User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

April 2011

Thanks

Thanks for your help with deleting the MSP Partners page. As you can probably tell, I'm a new wiki user and have a lot to learn. Best regards, Core — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coresim (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. And welcome to Wikipedia - feel free to ask me here if you need any help with anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Linda Lusardi

Mighty fine work there, Boing. Doing a Google search for references and 'accidentally' clicking "Images" brought back lots of teenage memories. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I managed to recall similar memories myself :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 backlog elimination drive report Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating in the March 2011 drive! This newsletter summarizes the March drive and other recent events. Participation GOCE March 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs There were 99 signups for the drive; of these, 70 participated. Interest was high mainly due to a link to our event from the Watchlist page. We had a record-breaking 84 articles listed on the Requests page in March; 11 of these have been promoted to Good article status so far. Several of our recent efforts have received Featured Article status as well, and the GOCE is becoming a solid resource for the Wikipedia community. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog. Progress report Remarkable progress was made in reducing the backlog this month, as we now have fewer than 500 articles remaining from 2009. We are well under the 4,000-article mark for the total number remaining in the queue. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 53% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their April drive has started. New coodinators On March 21, SMasters appointed Chaosdruid (talk) and Torchiest (talk) as Guild coordinators to serve in place of The Utahraptor, who recently stepped down. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your drive coordinators – S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk) and Tea with toast (Talk)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

.

Hello, have you read talk:Yellowstone Lake and talk:Yellowstone National Park ? I hope you will read them before removing that edits. Lkmen (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have - what you added has got nothing to do with Yellowstone. Please heed the warnings on your Talk page if you do not wish to be blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How come what I added has got nothing to do with Yellowstone?!

• Now, does that verse talk about Yellowstone literally or through descriptions? Yes it does for sure. This is very clear. No doubt about it. Why? Because Yellowstone is the only place in the (far west) that has (a hot spring of water which has a black clay) and (it is large enough so you can see the sunset on it) and (there were people living near it in the ancient times). If you, or anybody in the world can tell me of any place in the far west has these descriptions other than Yellowstone I will agree with you. Lkmen (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Your own personal interpretations of Islam are not allowed in Wikipedia articles, whether right or wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• :::: It is NOT about interpretations. These are clear descriptions in a clear quote. But, let us put it this simple. If any person can tell us about any place in the far west that has these descriptions other than Yellowstone, then I have no right to argue or re-add that quote in Yellowstone pages again. It is this simple. It is NOT about anybody interpretations. Lkmen (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not engaging in a content dispute with you here on my Talk page. Wikipedia works by consensus, so if you can gain a consensus in agreement with you on the articles' Talk pages, you can add your new content, and if you can't you can't. If you add it again without consensus, you will be blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, i noticed you're comments in this Afd. When looking at the talkpage of the creator of this article it seems there is a history of a similar pov. His strange POV becomes more clear when looking at this post from 2 months back. This style becomes evident when looking at his other templates and articles and contributions. Pass a Method talk 15:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. As I said in the AfD, I don't think there's any problem with describing Islamic beliefs about pre-Qur'an times, as long as they are in articles clearly about beliefs and not in articles about documented history - but those can be hard to distinguish for some religious followers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

