User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Boing! said Zebedee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
April 2017
Administrators' newsletter – April 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
TheDJ
Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott
- Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
- The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
- An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
- After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
- After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
- Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Deteled 5 articles created by me
I wrote a response in the page of discussion, please read it--Vvven (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Help with vandalism
I was contacted to add or edit information regarding a Wikipedia page. As a project for school i begin finding creating and sourcing information for a page. I have come across several of revisions made by User:Melcous Who have repeatedly add it or made it lines of coding without citing proper reasoning. On some lines of revision I ventured into more credible sources commonly used on the database Like IMDB. However, without fact checking the user continues to disrupt the hours of research I have done to contribute to he article. I have researched that one contributor :Poweredbyfacet and the above mentioned account seem to have personal issues. I would like both users to be blocked from revising as they are both subjective in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:4AF3:23D6:65C8:8D64:BC95:FFCA (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry, I missed this. If what you are experiencing genuinely is vandalism (see WP:Vandalism to be sure), please report it at WP:AIV. Otherwise, please discuss it on the talk page of the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Renames Comment
Theres a couple who've edited Cumbernauld_town_centre that might want to be renamed as well if you'd be so kind. Amortias (T)(C) 20:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've renamed the one that I could see, but there are some revisions that look like they've been oversighted and I can't see the usernames. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, I've just got a message that suppress-block leaves fewer traces, so that seems to be the way to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Special:GlobalRenameUser
Hi, I can rename just fine from a user request but I get a 'Permission error' when I try to access Special:GlobalRenameUser. Any thoughts, please? Just Chilling (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I get the same from that en.wiki page. I've no idea why, but I've never tried that page before - I always use the meta page at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameUser. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, cool, thanks. :-) Just Chilling (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Das osmnezz
This is getting old. I am not a heartless SOB but I do have serious CIR concerns. That said, I also have to concede that at least one of the issues that triggered the recent block looks like a non-issue at this point. And then there are these piteous unblock requests that are never going to end until we either unblock him or shut down his talk page editing rights. I'm honestly rather torn about what to do here. Thoughts? (Ping - RickinBaltimore) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've been thinking exactly the same thing myself. It's over-enthusiasm and being young, I expect, and I've seen this kind of thing happen a few times with younger editors. I can't help wanting to give him one last chance, so I think I'd suggest unblock him and make it absolutely clear that one more transgression will mean a new block with only the standard offer available. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- In the meantime Yamla has declined his most recent unblock request. I am thinking of dropping his block to three months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- If they can refrain from evading in this next 3 months, I'll feel better about their chances long term, hopefully they mature up enough to not have this start all over. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, a 3-month block sounds like a good compromise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- RickinBaltimore, Yamla Discussion is still ongoing. I am very close to unblocking him and kicking this to ANI which in all honesty might have been the better place to resolve this in the first place. My main concern is that given his track record and in particular the huge number of blocks, ANI might end up imposing something fairly harsh. Arghh this is like a bad cold that won't go away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The user has not actually commented since April 11, so I'd just leave it at that. If anyone else wants to take it to ANI, let them, but I think blocking and reviewing admins have done all that is needed at this point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the shortened block. I really don't have much to add. I declined to lift the block because, come on, you can't evade your block and expect to have it lifted outright. At this point, I don't think any further action needs to be taken. I agree, taking it to WP:ANI is likely to result in something substantially harsher. But, I'm kinda meh on the whole thing. --Yamla (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- RickinBaltimore, Yamla Discussion is still ongoing. I am very close to unblocking him and kicking this to ANI which in all honesty might have been the better place to resolve this in the first place. My main concern is that given his track record and in particular the huge number of blocks, ANI might end up imposing something fairly harsh. Arghh this is like a bad cold that won't go away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, a 3-month block sounds like a good compromise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- If they can refrain from evading in this next 3 months, I'll feel better about their chances long term, hopefully they mature up enough to not have this start all over. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- In the meantime Yamla has declined his most recent unblock request. I am thinking of dropping his block to three months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Ziv2000
Ziv2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Not meaning to second-guess you, but you just blocked this editor's TPA, leaving the block duration at one week, then told them you'd changed the block to indef and that you would block TPA if they persisted. I don't know if they're confused, but I am.
