User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

October 2010

Earthcore

After several attempts, it seems that this IP is willing to discuss the changes he is making; not sure if you know anything about the subject, but the IP claims to be the event's organizer and the IP geolocates to NSW Australia. Do you know anything on the subject beyond the sources in the article? This seems to have gone back a few months, per the statement on the talkpage and the edit history of Earthcore. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's progress. I'm afraid I don't know anything about it at all - I just noticed the multiple unexplained removals of content. I'll be happy to have a closer look later - need to go off and do my real life work for a bit now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I've got to catch some Z's while I still can. What I have read essentially backs up the article's sources, but maybe this IP has something I don't know about. Hopefully this can be resolved. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the particular claims we have been dealing with in the "controversies" section were first added to the article on 20 April 2010 by 124.168.198.151, and first removed on 23 June 2010 by 114.76.46.225. It was then restored by 124.171.98.220, and then removed again on 1 October 2010 by 114.77.29.223, leading to the situation we were involved in. The IP 124.168.198.151 has few other edits and no other constructive edits, it seems to me. 124.171.98.220 no edits apart from restoring this section and then making two small edits to the same article. What I have just written relates specifically to the particular passage which has been the subject of the problem today, but related accusations have been in the article in the past, the earliest, I think, being this edit on 18 July 2009. At present there are no reliable sources to support the claims which the IP has been removing. I have made various Google searches and found numerous blog and forum posts but nothing at all reliable. The allegations may be true, but it is equally possible that rumours (malicious or otherwise) have spread widely across the blog/forum universe. Unless and until we can find reliable sources the section has to stay out of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - other than a bit of lingering anger, it seems to have been resolved on the article Talk page, where all three of us have apologized for our mistakes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Really the sources back up the claims set forth in the article ? Do you actually look and read before you make such claims ? I am shocked by thought process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.29.223 (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There really is no point in carrying on this angry dialog all over the place. It has already been resolved on the article's Talk page, which is the proper place, and where we have apologised for our mistakes - and I'm happy for you to have the last word over there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin

Hello. I have come into contact with you many times, and always found you constructive. My latest case of bumping into you was today at Talk:Earthcore, and something, I know not what, led me to look at your user page, which I had not done before. I was interested to read the subsection on "Adminship". For what it's worth, here are a few of my thoughts:

1. You are quite right, you have plenty of useful non-admin stuff you can do, and don't need to be an admin in order to contribute usefully.
2. Obviously usually any admin work you do takes time away from other work you might be doing.
3. If you were an admin you wouldn't be forced to use your admin tools, so you would not need to lose anything.
4. Even if you spent 99.9% of your time as you do now, and did not normally use the admin tools, it would occasionally be useful to be able to make use of them.
5. In antivandalism work having the ability to block a user is really useful. Before I was an admin I used to frequently find myself in the following frustrating situation: (1) I decide that a vandal has reached the stage of needing a block. (2) I report to AIV. (3) The report waits for what seems like ages for an admin to review it. (4) Meanwhile the vandal keeps on doing more vandalism, and I keep on reverting it. (5) Finally the vandal is blocked, and I can stop wasting time on it and get on with other things. As an admin I can go straight from step 1 to step 5, which reduces the amount of vandalism done, and enables me to use my time more usefully. This is a very important exception to "any admin work you do takes time away from other work", which I said above. In this case it enables you to get more non-admin work done than you would otherwise do.

Obviously it is up to you, but I am confident you would make a good admin, and if you are at all inclined to consider it I would encourage you to go for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated. I do agree that being able to block vandals would be a great help when dealing with ones that just won't stop. And I'm also watching a number of pages that keep getting drive-by unconstructive changes from a small pool of IPs - I keep having to hassle GedUK to protect pages for me. I know that the admin tools would enable me to handle both situations without taking any appreciable time out, but I also know that I'll get drawn into admin backlogs too, cos when I look at them I'll want to help. But your words are making me think again, coming on top of a similar suggestion from ϢereSpielChequers a few days ago - I'll give it some more thought. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I became an admin largely because of the vandalism issue I have mentioned, but I now find myself working on various backlogs that I never had any intention of dealing with, and yes, I do find that various kinds of work I used to do now get neglected. However, does it matter? An hour spent on improving Wikipedia is an hour spent on improving Wikipedia, and if you do more of one kind of improvement and less of another so what? That is, of course, not an argument for becoming an admin, but rather an argument for not giving much weight to that consideration one way or the other when weighing the pros and cons. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that is a good way of looking at it - as long as it's constructive work, I suppose it really doesn't matter. I will reconsider before too long - but for now I've got the October Wikification drive to attend to :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

God help Wikipedia if you become a admin. After today's display with re editing the Earthcore article without even understanding what sources are relevant and what are not your actions define your character. Allowing someone like you to do these sorts of things to other articles on Wikipedia would turn it into a mockery of misinformation. Please stick to gardening or whatever you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.29.223 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. You clearly don't seem to be a man who can understand good faith mistakes, accept an apology, and move on constructively, so I don't see any point in any further discussion. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine I accept your apology. Don't delete this :-)Fisted Rainbow (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That is gracious and appreciated, thank you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

again Bangkok's full name

Hello (after some time). I've just updated something about the full name of Bangkok. Kindly check and improve it please. Best wishes -- Suasysar (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've just had a look, and it looks good - nice stuff. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you -- Suasysar (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion

GOCE September 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated! Several of our top editors were called away to real life concerns during the month (be careful out there, people!). This meant that once again, we did not meet all our lofty targets, but we did come close. Stats Out of 76 registered editors, 45 actively participated. We nearly wiped out the 2008 articles from the backlog—there were only 13 remaining when the drive closed. We reduced the backlog by 725 articles (11.5%), so it was another successful drive. A total of 59 barnstars will be awarded to 40 editors—well done, and congratulations to all. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the July 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, you may have earned rollover words, which counted towards this month's barnstars (except for the leaderboard awards). Any unused word credits will be held over for the next drive, as long as you participated in the September drive. Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. Click here to see a list of barnstar winners. We will be holding our next drive in November. You can sign up here. A huge "thank you" to all editors who helped clear the backlog and to others who helped out behind-the-scenes. See you at the next drive, and until then, please continue to help us work through the backlog. Happy editing! Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa (Talk) and S Masters (talk). Newsletter by Diannaa (Talk) and The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 07:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

NANTM

Yeah, I did it one time accidentally, since they keep removing the speedy deletion tag, but they reverted me, so that's ok. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, that's cool. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hungry generation