John The Baptists Birth

Timeline of 1st century B.C.E. Muslim history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The whole point is that if you look at the John the Baptist article on Wikipedia it will say born 5 BC. This article says 15 BC and that is another problem because it is completely wrong and historically inaccurate, and there is absolutely no source for this. Besides this the date conflicts with the date on the Wikipedia article entitled John the Baptist. Also logically if Jesus was born around 4 BC to 6 BC, how could John the Baptist be born in 15 BC when he is only one year apart from Jesus. To learn more about this try reading the Bible or something so that you can understand that all the dates in the article are wrong and historically incorrect. Besides this it conflicts with sourced Wikipedia articles like John the Baptist. Another point is that there is no Timeline in the Quran, therefore any Biblical character mentioned in the Quran would have the same birthdate and deathdate, since no dates are mentioned in the Quran, there is no difference in chronology of Biblical characters such as David, Solomon, John the Baptist, Jesus, etc. This is why I deleted these wrong and unsourced information because it is wrong and misleading and all you have to do to verify what I am telling you is true is look on a Wikipedia article such as John the Baptist and click on its source, and you can see for yourself.99.125.86.244 (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the whole point is that when the Community is discussing what to do with an article - whether to delete it or improve it - you WAIT for the Community to decide and you DO NOT repeatedly make your own decision and blank it. If the decision is to keep and improve the article, then the subsequent correct action might be to state the context more clearly and to correct the incorrect claims, not to blank the whole thing. You must not override the community discussion and decide the outcome for yourself. Anyway, as I say, the article is likely to be deleted - so you only have to be patient for a few more days -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Sorry to bother you seemingly randomly, but I noticed you were actively editing at the moment. Could you do me a quick favor and tell me if the file in the infobox at Tornadoes of 2011 is updated with the graph going out to April 3rd? I uploaded such a version but I can't get it to display the new version through refreshing or purging, so I can't tell if the upload worked or not. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The latest version has "Apr. 03, 2011" in the caption, with "Apr. 03" in the key too, so I guess that means it's updated OK -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the black line is up to "Apr. 03=163", so all seems fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, must be my computer. Thanks. =) Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I was mistaken - I've just checked again and I've clearly been looking at the wrong version. At File:2011 United States tornado count graph.png, the version shown is in fact Mar 15 (and that's shown in the article too), but if I click on the newer version in the history, it shows as Apr 03. No idea what's wrong there, and sorry for the earlier false optimism. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...any idea what I should do about this or where I could ask about it? Normally in the past my refreshing or purging the page has made it display the updated version, but it isn't working this time. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea, I'm afraid - I wouldn't even know where to ask, sorry. I tried purging too, but it didn't work. But I do note that it is the preview size that is old - if you click for the full res version you get the new one. Weird -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

For all your hard work, help and attention to this latest problem. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help - looks like we got the right result in the end -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Boing. I agree. It took building a little infrastructure to get to this result. Starting with the first SPI we got some preliminary information as to the MO, then the ANI report provided some clarity and convergence as did your second SPI. The admin work involved in all of this was exceptional. I am thankful for that. Best wishes. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Teamwork, that's what it was :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

At its best. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Promethean's mass attack on science fiction conventions

Thanks for your input on Readercon's AfD. I'm finding it impossible to WP:AGF on this guy any more. (By the way: the hardcore members of science fiction fandom tend to hate the term "sci fi", as it carries overtones of the kind of crap shown on the Syfylis Channel and bad comic strip memories of the Buck Rogers era.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. Here in the UK (where I've never heard of "Syfylis Channel"), the "proper" stuff has always been "sci fi" to me - but then I haven't read much for a couple of decades now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so I should have mentioned early Dan Dare and the stuff like Devil Girl from Mars, Fire Maidens from Outer Space, Behemoth, the Sea Monster and First Man into Space that makes Troughton-era Daleks look like marvels of special effects technology. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that's more like it :-) (I was in a local museum last year, and they had one cabinet of Dan Dare stuff - apparently the collector had had some connection with Frank Hampson) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently we can get SyFy here - doesn't sound like I should do, mind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Swe41 talk page access

Is it at all possible to revoke Swe41's talk page access? I doubt after 3 failed unblock requests that he will ever be unblocked and well to be honest he is just annoying :P ZooPro 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not do it myself as he has turned it personal against me, which kinda makes me too involved to make such decisions. Also, I think we should give Tnxman a chance to comment if he wishes (I've left a note), and leave Swe41 with the ability to reply -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I did think about the potential COI after I posted here so my error. Sometimes I wish wikipedia had a little button we could press that shoots a hand out of the screen and smacks the user upside the head to knock some sense into them.........maybe oneday :P Cheers ZooPro 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lucid dream theory proposed by Swe41

Hi Boing. I checked about the origins of the so-called theory proposed by Swe41 because it sounded vaguely familiar. In fact it is not actually a theory but a rehash of the plot of the film Inception. First published in a blog by someone named: Swe, it actually includes a reference to the film Inception, quote: (...easier to understand if you have watched inception). The so-called theory then migrated to Wikihow.com where it is up for deletion. The deletion proposer complains that she cannot find any reference for the theory anywhere. At the article discussion page at Wikihow an IP proposes that there is afterall a reference for the theory, and you guessed it, it is a Wikipedia mirror of the Lucid dream article from Ask.com.. Guess what, the mirror doesn't have any mention of the theory because it was deleted at its origin in Wikipedia. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, very interesting :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I mentioned it, I thought I'd bring it. Enjoy! Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It came full circle. Too bad the inception of the proposed theory didn't go so well. :) Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you scroll down http://money-samir.blogspot.com/ to the next item below the theory, you'll see "By Samir Erraou", so presumably the SWE of the blog is Samir W Erraou -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Great catch. And I was wondering who that Samir guy was. The plot gets thicker. No need to go to a theatre though to see a whodunit. All can be sleuthed out right here. Only thing missing is the popcorn. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way he deleted for the second time the section on my talk where he admits he used falsified sources to keep his theory on Wikipedia, even as in the next edit he conditionally apologises. I just noticed this and reverted it again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