General Ization Talk 23:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I did the two things the wrong way round! Thanks for letting me know - I'll fix it right away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Please restore deleted page (text) about Marjan Davari
I understand that the Wikipedia is not a social network like Facebook. What we are trying to do is just creating a page for Marjan Davari like the other pages which already created for the similar cause:
These are a few sample of existing Wikipedia pages for Iranian prisoners and detainees who have been held in prison against the International Human Rights :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazanin_Zaghari-Ratcliffe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoncheh_Ghavami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Foroughi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Ali_Taheri
Here are some sources for Marjan Davari's cause:
https://www.iranhumanrights.org/2016/09/marjan-davari/ https://www.en-hrana.org/tag/marjan-davari http://english.shabtabnews.com/2017/03/24/marjan-davari-sentenced-to-death-and-transferred-to-garchak-prison/
So I'm asking you to restore my deleted page please so I can create an article for Marjan Davari who is an innocent woman and really needs our help.
Regards.
Free Marjan Davari Campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesWeinberg1980 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Boing! said Zebedee, appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesWeinberg1980 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Immigration@SG
Hi there. The page Immigration@SG was marked for speedy deletion literally when I was still writing it; probably a bot that capture it half way before it was finished. I followed the rules and did not remove the bot tag, instead I put in the talk page my clear intentions; the tone of the page was not advertising at all, and if it was still that could be changed. Regardless you deleted it without talking. Can that be reversed? Thanks!
-Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but phrases like "more than 10 years of immigration experience", "close working relationships with all the relevant government agencies", "strategic immigration advice and solutions with full compliance..." etc are obvious PR/marketing speak and not suitable for an encyclopedia article (which must be written in a plain disinterested style). Also, Wikipedia is not a business directory, and I see very little chance that this company is of sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. But if you can provide evidence that it satisfies the notability requirements of WP:NCORP, I will restore a copy into your user space for you to rewrite in a more encyclopedic tone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you would have put that in the talk page, I am sure it would be addressed. Given the changes in immigration law in Singapore, I thought it could be nice to update the pages I referred to, and create a list of "immigration agencies in Singapore", categorized by the services they provide. Maybe I started the wrong way, I was planning to start from the leafs (the companies), then create the list and finally update the main articles. I understand that in the global scale this may not be relevant, but it is very relevant to any foreigner living in, or planning to move to, Singapore. Appreciate if you can restore it, I will make sure it follows compliance. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia would only host articles about individual immigration agencies if such agencies are notable, so there is no point you spending any more time on it if it is not going to be acceptable anyway - articles about non-notable companies are regularly deleted. If you want me to restore the article to your user space, please provide me with evidence that the company satisfies the requirements of WP:NCORP (specifically "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject"). Please also show me the sources compatible with WP:RS to support it. If you do that, I will be happy to restore it for you. Alternatively, if you can not or will not do that, and you believe my deletion of the article was a mistake, you will have to make a request at WP:DRV. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and one thing I must ask - do you have any personal connection with Immigration@SG? If you do, you should read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy at WP:COI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, looking closer, the text in the article was essentially copied from the company's web site, which makes it a copyright violation. So no, it will not be restored. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, I will work on notability first for these agencies, that will take me some time; I will re-create the article when I am ready. I obviously took the services list from the web site, but I will make the rest very general. If I do not manage to get notability to create an individual article (for this or any other agency), I will create then a simple list of immigration agencies categorized by the services they provide; that should be encyclopedic enough. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Miguel.mateo: Actually, you did not take just the list of services from the web site, you took the actual text of your article too. Also, can I ask you again - do you have any personal connection with Immigration@SG? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, I will work on notability first for these agencies, that will take me some time; I will re-create the article when I am ready. I obviously took the services list from the web site, but I will make the rest very general. If I do not manage to get notability to create an individual article (for this or any other agency), I will create then a simple list of immigration agencies categorized by the services they provide; that should be encyclopedic enough. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you would have put that in the talk page, I am sure it would be addressed. Given the changes in immigration law in Singapore, I thought it could be nice to update the pages I referred to, and create a list of "immigration agencies in Singapore", categorized by the services they provide. Maybe I started the wrong way, I was planning to start from the leafs (the companies), then create the list and finally update the main articles. I understand that in the global scale this may not be relevant, but it is very relevant to any foreigner living in, or planning to move to, Singapore. Appreciate if you can restore it, I will make sure it follows compliance. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Possible reference to recent discussion
FYI, this might be a reference to an issue with which you were recently involved. Seems to be just a user-written forum post, though. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that's it - if they want to rant off-wiki that's fine, and I think we can safely ignore it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