I have brought back the original content stored in the fullwiki. The page was vandalized by someone calling himself Maharishi Balmiki. Tridib Mitra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tridib Mitra (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. If the other editor should come back and revert any of your changes, it is important that you discuss your differences on the article's Talk page, and not engage in an edit war. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

GOCE barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your copyediting efforts during the Guild of Copy Editors' September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, editing 27 articles with a combined total of 11,133 words (12,084 with rollover), I have great pleasure in presenting you with this barnstar. On behalf of the Guild, thank you for your participation, and see you at the next drive. – S Masters (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Cambodian singers

The article can stay, yes, but can I redesign the article?--125.25.15.166 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to redirect the article to Category:Cambodian singers--125.25.15.166 (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You may be interested in the discussions on my user talk page and at RFPP concerning this article.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vejvančický

IT might not be a forgery - it might be a sock. Did you think of that? I recently had an editor exchanging talk page messages with himself on a PROD in order to try and get the page kept! BTW: whe are you going to call me? --Kudpung (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did think that, but I wasn't sure - I'd have expected socks not to draw attention so openly like that. But you never know. (And sorry for not calling. Family matters came up and I'm back in the UK without having had a chance to get out of Bangkok - I'll definitely call when I'm there again in a couple of months and will be traveling up country). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

As Wikipedia's Accuracy Officer, I ask that you do not undo important edits in the future, changing them to a non-neutral point of view. This is your first warning.AccuracyOfficer (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've cautioned the above user about his username and impersonating staff. —C.Fred (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiviral

• Multiviral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, you were completely correct in changing my G1 CSD to a PROD. I did checkout the use of the term in G & GBooks and usage seems limited to the biological sense (though even this usage is not listed in the OED and so would be considered technical language), considering my search it should have been obvious that a PROD was the way to go. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree, thanks. I see the author has now contested the PROD and has started to expand the article, so I guess we can give them a bit of time to see what they come up with - I have it watched. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gone to AfD now - below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiviral Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I guess 7 days should be enough time to come up with anything notable, if there is anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

AJona1992

Hey. Only now just seen the thread at User talk:AJona1992. You may want to inform his mentor, User talk:RobertMfromLI. It's not the first time he's broken the terms of his mentorship and this may warrant a block under his restrictions. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 09:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the suggestion - I'll have a word with him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I put it back

Thanks for removing it though... I have a hard time giving up on anyone though... fault of mine maybe. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - as faults go, it's not a bad one to have :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Hey, not sure if this really matters, but you seem to have opposed Cliffmore's RfA about a minute after it was closed by Access Denied as NOTNOW. Anyways I'm sure you didn't mean it or anything, but I think it would be better if you removed it. Sorry for being pedantic, Jenks24 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it wasn't closed when I started my comment, so I guess it was closed while I was editing the Oppose section. It probably is best if I remove it, yes - thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope

Nope.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

I'm probably the millionth person to ask you this, but you should run for RFA, your an easy WP:100 for me, and we need all the good candidates we could get right now. I'll be glad to nominate you when you think your ready. Thanks Secret ^account 03:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

While I am not as familiar with your edits as I was with Elen's, I could see that as being a possibility...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very kind, thanks, but it's not something I want to do at this time - I've written a few thoughts about it on my User page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Shame, I'd have supported you! GedUK  12:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. StrPby (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again - your comments really are appreciated. My decision is certainly not a final one, but I really do have some higher priority things I want to do before I consider it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm starting to think I'm perhaps being a bit selfish by not running, just doing the stuff I enjoy, and leaving others to do the mop work. I will reconsider (but there'll be no hasty decision). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Having just read your userpage (for the first time!) I wondered if you fancy doing me a favour (and I absolutely do not mean to suggest that you owe me anything)? I'd like to get James Cagney to FA, and having written most of it, I can't copy-edit it properly. Wondered if you fancied having a go at it? GedUK  12:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, now, there's an interesting challenge! Doing some GA and FA copy editing is definitely something I'm planning on working towards, and Mr Cagney makes a pretty cool subject. I need to finish off a few more articles in the current Wikification drive, but once they're done I'll go have a read of the FA requirements and have a think about whether I'm up to it - watch this space :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool! No rush. Don't worry too much about hitting the FA standards, I think you need to have done that for a while to really get them, but mainly it's too look for where my language gets a bit too either conversational or hagiographic, which I can be prone to when I'm writing about something I'm very keen on! GedUK  08:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts on the wikipedia "man article"

The article "man" was in danger of being obfusticated by POV. Your helping shows that the future of wikipedia is indeed bright. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zucchinidreams (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Whichever way the decision goes, as long as it goes according to policy and is achieved by consensus, it'll be the right one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

TV

FYI GedUK  16:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete versus keep

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your judicious comments at the Tiger vs lion AFD. Would that all editors followed the examples of yourself and Keynes, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Colonel Warden (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How very kind - that was unexpected, thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Lerdthenerd

Hi,
feel free doing the formal closure if you want, it's effectively withdrawn by the candidate and can be closed by anyone. The required steps are listed at User:Enigmaman/SNOW, but need adjusting in this case.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll do that - I'd thought it needed to be an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, just been beaten to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Anything that is uncontroversial and doesn't require any additional bits may by done by any editor. Definition of "uncontroversial" can of course be subject to controversies. :) Amalthea 11:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yes :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

hi

hi zebedee, i'd just like to say hello and remind you of the productive banter we once had about the nationality of Crowded House

hope you're well,

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.177.76 (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Fine thanks, hope you are too - didn't you register an account? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

I am unaware of any contents that I am supposed to have removed. Please explain Justus Maximus (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This edit refactored a large amount of the page, and removed some content that should not have been removed - including at least one whole section. And please note that you should not do such large scale refactoring either, especially not moving around other people's comments -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just had a closer look, and that edit removed a lot of other people's comments too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Phew, someone who knows what they're doing!

You've NPP'd (second edit to a new page, at least) Mohamed Fouad, which is the same as Mohammad Fouad, the editor who created the first article has copyvio'd a lot of the info - see Talk:Mohammad Fouad and User talk:MohamedFouadWS. Next steps? Mechanical digger (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Turned into a redirect, fair enough, but I think the proper name is Mohamed per my searches. Mechanical digger (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bah! Got my Mohamad/Mohammad/Mohameds mixed up. See also Mohamad Fouad as the page you actually went to. In such a rush as RL strikes... Mechanical digger (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That appeared to be essentially another copy but with the copyvio in, so I've redirected that to Mohammad Fouad too - I have no idea about the preferred spelling. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated the infobox too, as that's not a copyvio. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

List of protected TV articles

FAO User:82.152.216.15, this is the list of articles that I thought needed protection - I'm not sure if they are all currently protected...