From the wikiHow article discussion page an IP signed as "Chris" 82.9.127.45 said:This is great! praises the theory. The IP 82.9.127.45 is also the same as the sock here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

From Samir's talkpage at wikiHow.com: Krystle said: Hey there, thanks for sharing an article on "The Erraou Theory". I can't find any documentation of that theory anywhere, though, even on Wikipedia. Where is this theory from? Who invented it? Where did you hear of it? On 20:44, March 29, 2011. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think to check the IPs of any other contributors - and thanks for the popcorn :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It was a lot of fun. :) I apologise for the annoying orange message bars. All the best. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe - orange bars are no problem :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I forgot. Frequent message bars are an occupational hazard for admins. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

TB

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

Fjp1995 is back

Thank you for unblocking me. And I'm done reverting edits. But this time. I'm sorry about edit warring. And I will Never report any other users again. Can you forgive me. Fjp1995 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As it happens I have just posted a message on your Talk page - then I saw your message here. You've got one more chance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't wanna to be blocked again. I will never edit war again. Please don't block me. Fjp1995 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference

Thanks - i wasn't sure about the referencing bits, and just added it as i thought i had to. Do i need to provide a reference to add or edit a post? I understand this: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." but could you tell me what constitutes 'Encyclopedic content'? Can I do it again? thanks, --SusiBArt (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Probably best to continue this on your Talk page - I'll head over there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

About NBN

What's up with NBN trouble? Or the TV3?--180.180.6.115 (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Forget to introduce myself! You can call me fun17092008, i'm from malaysia and I like Thai TV!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.180.6.115 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have any specific questions about any specific articles that I can help you with? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Higham

Your edit summary "do ref properly" is somewhat aggressive, particularly since I was caught by an edit conflict while trying to fix it. Since you think I'm not adding references properly, I'm happy leave you to it ... Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey dude, sorry if it came across the way you took it - it certainly wasn't meant that way. I was just looking at the article as I was checking through the AfD's I'm involved in, and I saw a link that needed turning into a proper ref. I had no idea you were working on it, or that you had just added the reference, and my edit summary was not directed to you at all - I'd just assumed that link had been there for some time. Thanks for your work on helping to keep the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, no problem, Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Your words at the ANI were very comforting. Indeed, it was a good-faith mistake and having you weigh in like that at the end was very nice of you. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem - things can get a bit heated at ANI sometimes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Arthur Rubin, one of the editors whose post I copyedited, affirmed my suggested edit for clarity’s sake after I notified him on his talk page. I was in the process of notifying the other editor of my copyedit when I saw I was the subject of an ANI. I never got back to notifying that other editor because I was blocked before I could utter “Well, OK…” and explain myself.

Jeez processes on ANI are inconsistent. I’ve seen them go on for days and days without any admin action. This one was “shoot first—ask why he’s carrying a cash register down the street later”. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

eligability of KERALA ELECTION - VOTE FOR CORRUPTION AND CASTE OPPRESSION

Hi Boing, Just letting you know that in my opinion ERALA ELECTION - VOTE FOR CORRUPTION AND CASTE OPPRESSION was eligible under G11 or G10. I saw you rejected A2, but chose not to delete it under G10 or G11. Was there any particular reason for that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I did in fact rethink it and I tagged it for G10 myself - but I'm a bit tired and I didn't want to do any admin actions while perhaps not fully alert, so I thought it best to leave it for someone else to decide. (And it was actually G2 I contested, as it clearly wasn't a test page, but I made a typo in the edit summary) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Make admin decisions when your sharp, I suppose. G2 indeed definitely out of order. All worked out anyway, cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

• News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news

• In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Wikipedia?; brief news

• Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?

• Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi Boing. Despite all the water throwing going on outside my office window, it looks as if I'm the coordinator of this project. Although I started it, I'm an admin already and have nothing personal to gain or loose, but I don't really want to be seen as the leader or pushing my own opinions or ideas. I know you're already very busy on many aspects of WP, but would you consider being one of the permanent coordinators of the project? It would mean moving threads to their respective new sub pages as they occur, and perhaps striking or removing inappropriate or irrelevant comments, and generally keeping the whole thing on track. If we start a very short coordinator list, I would put my name on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I really would love to help, and I've been prevaricating - but I don't really think I can make the commitment. The problem isn't my other Wikipedia work, but real life demands, and my Wikipedia time is likely to become more intermittent in the coming months. I really do wish you well, and I'll be following progress as and when I can, but I wouldn't want to try take something up unless I was confident I could see it through. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, but I do hope you will chime in from time to time. You and I are charwomen now, but we have to think of the poor sods who have to follow in our footsteps! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I will do what I can, yes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at KnowIG's talk page.
Message added 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Transport in Burundi

Hi Zebedee, I've redone your changes to Transport in Burundi, as you had perhaps inadvertently undone other changes I had made. As you'll see from the edit summary, it should effectively be my old version, plus the railways bit that had been moved to Rail transport in Burundi (which I have copyedited), plus the few other minor changes you made.