This is odd
On your user page, your admin stats have disappeared, seemingly because you are not an administrator. Have I missed something, or is this an error? Thanks in advance and take care. Patient Zerotalk 10:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- The admin stats thing appears to be broken - it's been like that for a while. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. Do you know who may be able to fix this? Patient Zerotalk 12:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- No idea, sorry. I saw it mentioned somewhere, but I forget where now. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be the best place to pursue it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, that page looks appropriate - I'll drop a message there. Patient Zerotalk 12:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Template talk:adminstats says to see User talk:Cyberpower678#Adminstats error. ~ GB fan 13:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Template talk:adminstats says to see User talk:Cyberpower678#Adminstats error. ~ GB fan 13:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, that page looks appropriate - I'll drop a message there. Patient Zerotalk 12:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- No idea, sorry. I saw it mentioned somewhere, but I forget where now. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be the best place to pursue it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. Do you know who may be able to fix this? Patient Zerotalk 12:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You might find this interesting
https://www.bing.com/search?q=triangular+moving+average
You can help me to write a bit more about market/investing indicators. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm afraid I know nothing about the subject, so I can't help, sorry. All I did was remove your addition to a disambiguation page as, according to Wikipedia policy, those pages are not supposed to contain entries that do not have a link to an already existing article. A disambig page is not a glossary of a term, it is a page for listing existing articles and to help people fine material that we do carry. As you can see, it says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title TMA", not "This disambiguation page lists all meanings of the term TMA" . Now that you have added it back with a link to a relevant existing page, that's fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Header
Hello there, i think an apology is in order, at the end of the day i can see how its affect can be annoying and certainly taken into alot of consideration with a great deal of stress, more general annoyance though, i understand that.
So sincerely i apologise for abusing this website, have a nice day now! terrible weather here honestly, try to enjoy it while it last i think :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1washear (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
regarding WP:Requests for page protection
I did request rpp for White Hart Lane, I saw you added protect I am not sure if you saw the page or if you're suppose to leave a note on it, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. No, I didn't see your RPP request, I was just checking new users and I saw one of them vandalising the White Hart Lane article, so I popped it on my watchlist - and I protected it later when I saw the IPs come along. I hadn't realised there was a derby match tomorrow, so I've now upped the protection to 48 hours as you suggested, and I've responded at WP:RPP. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
May 2017
Willing to rename a blocked user?
Hi Boing, I seem to recall you've got the global rename flag. Could you take a look at User talk:Sorenland, and rename them to the non-promotional name User:Youmightrecall? I'm bugging you instead of reading up on how and where I'm supposed to request this because he's been waiting a while, partially my fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, it's done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you much. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Fan4Life
This user has returned from their block, and has, yet again, begun edit-warring by continuing to re-add the same information that's been removed (and explained why), and yet they continue to re-add. Surely this behaviour is unacceptable, per Wikipedia standards. livelikemusic talk! 22:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see a number of changes made since the block ended, and the only thing that looks like edit warring to me is changing "Tokyo" to "Chiba" twice. That was among a number of other changes which don't appear to be contested, and I'd be reluctant to issue a new block just for that. But if it continues, please report to WP:EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on an old NAC at AfD?
Any thoughts regarding User_talk:Kharkiv07#NAC at 1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province? The closer has not been particularly active recently, although they do appear from time to time. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see no consensus for that redirect - in fact, only one out of four participants supported it (the other redirect suggestion was not to that target), and there's a very good argument why that redirect is wrong (in that there was no Pakistan in 1901). Wait and see what they say, but perhaps starting a new discussion (with reference to the old one) might be the best way to go now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those were my thoughts but it will need now to go through RfD rather than AfD, and I've never had a happy experience there. That's why I don't usually bother querying things like Jakhrani even though it seems wrong to redirect something that cannot be sourced. I'll see if Kharkiv07 responds in the next few days but I think it is way too old for them to revert their close or for WP:DRV to look at it. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it would have to be RfD now - let me know if you do it and I'll offer my opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those were my thoughts but it will need now to go through RfD rather than AfD, and I've never had a happy experience there. That's why I don't usually bother querying things like Jakhrani even though it seems wrong to redirect something that cannot be sourced. I'll see if Kharkiv07 responds in the next few days but I think it is way too old for them to revert their close or for WP:DRV to look at it. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Arjun (singer)
Hey there, You sent me a email today regarding my removed content from the wiki page Arjun (singer) I'm working on his behalf and I've noticed that some pieces from his biographie aren't true at all. Could you please help and explain the best way to remove or change content?