• Channel 3 (Thailand)
• Channel 7 (Thailand)
• Hanoi Radio Television
• Ho Chi Minh City Television
• Lao National Television
• Myanmar Radio and Television
• Myanmar International
• MRTV-4
• Magyar Televízió
• National Broadcasting Services of Thailand
• Royal Thai Army Radio and Television Channel 5
• TVP
• TVP1
• TVP2
• TVP Polonia
• Television in Burma
• Telewizja Polska
• Vietnam Television

There were lots of things happening, not all of which were blatant vandalism. But we did see edit-warring between Thai IPs and Eastern European ones (there was one Polish editor who also got involved in abusive arguments). We also saw some organized but subtle vandalism from a number of Thai editors (including one registered editor engaging in page move vandalism, apparently at the behest of the group), which resulted in part in lots of relatively minor changes being made which were all unsourced, and close inspection showed a lot of them to be nonsense. I'm not sure when it started, but there is evidence of bad changes being made as far back as more than a year ago.

At this stage, Ged UK joined in with his assistance, and took on the task of protecting affected pages. But when we protected one article, the Thai IPs would go quiet for a while and then move on to another article, adding dubious unsourced changes there. So in the end, after more than 6 months of this, Ged UK protected all of the articles that the offending IP editors had made changes to, as there really was no other way to fix it other than a very wide IP range block in Thailand.

TVP Polonia was caught in the list, as it had had unsourced changes made by IP editors, including Thai ones, and so it was pre-emptively protected as it appeared to be on the miscreants' list of targeted articles - and they did seem to have an attraction to Polish TV articles for some reason.

If you want to edit TVP Polonia, it really would help us a great deal if you could register an account and work from that. If you really don't want to register, I think we would possibly be safe to unprotect that one article for a while - though it would be protected again if we saw vandalism, and to be even-handed I think we would really have to insist on proper sources for any additions. If that's what you want, you should ask Ged UK - but I suspect you'd need to drop your list of demands and treat him politely, like the helpful and friendly person that he is.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry to waste your time, but I've almost decided that Wikipedia is not for me, so contrary to what I told SlimVirgin earlier, I don't think I'll be registering. I have received extreme abuse from someone who claims to be a schoolteacher (who now calls me a "troll" and "looking for a fight" - neither of which is the case), and generally all my concerns were disregarded by some other admins and more established users who seem to consider her to be some sort of superior being with immunity from any sanction, whilst I am left to feel worthless. If you look at my previous contributions, I have tried to help improve articles etc., but I feel it's a waste of time now. Wikipedia is broken. It's a nice idea, but it seems there is a hierarchy on the site which decides who has a valid concern and who doesn't, rather than rational debates and consensus that would be expected. I know it's nothing to do with you, and you have tried to be very helpful since you understood the confusion between myself and Ged UK. I have a life to live, and getting upset about random people - or worrying about how might upset me in future - well, it isn't worth the trouble (especially as I am a lot more sensitive than many other people to offensive remarks). All the best. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that - it would be bad to lose an enthusiastic contributor. Maybe give it a few days and reconsider? (As an aside, I've been involved in online communities for quite a few years, and one thing I've learned is that arguments are inevitable no matter where you go, and it really helps a lot if you can switch off from and ignore people you find vexatious - but I recognize it is easier for me to say that than it is do to it). Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I too would be sorry to see a potentially valuable contributor leave, especially one who has got caught up in disputes involving other IPs. Again, I'm sorry that my remarks offended you, I confused you with other IPs, who (by strength of you English alone) you are clearly not. GedUK  06:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ezekiel! ^{Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'.} 22:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

October 29, 2010

I can't think of the subject, because I talk about many subjects

No problem, this is fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What I want

• Stop talking about these editors from Thailand as long as no troubles has been caused.

I'm sorry, but if I think long-standing problems need to be discussed in order to place current discussions into context, then I'm afraid I shall continue to do so - it's really not intended as an attack on anyone individually, but when discussing how some situations developed into their current state, it often really is necessary to explain the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I will watch you until it's all clear, I believe March 26, 2011.

• Change table on List of Cambodian singers (continue disscussion)--125.25.231.191 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Cambodian singers

Do not request for protection now, I've done my draft and if it takes 5 months, then it's all your fault for pausing the discussion, I will move it to main today, Do I need to really provide reference for being boy or girl? It's already described before. If you don't like, just don't do anything and continue the discussion. For the time period, we can add them later.--125.25.231.191 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing--125.25.231.191 (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the work you did on it - see how good things can be if we discuss things first and act according to Wikipedia policies? :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--125.25.225.238 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

4 of them left??

Haven't seen 125.2x.x.x editors from Thailand for weeks now, only me is here. Remember I won't loose you!--125.25.231.191 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there were two Bangkok editors talking on that Hungarian TV draft page only last week. And the others may well not be here simply because all of their target articles are currently protected. As for "only me", I'm afraid there is simply no way we can be sure of that if you don't register your own account - I'm certainly not suggesting you are a liar, but if one of the others comes back, how can we tell it's not you? And I don't want anyone to lose anyone - if you're happy to stay here and carry on editing in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I'll be happy to support and help you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't care what I've added to your signature: The timestamp. I believe another editor who joined the discussion was one of the old editors I believe to be "gone". I already tried to sign up, but takes forever. I've tried every week. I guess some of them has become a registered user. But very unlikely because they're scared of sockpuppetry blocks, but I don't think anyone will consider of being sockpuppets. I guess Cambodian editor (I've bring 2 of his edits below) is back to his country (Cambodia).--125.25.225.238 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, please, I'm really not interested - I'm very busy with lots of different things here. So please, don't bother me with details of other people's edits. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA

You broke NPA rule (long time ago)! saying using talk pages for chat, I NEVER!! AND I WON'T!!. You just bring some actions from a random Thailand IP editor. I know you mean this one and this one. I'm sorry, I'm from America, not Cambodia! I didn't came to Thailand in May 2010, I came in 2008. And trying to brainwash everyone I'm doing. And I wasn't in Thailand when that was posted.--125.25.231.191 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never attacked you at all, and have never made any claims about you personally. Even if I wanted to I couldn't, because I have no way of telling you apart from the others. If you want to avoid getting confused with others, you have been told many times that all you need to do is register an account. You don't need to provide any personal details, so I really don't know why you won't do it.

