Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I've gathered my references and I wish to be sure I'm good to go before I create it. Please let me know the best way to do this. Thanks! Mikael Brook (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest the best way to go about it is to use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, where experienced editors will review your proposed draft for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Would like an RFC closure

Hi Boing!, I'm not sure if you participated in this RFC, but if not, would you be able to take a look and see if it can be closed? It's been in progress for a while now, and we could use the judgment of an uninvolved administrator. Admittedly it has gotten rather heated.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, a big contentious RFC on a high-profile issue. It's not the kind of thing I do, sorry. I suggest you ask for a volunteer at WP:AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) When you've dealt with that RfC, could you make your way to Syria and sort that out...? It'll be a helluva lot easier _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Heccccchluuug

I'm not sure how you can justify using WP:R3 for a redirect that's been around since 2004. Last I checked, that's not recent... -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. I thought "hang on, that's only for recent ones" after I'd deleted it, but it's not possible to edit the log. I really didn't think anyone would complain, but seeing as you have, I have now undeleted it and then deleted again it with better reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My talk page

Easily done, don't worry! :-) Haha. --Zero^talk 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Heading

Prove that peter pinko did not invent the printing press! ThePrintingPressPedro (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Any more trolling and you get blocked - consider this a final warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oldtime admins

[10]. And I resent it that you got there with the unblock before I did! Thinking of seeking an emergency pocketing! Bishonen | talk 09:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC).

For once, I was awake and alert at the right time! I was coming to the sad conclusion that an ArbCom report is indeed needed, and I think I'd support an emergency pocketing unless we get a satisfactory response pretty quickly. (I've seen the same kind of page ownership issues with old-timers too.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, no. Yes, it may come to ArbCom if the user doesn't show comprehension of the problem, but I meant an emergency pocketing of you. Bishzilla doesn't like it when hysterically alert people frustrate little 'shonen and steal her thunder. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC).

Ah, me, LOL! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, there's plenty of room in here ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Mail

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.

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Got it and replied. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Email

I've just sent you an email. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

... and another one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got a few emails from both of you. I'm a bit busy now, but I'll reply in the morning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get round to it yesterday, but I've replied now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Anytime you send me an e-mail, please let me know on my Talk page. I have some automated forwarding set up that for some reason doesn't work with your e-mail, so I don't necessarily find out about it in a timely way. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, will do. (YGM, btw ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request said "unblocked" but was denied anyway.

You recently left this on my talk page:

"I think 10 years is more than enough time here, so I have unblocked. Welcome back." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)}}

Was this a mistake? You said you have unblocked, but denied my request. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceTut (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I pasted in the wrong template, but I've fixed it now - I did actually unblock your account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks again! PrinceTut (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No

No, I am not interested in your advice as your ability to even properly interpret the factual circumstances of a situation are prima facie defective (along with most everyone else in that thread)...so your block was completely inappropriate and your revocation of talk page access doubly so. This is not surprising, however, as nearly every admin I've encountered here has objectively displayed an alarming degree of incompetence and poor reasoning skills...But people are trying to do something about this for the betterment of Wikipedia (and hopefully will)..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_few_problems_with_Wikipedia68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fair enough - whether you take my advice is entirely up to you. But please try to avoid making any more personal attacks against your colleagues, as you will be blocked for significantly longer if I see it first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems my suggestion was too late. Oh well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Closure

For your information: [11] The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

99.6.39.34

Revoke talk page access for user:99.6.39.34. 2602:306:3357:BA0:4DB2:920F:8A07:D8CC (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Bruno's talk