in your email you said: In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. I'm not quiet sure I understand that
Thanks Lou.team (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[1]Louisiane
- It was just this edit you made which removed content (the Tamil spelling of his name) without any explanation. When you make a change, below the box in which you are typing you will see another box labelled "Edit summary". You should explain briefly, in that box, what you are doing and why. In this case, explain why you removed the Tamil spelling of his name (which I note you only removed from the lead sentence and not from the information box). Was it spelled incorrectly? If so, it's better correct it rather than remove it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to add that if I use Google Translate on "அர்ஜூன் குமாரசுவாமி" it translates it to "Arjun Kumaraswamy", which looks to me like it's pretty close (given that there can't really be literally correct spellings of names between different scripts). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looking a bit further, I see the Tamil Wikipedia spells his name as "அர்ஜுன் குமாரசாமி" (see ta:அர்ஜுன் (பாடகர்)), so maybe that's the correct spelling to use? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, finally, if you are working on Arjun's behalf, you should declare your conflict of interest on your user page - see WP:COI for more details. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight
- An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
- Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
- You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
- There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
- Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)
- Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
deleted spam user page transcludes from wikimedia vexes me
I deleted this for spamuser. Could not see how to request deletion @ Wikimedia. Can you help kill this particular whale? Dlohcierekim 12:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Requested at Meta:Requests for deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- thanks Dlohcierekim 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- and it's gone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- thanks Dlohcierekim 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
your username origin
Where did you get your username from? I swear that phrase sounds familliar to me. 199.101.62.55 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- (tps) The Magic Roundabout had this fellow.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)- That's it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- And there was me thinking your parents had particularly fertile imaginations when it came to child naming (like mine did)
Optimist on the run (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hehe :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- And there was me thinking your parents had particularly fertile imaginations when it came to child naming (like mine did)
- That's it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
OBR Disambiguation Page: Removal of Entry "OBR10"
Did you read the summary note I wrote when I posted the edit? I did not remove anything, and I was working on the page. If the convention is to write the page and then link and remove disambiguation, I stand corrected. I did change the order of the entries on the page as they were not alphabetical. Funkihunter (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'll reply at your talk page to keep it all in one place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
hm
I identified this contributor as not useful, based on a correlation of a number of factors which I'm not going to mention publicly. I'll concede that this may have been a premature decision; if you choose to unblock, I won't object. DS (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @DragonflySixtyseven: Indeed, don't spill the beans ;-) As you're OK that the block might have been premature and you don't object to an unblock, I'll go ahead and do that. If you want to email me and let me know of the other concerns, please feel free to do so and I can keep an eye open for any possible future issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) Oh; once again I type too slow. I was just about to suggest the block be kept. No problem, it's just one person and relatively easy to keep an eye on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, OK... just unblocked. Please feel free to email me if there's anything I'm missing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I shouldn't have muddied the waters; when I got the e/c I should have just moved on. It's nothing like "obvious ax murderer" or anything. I just stuck my nose in because I was bored and your talk page is on my watchlist, and I saw a few things (I assume some overlap with DS67) that would have led me to pull the trigger faster than normal too. I'm watching now too, and I expect one of us will be re-blocking within the day, but I've been wrong before. I think it was back in '05... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, do feel free to drop in any time you're bored - I'm feeling a bit like that myself today, and it's always nice to have someone to chat to. But yes, with all these eyes peeled, they're well watched now (which reminds me of a line from an otherwise long-forgotten movie: "Keep your eyes peeled, or I'll peel 'em for you".) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I shouldn't have muddied the waters; when I got the e/c I should have just moved on. It's nothing like "obvious ax murderer" or anything. I just stuck my nose in because I was bored and your talk page is on my watchlist, and I saw a few things (I assume some overlap with DS67) that would have led me to pull the trigger faster than normal too. I'm watching now too, and I expect one of us will be re-blocking within the day, but I've been wrong before. I think it was back in '05... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, OK... just unblocked. Please feel free to email me if there's anything I'm missing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) Oh; once again I type too slow. I was just about to suggest the block be kept. No problem, it's just one person and relatively easy to keep an eye on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Kishore Biyani