Not my fault, but I can't register one, take forever everytimes.--125.25.225.238 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I really have no idea why it should be slow - it really should take just a few moments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me exactly what happens when you try to register? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning where you are from, just think about it for a moment - are we supposed to ask "Are you from Thailand, America, or Cambodia?" every time someone edits from a Bangkok IP address in order to find out who they are? And what happens an hour later when they've gone away and come back with a different IP address?

I think I've already said who am I on Amalthea's talk page.--125.25.225.238 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's no use, you see, because next time you're here you'll have a different IP address - telling us who you are on some other person's Talk page is about as much use as writing the time on a piece of paper now and trying to use it to tell the time tomorrow. (And I certainly can't go searching other people's Talk pages every time I see a new IP address just in case it happens to be you - I probably deal with hundreds of IP addresses every month) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So, as we've suggested to you and the others many times, if you want people to be able to tell who you are and to distinguish you from the rest of the Bangkok IP editors, just register an account. If you won't do that, then you will continue to be confused with the others, and there's nothing I can do to help - I really would like to help and encourage you here, but I really can't if you won't co-operate yourself. Can I ask why it is that you don't want to register an account? If you have any concerns, I'll be happy to try to help you out with them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Note. I have reverted all of the 125.25.x.x changes just made to this page, because you must not change my words here! It is very rude, and is considered a breach of Wikiquette. If you want to add any comments, you are welcome to do so, and if you think I have got anything wrong or don't understand anything, you can tell me - but do not yourself re-write any words of mine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think with a name like "Lilblondenutcase", you can probably not take them at their word.

They spell 'patent' as 'patton', for Ifni's sake... HalfShadow 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think we can really judge people by the usernames they choose - what would people make of me if we did that? :-) But you're right in that we can't take anyone at their word - I've added a note to their Talk page that reliable sources would be needed for any changes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Am I crazy?

I have been watching the Naked Man Dispute for over a month now and it strikes me from observation that there seems to be likely Sock activity am I crazy or do you not find it odd to SPA repeated removing the Image? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is possible there's socking going on, but the writing style of different people seems different - the (now blocked) editor who has been removing the image seems more aggressively dictatorial than the other main one, for example. I could easily believe they're individual POV-based SPAs. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen the latest removal and reversion when I wrote that - that one certainly looks sock-ish. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just want to thank you for chilling on the Man talk page. It was getting to be a redundant read for me so I feared it would prevent others from commenting if the discussions continued. Anyways, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I know what you mean - it seems to die down, then we get unilateral action again and stuff deleted, and the thing kicks off again.... Very grateful for fresh input, and happy to hand it over to someone else for a while :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

Hi I don't want to "lecture" you but in future please stop to consider if an article you tag has encyclopedic potential, regardless of its initial condition. Religion in San Marino should never have had a speedy deletion tag slapped on it, even as a one liner it would alwasy be a notable topic that could be expanded by anybody. We've expanded it, you see now how damaging it is to delete such articles without giving them a chance to develop. As its stands, wikipedia is better off for having this article.. Regards♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I did consider it, yes, and I checked to see what other coverage there was. I did not tag it as being a non-notable topic, I tagged it as a one-line duplicate according to CSD:A10, as there was already a better treatment of the subject at San Marino#Religion. And so I believe that my tagging was correct at the time. But I'm always pleased to see someone else come along and decide to replace a problematic article with something of the quality that you have produced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having had a look again, I think I did actually make a mistake in tagging it a little too quickly - and then not watching it and so not spotting the expansion of it beyond what was at San Marino#Religion. I usually do Watch articles I tag, and I do remove my own tags if I see any subsequent reason to, so I guess I slipped in not Watching this one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's also my fault. I should have written more in the article before submitting it, I can see why it would have been tagged.--Hongkongresident (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries guys. You've apologised and admitted the mistake which takes a decent person to do so. As long as you remember in future that virtually any broad topic about a country is encyclopedic, even Pomegranate production in Afghanistan...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it was nothing to do with being encyclopedic (I *know* the subject is encyclopedic), it was because it was a duplicate - at the time I tagged it, it only said "San Marino is predominantly Roman Catholic, with a Jewish minority", while San Marino#Religion already said far more than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(and if Pomegranate production in Afghanistan was newly created and contained less information than Afghanistan#Pomegranate production, then that would be eligible for a CSD:A10 too - though perhaps not so quickly, that's all :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Be patient....♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes, I have already clearly stated that it was a mistake to tag it so quickly - are we done now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar from WikiProject Wikify

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your excellent work in the October 2010 Wikification Drive, you are awarded The Cleanup Barnstar! Thanks for your work!  Ⓢock  03:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Wikify

A message from WikiProject Wikify! Thanks for participating in the October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive! We made significant progress, wikifying hundreds of articles. However, the backlog still needs a large amount of effort--discussions about the next drive (in December) are underway. Until then, happy editing!  Ⓢock  00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pawn queens

I was going to leave User:Ruehlm's last revision because at least there was an attempt being made to make it less spam (I suspect if I'd looked I'd have found the copyvio from a TV listing somewhere). Personally I think even if it's doesn't fail on G11 it's a likely candidate for A7 but I was prepared to give it a chance. Any objection if I revert your reversion? NtheP (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be fine by me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, looks like I was too late, sorry - I guess I should have re-added a new CSD tag rather than revert, as I hadn't noticed the changes he apparently made -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Ngoo

Hi there. I have taken this article to AfD; the BBC match report for the Liverpool game he apparently played in doesn't mention him AT ALL, and he also never played for Port Vale. As such, he is not notable. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 17:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I'm just checking the sources myself - and indeed he wasn't mentioned in that Liverpool vs Northampton story - I wonder if someone has confused him with David Ngog. I'll remove that from the article and will check further - I'll update my AfD comments as appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I have just blocked a vandal that you had reported at AIV, and I thought I would just drop by to say thank you for all your work. Whenever I see Boing! said Zebedee is the reporting user I know I can rely on the report to be a valid one. I wish there were more editors I could say the same about. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I also love your username. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind - glad you like the name too :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive

 Ⓢock  00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament

In the past you've had discussions with an IP editor who added many entries to the Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament article. The issue has come up again, and is being discussed at Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament#Over 100 names/titles of Jesus deleted! Your views would be appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

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

user:Bevlouthan

Hi there; thank you for your input on this user's page; I am sorry that you felt I was harsh. I judged that in view of the strong feelings previously expressed by him we were in danger of losing a potentially good editor, and I felt that a firm and forthright comment was needed to make the point very clear. But I apologise, and have done to him, if you think I was over-emphatic. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, it's good of you to take my comment constructively. I just thought that we should start with the assumption that it was an innocent mistake by someone who didn't understand the culture - and if that turns out not to be the case, you will be very welcome to come back here and shout at me :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