User:Boing! said Zebedee I'm sorry? What? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking you to keep away from his talk page while he is blocked - is that really so hard to understand? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose... I'll let it go for now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee, my apologies to you and to User:NeilN who has been seeing a bit too much of me lately as well. The last few weeks it seems, not another day goes by without one or two of these incidents, that get to involve me. I notice now, how that got to me today. Perhaps I need another hobby. Substance abuse springs to mind, but perhaps flower arranging is a better option (that was a joke...). But anyway, I do think that Wikipedia should remain an at least somewhat pleasurable experience for me and at this pace it isn't anymore. I'll see what I have to do about that. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, and sorry if I sounded a bit harsh - I just know how those arguments about that region can go and I wanted to stop it as quickly as possible. You're right about Wikipedia needing to be a pleasurable experience, and trying to keep it that way for content creators is one of the things we admins should always be trying to do. If the current problem continues after the block expires, I'll be keeping an eye on it (and I expect NeilN will too), so the best thing to do is just report anything to us and leave us to deal with it. (And I know it was a joke, but flowers are very nice this time of year - we have some lovely roses this summer ;-). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and all you say is well understood. Flowers are nice and roses certainly are, but I'm more of a vegetable gardener myself actually. Looking forward to rapes, tomatos and broccoli! The leeks died I'm afraid...Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, I noticed a remark on BrunoMed's talkpage where he apologized for using IP addresses. He did that here somewhere. The use of these addresses can be seen here. It is about the numbers 46.188.174.187 and 46.188.225.122. Now I noticed that numbers from the same range, this one and this one and this one and this one and also this one have still been editing articles about Croats in the last two days since BrunoMed was blocked. I'm going to compose an SPI request. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I filed that here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

JohnLloydScharf

Can you revoke User:JohnLloydScharf's talk page access? He's just using it to continue to argue the thing he got banned for. --Tarage (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll just ask another admin to do it. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. If we see any more of it, I think it will be time to seek a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you remove talk page access?

Per this edit for StanTheMan87 - thanks Boing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Done by the wonderful BethNaught, thank you anyways -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you give me some advice re Profile101?

Hello. Considering Profile101 has been using IPs to personally attack editors who have been involved with them, and what with their edits containing more aggressive language as time goes on, would it be a good idea to propose a community ban, or set up a long term abuser page? I decided to ask you for advice, as you are familiar with this user's behaviour. Thanks, --Zero^talk 13:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I generally don't think it's worth doing any of that - it takes up people's time, gives the vandal recognition, and achieves nothing practical. My view is that just reverting and blocking each IP as they appear is as effective as anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks for your input. :-) --Zero^talk 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Revert and DENY; path of least community resources and recognition. Anything other than a gray response could give him a sense of prestige. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Anna Frodesiak - definitely the best thing to do. --Zero^talk 07:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Teo Boban

Hey, I am wondering why article about Teo Boban was not deleted. I am the author and creator of the article and Teo Boban, who is my brother, asked me if I can delete that page. The page was created out of joke and I am shocked that it is still online after more than a year. I am also surprised that everybody can put inaccurate informations on wikipedia without getting deleted in a few days, it is very unprofessional. There is no reason for Teo Boban to have a wikipedia page because he is NOT famous person and majority of information were made up, inaccurate and without any resources. Please delete this page, if you are not able to do that please advise me on what to do next in order to delete it. I really didn't know that it's this hard to delete fake page from wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafael fernandez3624 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The reason it was not deleted is that you had simply tagged it as a request to delete by the author (WP:G7), and that is not applicable for an article that's a year old and has had other editors working on it. If you had tagged it with WP:G3 (hoax) or actually made it clear on the talk page that the article was a fake, then it would have been deleted promptly. Now that you have confessed, I have deleted the article. Please don't do anything like that again. (As for fake articles remaining for a long time, that's one of the big risks of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and it's a major concern that a lot of us share - but the Wikimedia Foundation won't have it any other way.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request unblock of Martinevans123. Thank you. (don't worry, you're not in trouble) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Respectful discourse

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others"

I was respectful in my disagreement with MjolnirPants and he ordered my to believe and obey rather than question and dispute.

You are wrong to call my statement about MjolnirPants a "personal attack" rather than an accusation. I stand by my accusation.

I am the one who attempted respectful discourse; MjolnirPants wouldn't tolerate that. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm stunned that you really appear to believe that your hyperbolic approach to MjolnirPants was respectful. You can be sure that if I see what I judge to be a breach of Wikipedia:ADMINCOND from you again, there will be action taken. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the ANI disscussion I seen eariler. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I endorse BSZ's actions here. Begoon ^talk 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

personal attacks or accusations?

You accused me of a personal attack against another user.

I did not "personally attack" that user; rather I accused that user of abusive behavior and in particular of bullying. I stand by my accusation.

If my accusation of abusive behavior and in particular of bullying is a "personal attack", then why is your accusation against me not likewise a "personal attack". Is there such a thing as _accusing_ without _personally attacking_ when you are the one who does it, but not when I am the one who does it?