I've just collapsed some irrelevant stuff at Talk:Kishore Biyani while massively expanding the article. Would it be better if I deleted them? - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd say delete it - it looks defamatory. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
| The Admin's Barnstar | ||
| Thank you for making me return to Wikipedia. It was a difficult decision that I'm glad you took. I will make a conscious effort to ensure you don't regret it. Darreg (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC) |
- I'm not entirely sure what I did (other than welcoming you back), but thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Being an admin, you interceded for me, that's commendable from my perspective. But you're right, it literally escaped my mind that it was Mike V that hit the button. I will give him a barnstar too. Darreg (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, OK - it all turned out well :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Being an admin, you interceded for me, that's commendable from my perspective. But you're right, it literally escaped my mind that it was Mike V that hit the button. I will give him a barnstar too. Darreg (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Intex technologies
HI are you willing to create a page for me if possible do let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shusilence (talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't write articles on request. Please see WP:AfC for some help if you're not sure how to start an article yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
SPI's
I've never been involved in an SPI before, but I have the niggling suspicion that PraiseTheShroom is a sock of FL or Atlanta. Do you have any advice on what I should look for as far as specific evidence, and on starting an SPI (beyond whatever instructions I can find at WP:SPI, of course). I would, of course, consider "They're obviously not socking, mellow out, dude." to be valid advice if such is your opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting. The two accounts are recent, so checkuser evidence could be used, but there would have to be a compelling reason for a check to be done. Examples that spring to mind are the use of the same or similar phrases (or misspellings - they're great), use/misuse of the same or similar sources in similar ways, article overlap can be good (but obviously not if it's all about one specific article). Timings of edits can be informative - for example, if they're always on at different times it can lend support, but if they're both editing different articles at the same time it goes against the socking idea. For me, I generally just spend time looking at their edits and reading their words, and some particular characteristic just becomes clear (or it doesn't). I'll do some comparing when I have a bit more time and I'll let you know what I think.
As for the mechanics of starting an SPI, by far the easiest way to do it is using Twinkle - Choose "sockpuppeteer" or "sockpuppet" under the ARV option and fill in the dialog, and it does all the formalities for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I quickly laid out their editing histories since Shroom's first edit and plotted a chart (I work in software development so this only took me about 10 minutes to put together). They've only edited on the same day twice; the day Shroom made their account (~18 hours apart) which was at a time when FL or Atlanta and I were involved in a dispute over this article, and again on 4/23/17, (49 minutes apart) when FL or Atlanta engaged in some minor canvassing, posting messages on a few talk pages of editors who'd edited the article from the same POV including Shrooms. There's some behavioral stuff, as well. Shroom's archaic (almost Shakespearean) mannerisms strike me as possibly being an overdone attempt to prevent people from recognizing shared mannerisms, they both repeatedly make saccharine-sweet entreaties to "move forward together" while ignoring the actual content issues that produced the conflict, they both seem disdainful of philosophers and respectful of scientists and they both infrequently edit other articles seemingly at random, but show up to edit this article in a flurry. In your opinion, is this evidence or am I seeing things?
- Apologies if I'm being a pain in the ass; being on the receiving end of a number of baseless complaints, I'm very reluctant to make complaints I'm not extremely certain of, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, not had a lot of thinking time today, but I'll have a dig around over the weekend. (But that's another thing we have in common - I did s/w dev for about 30 years.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's a lot of us on WP it seems. I guess it's that freedom of information thing so many coders believe so strongly. Take your time, there's no rush. And in case I forget, I appreciate it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Ha, after seeing a couple more joining in today I was going to reply here, but I see you've already done it and got a result! Proposing discretionary sanctions if there's a recurrence would probably be a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I only expected a partial result. I thought that Perf might not have been the main account, and I was still only half convinced about Shroom (TheLog was, I felt, a pure WP:DUCK) but at the last minute, figured I'd just toss in every account I even slightly suspected. The result that they're all related (except, possibly for the IPs which I understand won't be announced publicly as being related for privacy reasons) actually came as a complete shock to me. At this point, facing that result, I doubt that the problems will be ongoing. I had previously expressed confusion at how so many editors could feel so strongly about this, but now I understand that it was just one editor with little regard for our policies.