He's from Thailand

DKH2010 is from Thailand i know--125.25.83.65 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter - he's allowed to say whatever he wants on his own user page, and you must not vandalise it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tôi đến từ Việt Nam, tôi biết tiếng Việt, this should be enough proof.--DKH2010 (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. My only interest is in telling 125.25.83.65 that he's not allowed to vandalise your user page - other than that, I really don't care whether you come from Vietnam, Poland, or the Moon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Bangkok

yes ok man ,i am sorry i am thai my home in Pattaya. i come to study in bangkok .i don t know more about Bangkok Are you thai? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaiFutsal (talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm British, but my wife is Thai and I spend about half of each year in Bangkok - I used to live in an apartment block just off the edge of that photo many years ago. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Songkran Festival

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangkok&action=edit&section=24

i can add Songkran Festival picture in this link , you can tell me please thank 01:31, 10 November 2010

If the picture is of Songkran in Bangkok, that would seem fine - but we need to be careful not to fill the article with too many pictures. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Veretski Pass for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Veretski Pass, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veretski Pass until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Maxwell Street Klezmer Band for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Maxwell Street Klezmer Band, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Street Klezmer Band until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Kharkov Klezmer Band for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Kharkov Klezmer Band, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharkov Klezmer Band until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I just gotta ask

...why does Zebedee say "Boing!"? Tell Grandma....

Amandajm (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Check out The Magic Roundabout for the answer :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

verb: goes boing. verb: says boing. Article don't say nuffin-a-bout Zebedee sayin Boing. Just 'going' boing. So why ( to reiterate above post) Zebedee says boing ?!!--Aspro (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Poetic license -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel so deprived! I have never seen the Magic Roundabout! It sounds wonderful.... I think I'll go and have a cheese and chutney sandwich to cheer myself up! Amandajm (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's one for you - and there are some more there :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Impact33

Our mutual "friend" Impact33 (talk · contribs) might be slowly getting the point now that there's a block, which was in place before your recent warning. I've been trying to have a conversation with this editor, it took 2 weeks for a first reply, so it's taking a long time, but I'm going to move your warning up to the November 2010 heading. Not quite sure why I need to tell you this on your talk page, I think I was deciding what to do whilst writing. Cheers! Bigger digger (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, if you don't mind, where is a good place to ask editors to come back to the Man article without breaching cavassing rules? I came to this article, as you know, as an outsider. That being said, I think the discussions needs to be finished about how it should look. What do you think? My thoughts are to write up a very generic comment and let everybody know who has commented there at the talk page, minus of course the socks. What do you think? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sounds like a good way to do it - it is a bit disappointing that the discussion did not progress to how to present the various images, especially as one of the participants was making some effort on it. I don't think you'd have any problem with canvassing if you were to do it like that, as you clearly came to the discussion in a mediator capacity without taking sides - I think canvassing might only be a problem if it came from any of the strong advocates on either side of the earlier discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How does this sound?

I just want to inform you that the article Man is no longer protected so now editors can continue to edit the collage. The collage still needs to be worked on like what was discussed in the RFC and below it. I am just trying to inform editors that were active in the article that it is no longer protected. I hope you return to the article now that everything has calmed down. Happy editing and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a generic notification, rather boring I know, but generic to let editors know that the article is no longer protected and the work that is needed can continue now. Thought? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yea, who is it that needs to be notified? I don't want to notify the sock that kept interrupting so if you wouldn't mind letting me know who the real editors are that need notification I sure would appreciate it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, generic notification sounds fine. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll put together a list of contributors a little later - I'm pretty sure I know who all the socks are. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no rush, take your time. I think I'm leaving my computer for awhile anyways so when you get it together just ping me if you would at my talk page to remind me. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You gave me a list of names that are over a dozen editors. Who were the original editors who were working the article? You seem to have, I think, editors who came to help out with the RFC from the ANI report. I doubt those will be editing the article though I could be wrong. I can't inform all those editors, it seems wrong to. I thought I was going to get a few names and I have to admit I was surprised by the list of names you gave me. Can you shorten it down some? Maybe the best thing to do is to put a notice on the talk page that the article is no longer protected and that editors can now work on fixing the collage and do other regular editing. Thoughts? Happy Thanksgiving, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually only came to it quite late, to try to help resolve the edit-warring over that image that had been going on for a long time - it's why I started the RfC. Looking back over the past few months of the article's history, the only person who appears to have been doing anything constructive is User:DavidOaks, who has been trying to improve the collage. All of the rest is vandalism/reversion, and edit-warring over the image. Maybe just go with a message on the Talk page, and perhaps let DavidOaks know that he can continue work on the collage now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, how about we ask him who should be notified that the article is no longer protected and work can proceede? He just posted below so hopefully we can get his attentions so he will look at the list of editors and help us out. It's worth a try at least. ;) David, on my talk page is a list of editors who were active on the talk page of Man. We want to notify editors that the article is no longer protected and that the regular editors can now continue to work on the article. If you wouldn't mind, would you go to my talk page and strike through editors who showed up due to the AN/i report (that's also how I got there) and any sock puppets you see. The object is to get the editors who were working the article to know they can return to work on the article. Boing! said Zebedee wanted me to do it because I wasn't that involved in things and played more of the part of a mediator. If you would like to put something together and let editors know I have no problems with that. If you want me to than I need a shorter list of editors than what I have to work with. My plan is to get a list of editors and then I will post what I will say and listen to what editors have to say about it. Thanks if advance for any help you are willing to offer. --CrohnieGal^Talk 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd just tell DavidOaks that the article is now unprotected and that he can resume work if he wants, and leave it at that - I don't see any evidence of any of the others in the list having been doing any article development in the recent past, so there's doesn't seem to be anything for them to resume. Apart from that, I've exhausted my knowledge of the history of the article - as I say, I only came to it quite recently to try to put a stop to the fighting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I put a notice up on the talk page so he should see it now. I too feel I've exhausted anything needed from me. If something comes up let me know but if not I think I am finished too. It was nice working with you though so I hope to see you around. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for all your help. It's been a pleasure working with you too - I wish everyone was as considerate and collegiate. Bye for now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted comment

Hi, I'm just wondering why you recently removed an old comment of mine, posted here on the 25th Oct. Where is it duplicated? Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies - There seemed to be a large chunk of recent comment copied inside the restored RfC - see here for the full amount of material I removed, and I accidentally removed one comment too many. I'll comment further below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, no worries at all. Ben Dawid (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any duplication either. There is a bot there for archiving, how about we let it do the archiving from now on? I think you should revert the removal and readd the whole thread that got removed. The recent discussions should stay on the active talk page so editors can see them without digging into the the archives. I'll revert it if you aren't comfortable doing it yourself, just let me know on my talk page. Personally I think too much was removed. As an outsider I find all of this quite confusing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. See comment above. If you have a look at this, you'll see a November 23 comment immediately after Ben Dawid's October 25 comment, *within* the restored RfC, followed by a number of other recent comments ending with mine that starts "Any volunteer would do..". And if you then look immediately *above* the restored RfC, there it all is again in its proper place! Ben Dawid has now restored his own comment, and left all of the duplicated material excised - see here, so it's all correct now.