I insist on honesty in this: I have as much right as you to assert a truthful accusation when that is necessary to defend myself. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael, seriously, you are not doing yourself any favors by continuing to pursue this. Please for your own sake just let this go. You can think of it as "being the bigger man." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Bullying is an personal attack and should not be tolerated. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael, I implore you, listen to what *everyone* is telling you - when you're on one side and everyone else is on the other, you need to consider the likelihood that it is *you* who's wrong, not everyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Boing!, with regards to the ArbCom case, do you mean "I am in good health", as opposed to "I am in rude health"? Zero^talk 19:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a British English idiom - see here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it - my apologies! I am not very good with idioms, but I too am British. :-) Zero^talk 20:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hehe ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Boing!, I fear you've gone and muddied the waters. Apparently, Michael was going around telling everyone what a fine chap I am. Sorry for the lame joke, but this situation seems in dire need of more levity... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that's a new one on me ("probably from Middle Dutch boele lover" - ooh, er ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Page Recreation

Hello, I want to recreate the Shri Rang Avadhoot wiki page with new content and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jydppatel (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Provided the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements (see WP:N), the article is supported by independent reliable sources (see WP:RS), and is written entirely in your own words without any copying from elsewhere (see WP:COPYRIGHT), that should be fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for suggest. I will create it with my own words but entire information of the page should be same(10%) with old page(like a birth, education and family information). I hope you will suggest me in future. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jydppatel (talk • contribs) 13:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted your latest version as another copyright violation, and I have outlined the conditions necessary for you to be allowed to write that article on your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This page is not contain copy content. I take it from my own words. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jydppatel (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You just copied from the same source again! If you feel like listening, you can request unblock on your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Rev'Del'

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.

Linguist 111 Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message as a courtesy 15:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it, and dealing with it now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Amit(h)

Hi, just a quick note that in many instances of spelling of Indian names, t is spelt as th in the south, see User:Uanfala/South Indian spelling. Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I appreciate that. As all bar one of the entries at Amit are spelled "Amit", it was clearly wrong to change the main spelling to "Amith" (but there wasn't enough space in the edit summary for a full explanation ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agreed with your edit, I was just pointing out to a potential source of confusion. Uanfala (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's appreciated, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you take a look at a possible legal threat?

Hi Boing, you seem to be active at the moment - could you have a look at User_talk:RogerGLewis#August_2016? This and this are the diffs in question, with an edit summary including "Notice of possible legal action!". The editor in question refutes this being a legal threat, but I still feel this is adding a chilling affect to the ongoing AN/I thread - I'm aware that a block per WP:NLT would probably escalate the situation, so I'm a little at a loss of what to do about it. Thanks for your time -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Really sorry, but I'm just heading out the door... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, thank you regardless -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

To interested admin talk page watchers, the issue has been resolved -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That ANI discussion

I've just been reading over the ANI discussion relating to Michael Hardy (the one that precipitated the arbitration case) and if you are willing I would like to discuss it with you (I was not following it in real time, so it is hard to get a handle on how it felt at the time).

I get the distinct impression that the only reason Michael Hardy's admin status was raised at all was because you looked it up and mentioned it. Would that be an accurate statement? Michael Hardy never mentioned his admin status. The 'I forbid anyone to disagree with me!!' section got closed by NeilN, and presumably things would have calmed down from that point (as happens many times at ANI), even with the section Michael Hardy opened later on. What caused things to carry on at ANI was you posting the 'This is an admin!' follow up where you say "Do we really have to put up with admins like this who give us all a bad name?" Following this, you then reviewed what he said about MjolnirPants at his (Michael Hardy's) talk page and blocked him. You did unblock later, but is it possible that your amazement that he was an admin at all clouded your judgement on whether a block was needed?

The other thing I am wondering is why an arbitration case was needed? Was this a massively important issue that needed resolving? Or did you file an arbitration case because you felt he gave admins a bad name and some sort of action was needed? I've read again what was said in the opening statements, and you said "this kind of aggressive overreaction can be significantly more intimidating when it comes from someone who is seen to be an admin". Is it possible that your block of Michael Hardy (with no warning) in itself escalated matters? I suspect a number of people were rather intimidated by your block, to the extent that they didn't dare speak up about it. One of the things that would be useful in this arbitration case, IMO, is a consideration of whether a warning should have been issued first.