- Also, thank you again. I know that behavioral issues that are this soaked in content disputes can be a pain in the ass to deal with. I appreciate your willingness to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I was very surprised by the result too. And with the Florida connection, I've no doubt the IPs are the same person. Anyway, I'm happy to help - philosophy is one of my subjects, but I hadn't realised this article was under such an attack. If you keep an eye on it from a content perspective and I watch it for behavioural issues, we should be able to keep it good - I'll keep out of any actual content discussions so I can remain WP:UNINVOLVED as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Ha, after seeing a couple more joining in today I was going to reply here, but I see you've already done it and got a result! Proposing discretionary sanctions if there's a recurrence would probably be a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's a lot of us on WP it seems. I guess it's that freedom of information thing so many coders believe so strongly. Take your time, there's no rush. And in case I forget, I appreciate it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, not had a lot of thinking time today, but I'll have a dig around over the weekend. (But that's another thing we have in common - I did s/w dev for about 30 years.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/pvmoutside
Thanks Boing! said Zebedee.......I think I fixed the statement....Pvmoutside (talk)
as long as i use subpages on my userpages, is it okay that i make a parody of nazi germany?
as long as i use subpages on my userpages, is it okay that i make a parody of nazi germany? i have to tell you the homour is kind of dark but dont worry is not meant to offend anyone! its kind of family guy style humour! please let me do this, this is not for advertisment or any misuse or disrespect for wikipedia i just want a page that looks exacly like a real wikipedia article (this will not be an wikipedia article! just my a subpage of my userpage! please i would be so cool if i could do this! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to write personal material, please use a blog or something like Facebook. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- but people allowed to to do this all the time....wikipedia is full of non serious articles they even have a cateogry see Category:Wikipedia humor!
- they are allowed to make joke wikipedia articles! and you say i cant even do it on my subpages! what the.... Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- but people allowed to to do this all the time....wikipedia is full of non serious articles they even have a cateogry see Category:Wikipedia humor!
- what about User:Brsalapa/History project! you want me to talk to a Wikipedia Bureaucrat about your behavior or take this to Arbitration Committee? Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've nominated User:Brsalapa/History project for deletion. Now please go away and stop bothering me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- fine sorry.. whatever... Ukrainetz1 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
cdg428
I am sorry. I have an extremely short temper about certain things and I've had a bad personal week. Please do not make me lose the opportunity of Wikipedia without possibility of parole. -- cdg428 Margravechristophe (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Margravechristophe (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Test Margravechristophe (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
User talk:YMB29
Thanks for your comment, and apologies for pinging you after you had said "I'll make one final comment, and then I really am done here". I thought that in his email to me the editor was misrepresenting what you had said (whether deliberately or by inability to understand) just as he has time and time again misrepresented what has been said to him. I also see that somehow I managed to delete a substantial chunk of the sentence referring to you before clicking "Save", resulting in complete nonsense. If you are interested you can now go back and read what I intended to say about your comments. Alternatively, you can stick to your "I really am done here", as I think this editor has already wasted too much time for all concerned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought there must have been a word or two missing - it makes more sense now! I got an email from YMB29 too, but it's the same point that you have already answered, so I'll just ignore it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
... and User talk:IEatpeople4Fun
If it's of any interest to you, I too thought that the selected topics of editing looked like trolling, but rather than mention that directly, I thought I would invite the editor to comment on the suggested edits, and see whether the response confirmed or contradicted that impression. Anyway, we'll see. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I lack subtlety sometimes ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI - 203.91.192.4
- 203.91.192.4 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
It looks like you and another admin conflicted different block durations for this IP address. I'm assuming that Materialscientist went with a longer block because of his previous 3 month block on the IP address. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:291A:C7EC:8E39:D51F (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah yes, thanks for letting me know - I've restored Materialscientist's 1-year block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