As for letting the bot do all the archiving, I've never suggested or done anything else - I had nothing to do with the manual archiving or de-archiving. Someone cocked up by manually archiving, then it looks like someone cocked up the restore and got some more recent text included. All I was trying to do is fix it, but I accidentally removed Ben Dawid's comment along with the duplicated stuff. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like most of it's back though hidden which is ok. At least it's easier to get to if someone wants to see what is being discussed. I still have a problem with the censor template being up at the top so I looked in the history to see when it was originally put there. I found it here. It got removed once prior to this last round of questioning and returned by you. So in my opinion it's not needed there since no one even noticed it before. Looking around I don't see anything that says we should use it in the way it's being used so to me it's being used to make a WP:Point which is not good. Now that the sockfarm is gone so should most of the problems that were going on. I really feel it should be removed. Now, what is it you would like me to do with notifying other editors? Remember I am here only as an outsider but I would like to finish what I started. So please be clear and tell me what is needed. I think the collage needs to be fixed or removed. It is ugly the way it's set up now with all the different headshots and one nude picture. Maybe removing the collage and just enlarging the picture of the man and putting it in the place of the collage would do? I really don't know. This needs to be worked out by the editors who fought so hard to keep the image in the first place. I will do what I can to help get the word out but I'm not interested in working the collage because I don't know how to. You need someone who can code it correctly I think. Let me know. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've already agreed that I'd be happy for the censor template to go - if I reinstated it once (which I don't actually remember), then that may well have just been frustration at the repeated unilateral removals of the image at the time. But it does seem as if other people want it to stay, and I don't really think it would be very fruitful to argue over it further - I think there are more constructive things for us to do.

Concerning the collage, while I agree it doesn't look right, I'm not really sufficiently artistic to come up with any alternatives myself, so I'd rather leave it to those people who have the appropriate skills - as I say, I've taken no part in constructing this article, but just came in not long before you did to try to sort out the "censorship" arguments. Anyway, I've have another good look at the past discussions, in particular the Talk:Man#Updating the collage per suggestions section of the Talk again. And it looks like several people have shown an interest in discussing the development of the collage, so I'm thinking they should be informed. I also think Ben Dawid should get a copy of the notice too (as he's been part of this latest discussion, he already knows the article is now unprotected, but he has been a very civil contributor on the anti-nudity side and might have some suggestions that can be accommodated). So I'd suggest the people to be informed should be...

• User:DavidOaks
• User:Stephan Schulz
• User:Fifelfoo
• User:NuclearWarfare
• User:Heironymous Rowe
• User:Ben Dawid

As for the message, I think your original suggestion is still good...

"I just want to inform you that the article Man is no longer protected so now editors can continue to edit the collage. The collage still needs to be worked on like what was discussed in the RFC and below it. I am just trying to inform editors that were active in the article that it is no longer protected. I hope you return to the article now that everything has calmed down. Happy editing and be well"

So I think what I would do is post that message on the Talk pages of the people in the short list, and then leave them to it. Anyway, thanks for your efforts in this, and sorry for any recent confusion - I've just been very busy in real life this past week or so. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no complaints about you Boing! said Zebedee, you are very polite, to the point and a pleasure to work with. Is there a simpliar way to name you than typing out that whole thing? ;) I'm not trying to be rude but my left hand has to work hard to type because of nerve damage so I try for short if possible. How about this, I'll put a notice first of the talk page of Man to see who is still watching. I would think that the editors interested would still have it watched. I will announce that the page is no longer protected and that now would be a good time for editors to work out the collage issues. I will also ask if there is anyone good at working on how to make the collage. If we can't find anyone to do the collage than what about getting rid of the collage and just going with the image of the man. What do you think of putting a notice first on the talk page and waiting a bit, it's Thanksgiving weekend here in the states so maybe we should wait until like the end of next week? If no responses then I will go to the users you suggest above. I was just talking to Stephan Schultz and he is aware already but busy with other things. As for the censor template, I guess that's up to those of you active on the page. I removed it once and got immediately reverted. Maybe that is something you can bring up and see what kind of responses you get. I'm going to the talk page now to post a new thread. I am hoping the editors who argued for the collage come back to finish the work needed. We'll see I guess soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, feel free to call me anything you like ;-) But seriously, just "Boing" will do - it's what most people round here call me. Anyway, yes, a new thread on the Talk page sounds like a good plan, and then leave it for a little while and see how it goes. And after a week or so maybe ping the people in the list above in case they haven't seen it - User:DavidOaks, who did most of the recent work, hasn't contributed to any recent discussion, so might not be watching. (And yes, I keep forgetting it's Thanksgiving - I really should remember, seeing as most of my real life work is for a US company and there's nobody around right now :-). I don't think I'd do anything with the collage myself, though - partly because there's a matching one at Woman which for some reason doesn't appear to have caused any arguments (and I think the two articles should really be kept compatible), and partly because I think a unilateral action would only be likely to get reverted - replacing it with the nude image would anger the anti-nudity people, and replacing it with one of the other individual images would anger the rest. I'd just make sure the people who have been active on it are aware that they can carry on, and then leave them to it. My intention is to just back quietly away from this article now that things seem to have calmed down, and only come back if any more fighting flares up - and then only to try to calm it down again. Hope you have a great Thanksgiving weekend. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted to the above thread but I'm sure you saw it. I too am going to back off and let the editors get back to work. Hopefully the fighting will stop now and the article can be improved. I guess only time will tell. You take care and I hope I see you around, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, gotcha - replied above :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Get ready. The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin. Prep your keyboards, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please get your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar ". Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month! Regards, Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Ron Wyatt article