Another thing is the reaction seen at the later ANI discussion (the boomerang one). Some of those comments really shocked me on reading them for the first time. What I see is a veteran editor (who happens to be an admin) very upset at what he perceives as the way he has been treated, and rather than being treated as an upset editor, he gets absolutely piled upon at ANI because he is an admin and isn't behaving the 'correct' way. In what way are the following comments justified to someone who is clearly upset?

Are you kidding me? WP:BOOMERANG. Quick and fast.

How you ever got the bit I will never know but I suggest you pack it in otherwise you're going to find yourself either blocked or desysopped, Stop trolling and improve the project like the rest of us.

Good for you, Would you like a medal ?

Speedy boomerang OH MY FKN GOD! I can't believe we have to go through this again? Does he not have any competence? Can someone explain to me why he constantly uses underscores?

Those are clearly instances of incivility that in other circumstances would warrant a warning of some kind (they contrast with some of those same users being civil earlier, but something seems to have made a number of people collectively snap and lose their cool, I suspect mainly because they saw an admin behaving like this). How would you feel if those comments had been directed at you? Would you accept others using that sort of language and tone at ANI or any other venue? If not, why was it acceptable then? Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, if the above is too t;ldr, I'm trying to work out in what way this arbitration case will improve Wikipedia? Does making an example out of one admin really make a difference? And is it worth the potential collateral damage and loss? Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That discussion and the tone looks like a Young and the Restless scene here haha. but was oboviously fine here. ;) KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Carcharoth: I hope you'll forgive me if I don't want to continue this case here on my heavily-watched talk page, as I don't want to spread the contagion - there are already too many people involved who don't know when to shut up. But in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT, I'll answer the basics. I made the block because I was seeing repeated false (or at the very least, exaggerated) accusations (including "hard core bully") in response to a very minor (admittedly snappy) interaction, but I'm happy to accept the consensus that it was a bad decision and I reversed it with what I think is a suitable log entry. Why ArbCom? Because there is no other process available to address the question of whether an admin is fit for the role - I don't like it being that way, but ArbCom alone has that remit. You make a lot of other points and ask questions that are certainly pertinent, but there's nothing I can say in response that would be any help now and I would only be extending the discussion needlessly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That is a very reasonable and level-headed response. My view is that this whole conflict and how and why it escalated in the way it did is a symptom of a wider problem, one that ArbCom can't really resolve and that the community needs to address at some point (if it can). But as you say, that is best discussed elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I certainly agree with those comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

buying of beer and firm stance
... you were recipient no. 219 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Carelessness

Hi, Boing! I've just seen your latest comment at User talk:Aheedar regarding the block that you didn't undo and I did. I confess that, although I looked at your unblock decline, I can't have read it very thoroughly, because I didn't notice it was you who declined the request. Not that that matters, but if I can overlook the admin's name because I'm not reading thoroughly, then I could probably equally have overlooked something more important. I therefore can't complain when you say that you "should have taken more care" in checking before declining the unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did make a bit of a mess of that one - really can't remember what I was thinking at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Silly question

Thanks for the unlock, but now i have an dumb question

In what way can i share data ( this means direct contact ) with others in my talk page if linking to private servers is prohibited???

Which of the below can i use

• Sharing in the top of the talk page User:Jackqbox my Linkedin [[File:Linkedinrebound.png|link=https://www.linkedin.com/in/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]]
• Sharing in the top of the talk page my real Email [[File:Mail-send.png|50px|link=Special:Contact]]
• any other suggestion????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackqbox (talk • contribs) 12:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Outing by MH?

I'd say User:Daviddaved outed himself in the list at WikiProject Mathematics/Participants with this edit: Diff/503015531/504860674. That was on 30 July 2012‎, predating the alleged outing by MH on 28 August 2012.  --Lambiam 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

E-mail

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.