Why do you keep putting back in evangelical and fundametal terms in the article, when it is misleading. Also why did you edit "In 1960 ron saw a picture in Life Magazine" to "Wyatt was a nurse-anesthetist when in 1960 he saw a picture in Life Magazine"? It is irrelevant. Please give an explanation. Thank you, William —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.104.187 (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have explained on your Talk page that you must not alter the content of the article to paint Mr Wyatt in a light that is not supported by the balance of real-world opinion as supported by reliable sources. I did not "edit" the article to make the above change, I simply reverted your edits (which comprised more that that one change) which changed material that you appear to have found unfavourable, and which you made without any explanation. If you believe the article needs to be changed, please start a discussion on its Talk page and try to achieve a consensus. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is considerable talk on the discussion page of Ron Wyatt not in favor one of the things that was there that you reverted back. But about a consensus, where is yours for this authority? William —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.99.236 (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The various changes suggested on the Talk page were contrary to policy, as was explained. As for authority, that comes from established Wikipedia policy and consensus, and the currently established version of an article is considered the current consensus. If you wish to change the currently established version of an article and that change is disputed, you must explain your reasoning on the Talk page and gain consensus to make the change. See WP:BRD - we've done the B and the R, and now you must do the D. Also please have a look at WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. (By the way, it is not necessary to create a new subheading here each time you wish to reply - just reply in the existing section, and prefix a ":" to indent your reply. And please remember to sign your comments by adding "~~~~" at the end) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is much poeple in favor of some things that I think should be changed, wich is a enough of a "consensus" - if I remember correctly. But you seem to be the only one who is adamant about keeping it the way it is. Please let things progress, if you would see what is aparent and cooperate. Thank you, William —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.91.40 (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way where is the consensus for editing or simply revising the article to include "former nurse anaesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology"; "following among some fundamentalists and evangelicals"; "While Wyatt won a devoted following from the ranks of fundamentalist Christians seeking tangible evidence of the literal truth of the Bible" and "Wyatt's main career was as a nurse-anesthetist.[1] In 1960 he saw a picture in Life Magazine"?. The last one, I believe, you recently changed/rephrased without a consensus. William —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.91.40 (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've explained already that I am not making changes and I have not "rephrased" anything. I have done nothing more than revert your contentious WP:POV changes, and I do not need to get an explicit consensus to retain the long-stable version of the article. So please explain the changes you wish to make on the article Talk page as required by WP:BRD and we will discuss it there, not here - I have already started a section for you. If you explain why you want to make your changes, I will be happy to listen. If I agree with your reasoning I will support your changes, and if I disagree I will explain why. Please also note that consensus is not a vote, and "much poeple in favor of some things" [sic] does not constitute a consensus, especially if that favor is contrary to Wikipedia Policy. And finally, I will not repeat myself again, and I will not reply further here - take it to the article Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

• News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

• In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

• Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

• WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Voting in full swing

• Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Next drive

As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising 0 articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.

For the December Drive Coordinators, WikiCopter (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 23:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

December 2010

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive graphs 58 people signed up for this drive. Of these, 48 people participated in the drive. Although we did not eliminate the months we planned to (January, February, and March 2009; and August, September, and October 2010), we did reduce the backlog by 627 articles (11.2%), which was over our goal of 10%. 49 awards will go out to 33 of 48 participants. Check out the complete list of barnstar winners here. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Your removal of a speedy deletion notice from Umesh ranchi

I have decided not to replace the {{db-test}} tag on the above page though have no doubt that the article is a test by a new user. However I feel the {{db-a10}} tag is now more appropriate. -- role^player 12:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought I think you probably are right that it's a test page - but yes, A10 seems fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Tofutwitch11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 14:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Talk:Isan.
Message added 12:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Appeal or revision against acquittal in complaint cases

Hello Boing! said Zebedee. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Appeal or revision against acquittal in complaint cases to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• And the same for Valuation of suits in indian law. WP:CSD#A1 "applies only to very short articles" and these are not that; and one can actually make out the (very technical legal) context. OR and SYNTH, but I don't think there is a suitable speedy for them. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough - I remember getting that "very short" bit wrong before, now that you mention it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Kokkupalem village

He's got another one with the list in it - actually earlier than the one without - called Kokkupalem. Same text. I redirected it, and he's reverted the redirect. What's the procedure for dealing with this? Peridon (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted and have notified the author on his Talk page. If he repeatedly duplicates articles, or keeps adding unsourced trivia despite warnings, I think that can probably be reported at WP:AIV - after the usual 4 warning levels. I'll keep my eye on him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed them round - It seems best to keep Kokkupalem as the better named one, and I've turned Kokkupalem village into a redirect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ta muchly. Peridon (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Random Hacks of Kindness

We all make mistakes. This is not a hoax. I've recreated the article and unblocked him (blocking editor knows and agrees). Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for letting me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

• News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive

• In the news: Amazon "shopping-enabling" Wikipedia; Al Jazeera interview; be like Wikipedia

• GLAM-WIKI London: British Museum hosts two days of talks between Wikimedia and the cultural sector

• WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak

• WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

• Features and admins: Birds and insects

• Arbitration report: New case: World War II

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I have made an editor review for myself. Feel free to comment or review there. Porchcrop ^PC 06:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left you a few words. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Would you mind completing my editor review here, if you have time of course. Thanks. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to - but I probably won't have time to have a proper look until next week. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, still been rather busy, but I haven't forgotten -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD Question

Could you tell me what do I do when I see blatant advertising or a blatant personal attack in a user talk page -- do I tag them for deletion or do I blank them? Lord Porchcrop 06:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In a User Talk page, I don't think it's really possible to come up with a hard and fast way to respond, because I think it really depends on the individual circumstances - but I think it would usually be inappropriate to either blank or tag for deletion, as User talk pages generally don't get deleted, and there's usually additional content that should not be blanked. If it's blatant advertising, I might be tempted to remove just the ads - but it really would have to be blatant commercial stuff, and not just, for example, a user posting a plug for their own site. Concerning personal attacks, if it's a blatant attack that would satisfy CSD:G10 (and G10 refers to identified real people in real life, not to unidentified Wikipedia editors), I might just revert or remove the attack itself. But if it's a heated argument between two editors, or people just having a go at each other, I'd generally either just leave them to it - it's likely that it will die down or one or other will wind up filing a report. Or if I think it's bad I might file a report at WP:ANI. (But before you think of approaching ANI, spend some time reading it to see the kind of things it deals with). Anyway, those are just my thoughts, and others might disagree with me. But with stuff like this I think it's best if you err on the side of caution and only act if you're certain - and if you see any specific examples, you're welcome to ask my opinion here. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Caution

It looks to me like you used rollback in Cousin marriage to revert what is clearly NOT vandalism. Be careful. It could cost you your rollback privilege. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I just read the ANI discussion. No problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no problem - I'm grateful for the heads-up, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia articles expert-reviewed by Encyclopedia of Life, and more

• In the news: Confusion about Wikileaks continues, Wikipedia vs. Britannica in India, and more

• Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: The community has spoken

• Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Roy Roberts

Thank you for your message, and I'm sorry for my mistake on Roy Roberts!Buyjoe (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Create a page

Hello (Zebedee?)

I am trying to create a page and then reference it from the site about Iain Maclean disambiguation, however I can not find a reference to the page I think I have created and saved. What am I doing wrong, and don't tell my wife I have just asked that question, she already has enough amunition?

Many thanks

I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifmaclean (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi (Zebedee is fine, though most people here seem to call me Boing),

All I see is some information on your user page, at User:Ifmaclean, so you'd need to create a new page (called something like "Ian MacLean (businessman)" and copy it there - you can't link from a disambig page to a User page.

But before you do that, you really need to be sure the person satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria, otherwise the new page will stand a good chance of being quickly deleted - and please note that most managers of most companies do not satisfy those criteria. Have a read of the general notability guide, at WP:N, and specifically have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you believe "Ian MacLean (businessman)" would satisfy those criteria, you should then look for reliable third party sources that cover him in a non-trivial manner - see WP:RS for some guidance on finding reliable sources.

Finally, you should note that the Wikipedia community generally advises against writing articles about yourself (if you are, in fact, Ian MacLean) - if you are of sufficient notability for an article, it's likely that someone else will come along and create an article about you in due course, even if it might take a little while.

Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Outing

Hi. Thanks for reporting that. It was evidently a newbie who thinks this is Myspace; I have warned him. Another time, better not to repeat the name at ANI, which just spreads the outing further; if you just mention the outer's name, a look at his recent contributions will enable the relevant page to be found without much difficulty. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point - thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

• News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

• In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Wikipedia; brief news

• Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

• Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rhumb Line (board game)

Hello Z.B.,

Thanx for the info.

If you hadn't already guessed, I am somewhat computer illiterate - however, I have been to approx. the same number of countries as you - so there!

Sugar Loaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarloaflane (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I used to do navigation software at one stage :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Like

Your user name makes me want to bounce around Feast on my Soul (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bounce away - and welcome to Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Long time no speak

Let you and American fighting together now. Sorry for MRTV fight in April which take 3 more people to trouble. I started DXing in 1991 and I see Thai MRTV since 1989 so I think it's the same station, but it's the different. Thai one (Midnight RTV) is a village TV and it's now closed.

I'm sorry I really have no time and I have to go.

Don't delete this, please--125.27.55.132 (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

PS:Merry Christmas BsZ!--125.27.55.132 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC) 6jpn850

Edit summaries

What's put me in such a bad mood is the fact that I'm seeing idiocy from EVERY angle: even editors whom I think would know better are doing stupid stuff like taking a merge proposal to AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's frustrating, but that is not an excuse to be abusive to people. If you find people's mistakes so annoying that they drive you to anger, I think a better approach would be for you to take a break and come back when you're feeling calmer and able to respond more civilly - you can't expect everyone to know as much as you do, considering your vastly superior experience to most people. In the AfD example, all you needed to do was reply in the AfD - there was absolutely no call to post that sarcastic comment on the editor's Talk page. And there is no justification at all for calling people "dumbass" in edit summaries. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your massive deletion of work

Boing! said Zebedee, my 30 small changes were made, bit by bit, over a two day period, with detailed explanations in the edit summary, and with ‘’no objections’’ from any editor. There were no major changes, only moving, WORD FOR WORD of the overly technical “introduction” paragraphs into the relevant article section’s opening paragraphs, and reorganization per section requests. You can check this here[1] Even the parts in red are word for word the same from left to right, but only reorganized into proper sections. By your reasoning, I cannot edit the article at all, since each change I made was small, explained in minute detail in the edit summary box, and done over time. You deleted all of my work without responding to what I wrote on the talk page. Please respond on the talk page.HkFnsNGA (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the Homeopathy Talk page, where it belongs, and where I already had responded to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

• Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

• News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

• In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Telangana

Major event regarding Telangana is expected in next 24 hours[2]. We can expect lot of hits to Telangana page after the submission of the much awaited report. We should also expect vandalism on this page just like we did on Dec 10, 2009. I just want to give heads up to the Admins. Please take appropriate action to protect the page. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't help with protection, sorry - I'm not an admin. If it does get vandalised and need protecting, you should request it at WP:RPP -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Muzharul Islam

Mazharul Islam is incorrect, Muzharul Islam is correct. For further, go to his official website http://www.muzharulislam.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi101 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at your Talk page, with some explanation as to how there is not necessarily a formally correct way to spell a Bengali name in English - please keep the discussion in one place over there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you add the word 'architect', search result will be changed. Mazharul Islam is not a unavailable name. Architect Mazharul islam found 8470, and Architect Muzharul Islam found 18300 at search by google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi101 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I asked you, please keep the discussion in one place - I have started a central discussion at the article Talk page, at Talk:Mazharul Islam. Please do not continue here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report

Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 503 editors 2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives Our encounter with Jimbo Wales Guild home pages reorganized and redesigned Report on our inaugural elections Guild Plans for 2011 New barnstars introduced Requests page improved Sign up for the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011! – Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! and Happy New Year!

Thanks for reviewing me, Happy new year!

My pleasure -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Oh and can you also clarify for me why you think that these two edits might be appropriate while you disregard my reverts? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I don't think I'm following you here. Those two edits edits appear to be old and I've never seen them before - I've certainly never voiced any opinion on whether they're appropriate. But I'd be happy to look again if you can explain a bit more. (Good humour accepted and reciprocated - Happy New Year!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

One was a revert of what looks like a sock of the user on the same talkpage that I made such reverts and the other was removing a conversation on the talkpage of another banned editor and replacing it with a template. Sometimes I feel that they believe they were doing what was right for the user in the circumstances involved. (As the azn community would say, I hope you succeed in all your endeavors!) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I get what you're talking about now - my reversion of your removal of the SPI comment. It just looked to me like a removal of someone else's valid Talk comment, and I hadn't realize there might be something deeper behind it, as the edit summary didn't really explain. And sorry about the template - I was using Twinkle and I probably just forgot who I was talking to. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It was nothing more than as taken in good humor. Kind regards, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10