Linguist 111 If you reply here, please ping me (type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message). 12:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Harry Rouse

Thanks for helping me with the CSD clear-out. I've recreated this article. As a cricket fan, I can see he's notable. I was just clearing it up when you pressed delete. Hope you don't mind. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK, happy to leave that one to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ta. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Julian Penniston-Hill Profile.jpg

Consent to this image appearing on Wikipedia is given on the website that owns the image - www.intelligentmoney.com/terms-conditions/

I summarise below:

You must not:

republish material from this website (including republication on another website); sell, rent or sub-license material from the website; show any material from the website in public; reproduce, duplicate, copy or otherwise exploit material on this website for a commercial purpose; edit or otherwise modify any material on the website; or redistribute material from this website except for content specifically and expressly made available for redistribution. This content is limited to all documents made available in our Literature Library. It also includes the IM logo and Our Key People photographs and biog texts which are granted as being available in the public domain with a fee license for any factual, non-commercial, purposes (such as use by the media and use on informative websites, such a Wikipedia) provided such photographs and texts are not altered in any way.

I have therefore undone the deletion.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2344 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wiki2344: The "any factual, non-commercial, purposes" and "provided such photographs and texts are not altered in any way" clauses are not compatible with Wikipedia's CC BY-SA licence requirements which must allow commercial re-use and modification. Also, it is not possible to release something into the public domain with restrictions (as, by defintion, public domain is unrestricted), so they don't really appear to understand copyright. (As an aside, you didn't undo the deletion, you simply restored a redlink to the deleted file - you would need to get it actually undeleted first, by asking the admin who deleted it or via WP:DRV, but as I say, that does not appear to be possible). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Julian Penniston-Hill

Hi

Yes I work for Intelligent Money. When he saw a few years ago that someone had created a page about him he asked me to monitor it and make sure it was correct. Most of the content was created by the original writer and amended by other users. It had broadly speaking remained the same for years until today.

I have simply been asked to keep it up to date and ensure nothing malicious gets added. We have no idea who originally wrote the page and it is in no way commercial as we do not deal with the public in any event, only other financial business.

I have also changed our website terms and conditions to make the picture fully compliant for copyright purposes and in the public domain. I will upload a new photo.

I'll have another go at adding relevant information that hopefully won't offend - as it is the History section is pointless.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2344 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) So you are a paid editor, in fact? You should acknowledge that on your User Page, please: "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship.. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor and so am glad you left the question mark at the end of that remark. I work for Intelligent Money in a completely different and non-connected role. However, I am friends with Julian outside of work and when he saw that someone had created a Wikipedia page about him he asked if I would keep an eye on it as he simply does not have the time to do it himself.

Again, I stress that I am not being paid for this and this is not remotely part of my job. I am looking out for someone I am friends with through work as that is what friends do. It is Saturday for goodness sake, have a look at when I have made other changes too - all at weekends or evenings. We work Mon-Fri 9-5.

When I posted the last revision today I clearly stated I work for Intelligent Money in any event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2344 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. So only a conflict of interest then...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wiki2344, even if you are not paid directly to edit the article, being employed by the company and asked by its chief executive to maintain his Wikipedia article could still see you in violation of Wikipedia's paid editing guidelines. Also, if you work for Intelligent Money and you know Julian Penniston-Hill, then you should not edit his article directly (or any other article connected with the company) as per Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Instead, please suggest any changes you wish to make on the talk page and a disinterested editor will review them for you. Also, please be sure to record your conflict of interest on your user page. Finally, you clearly do not have a consensus for the insertion of the material on the Julian Penniston-Hill that has been removed by two different editors (me and User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi), so do not reinsert it again or you will be in breach of Wikipedia's edit warring and conflict of interest guidelines and it will be necessary to report this incident at one of the relevant noticeboards for admin attention (I'm an admin myself, but as I have engaged in the content of the article I am prohibited from taking admin action). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Unlike you, I am not a seasoned user of Wikipedia and so may fall fowl of rules I am unaware of. Rather than delete a whole section, can you highlight which areas you have an issue with from the edits I have just made so we can discuss what should be the proper outcome? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2344 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand that Wikipedia's rules can be somewhat arcane and impenetrable, and I'm happy to help you as much as I can. I'll start a discussion on the talk page a little later - I just have a few personal things that need my time right now. (By the way, there's no need to start a new heading with each comment - just use a suitable number of colons to indent below the comment to which you want to reply) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wiki2344: I'm not going to help while you continue edit warring and directly editing an article that you should not be touching due to your conflict of interest. I'll wait until the EW report is concluded and you stop or are stopped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

E-mail

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.

Linguist 111 If you reply here, please ping me (type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message). 19:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, in the open Michael Hardy arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I just thought that I should inform you that BeyonderGod is back doing exactly the same edit that he always does whenever his ban has ended: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonders&type=revision&diff=739607029&oldid=735832650 David A (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor indefinitely, as it is apparent that he or she has no intention of ever accepting consensus when he or she personally disagrees with it. He or she has continued the same edit-war for almost 19 months, undeterred by four blocks, gradually escalating from 24 hours to three months, so I see no prospect of another time-limited block deterring him or her. @David A: Thanks for drawing attention to the continuation of the problem after the expiry of the block that Boing! placed. However, it might have been better to post to either his talk page or mine, rather than both, to avoid the risk of being accused of admin shopping. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

And after yet another unblock request that simply reasserts the same insistence that he is right, I have revoked his ability to edit his talk page - there really is a limit to the amount of time it is worth wasting on someone who simply can not or will not listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think both of us have given him more of our time than he deserves, and there is nothing useful to be gained by letting him waste yet more time for people who could be doing something more constructive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I did not know about that Wikia rule. My apologies. Thank you very much for the help in any case. David A (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@David A: That's OK. No harm done. I was just letting you know for future reference, to avoid risk of being wrongly accused of anything that I am perfectly sure you didn't intend. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Revdel advice

Greetings, Boing! said Zebedee. Wondering if you could take a look at Xavier Academy, to which an editor with an obvious COI has added information that is a copyright violation. It's been reverted, but the edit-history is a little messy, and I'm not sure how to go about deleting copyvio revisions (or indeed if a neat solution is possible at all). Would appreciate any advice. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All you need is click "change visitblity" to delete an revision or apply MassRevdel on multiple revisions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 10:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes: that's all I'd need to do to delete the revisions. My question is not so much about the buttons that I need to click, as about how to sort through a more complex edit history, where there are multiple intervening edits that are not copyright violations. Vanamonde (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

To me it looks pretty straight forward. It looks like the first copyright was added by Nischaya with the edit at 18:25, 16 September 2016 with an edit summary of "I have added more information from the Xavier Academy website". The last of it was removed by DanielRigal with the edit at 22:05, 16 September 2016 and edit summary of "high schools are automatically notable so lets just rip out the copyvio stuff and make a true stub of it". You should redvdel all the edits from the second edit of Nischaya to their last edit. I hope you don't mind but I fixed the link to the article in your first post. -- GB fan 11:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! Actually the copyvio goes back further, to 11 September, if I have it right. My hesitation was about hiding intermediate revisions containing potentially constructive stuff: but judging from your comment that is not so much of an issue, so I've gone ahead and deleted the bunch. Would somebody mind checking, to see if I fracked something up? Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right it does go back that far. I missed the earlier violations. There are some of the intervening edits that could be restored as they do not contain any copyright violation. You could undelete from PamD's edit at 08:37, 15 September 2016 as she removed all the copyright violations with that edit through Nischaya's edit at 18:21, 16 September 2016 as the added copyright violations in the next edit. That is a total of 5 edits that could be undeleted as they do not contain any copyright violations. -- GB fan 12:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to revisions such as this (admin only); but that still has some copyvio content. PamD's removal was not complete. This is why I was a little uncertain as to what I should do, because hiding all the copyrighted content involved hiding PamD's edits, as well. Vanamonde (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If it still has copyright violations in it then it should remain deleted. You saw stuff I didn't, it looks like you got it right. -- GB fan 13:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Username merge

Hi there! Just want to check with you... I know a user who has a unified global account, but has 1 non-English username on si-wiki. Is it technically possible to rename that non-English username on si-wiki, to the globally used English username, so that she has one unified account? Thanks in advance! Rehman 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The short answer is that I have no idea! But I'll ask at the global-renamers mailing list and see if I can get an answer for you - watch this space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rehman: Apparently something might be possible in some cases - can you tell me the two accounts so I can pass the information on to the experts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! @User:Sandaru, can you paste in the other (Sinhala) username here please? I cannot find it haha. Best regards, Rehman 15:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It's සඳරූ. It's the same name for Sandaru in sinhala. Sandaru (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I see both accounts have made edits on en.wiki and wikidata, so my guess is it won't be possible to merge them - but I've passed on the details to the experts, and I'll let you know what they say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Boing! :) Rehman 12:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Prevent archive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30