I noticed that you were unsure where to leave the Railways section, and I have left it at the end (where I'd put it last time). It had actually started at the top, (ie above Roads), and I'd be very happy if it was moved back there to be in line with guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, but I cannot find any. There just seems to be a convention to put Railways first, but to my mind, it doesn't make sense when there aren't any.

The normal structure for articles like this would be to start with History, then the Present situation, and then Future, which would still put any Railways vapourware at the end. You may have seen my rant on the "Rail transport in X" articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Redirects?, and I think that much the same goes for "Transport in X". (Reply here). Tim PF (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I've only just noticed this - yes, that's fine, sorry for accidentally undoing your other changes. And I'm happy with wherever you think the best place for the section - as you can see, I wasn't in a decisive frame of mind :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I cannot see anything on your user page that you are really into Transport or Trains, so I'm guessing you got there via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railway stations in Burundi. There are at least two of use (bobrayner (talk · contribs) and I) who have been combing through several of these articles, and we might just yet get to grips with a structure for these articles, if it's needed. Tim PF (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got there via that AfD and the similar ones from bobrayner - though I do actually like railways. I did notice that the structure of some of those articles is pretty messy, so good luck if you decide to tackle them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Titling a discussion to coincide with it's content seems more appropriate then leaving it untitled?

Why does reverting a title that coincides with the content of that discussion back to an untitled discussion provide more clarity then a defalted "no title"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.255.165 (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Titling it neutrally to reflect the question might have been acceptable, but retitling it to push the point of view offered in your answer is most certainly not. And as the question was asked back in 2006, it's pretty much history now and should really be preserved as it was. Also, please note that the Ron Wyatt article Talk page is not a forum for discussing science and the bible, it is only for discussing the article itself - I see someone else has reverted you recent addition now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I editted the title. What "push of a point of view offered in my answer are you referring to? My title edit did not include any expression of an answer or opinion, but it did accurately reflect the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.255.165 (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Your title did not reflect the open question as it was asked, but your opinion of the correct answer - but it's not important any more as your contribution has been removed because the page is not a discussion forum, so I'm not going to argue with you any further -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Landalva

Landalva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been having a think about the situation with regard to the three articles Landalva has been editing and that are subject to my merge proposal. I'm not sure if a blocked user can edit anything other than their talk page but if they can edit their own userspace then would it make sense to move all three articles into that space while Landalva works on them?

The constant changing of purpose on Ardash Shree in particular does rather take on the appearance of almost being edit tests. Moving all three would not unduly compromise the WP coverage (indeed, them not being there might at present improve WP's image even if not its coverage). It would enable Landalva to develop them in peace and, subject to review, they could later be moved back into mainspace. The proviso as I see it would be that Landalva must agree not to introduce any further articles in mainspace until these are either binned by him or accepted for mainspace by an appropriate admin; failure to impose this might just lead to further circumvention attempts. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like that idea, and I was actually thinking about suggesting something similar depending on his response to his latest block. I've asked him to explain what the Adarsh shreeramleela samiti khanpur ghazipur article and his others are actually supposed to be about, so if he comes up with something rational maybe we should userfy one or more of them and see if he comes up with anything useful? But I'd prefer to get some explanation of the three articles first, to save him producing long and possibly useless articles. What do you think? And no, a blocked user can only edit their own Talk page - so to put them in userspace we'd really need to lift the block too, so we would need the restriction that you suggest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - had a small heart attack & have just been released from hospital. I am watching your page, but wasn't doing so from hospital! I need to spend a couple of hours catching up on events but obviously I'm happy to give Landalva the chance to explain etc. I thought that I had asked this question of him but probably not as I seem to recall that I was trying to hit a moving target most of the time. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: seems that the attack was happening while I was starting this section. Do you think Sinebot would have finished it off for me if I had been finished off? <g> - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's awful, I do hope you recover well from it - I had one myself a few years ago, and I wasn't out of hospital as quickly as you! (Maybe we do need a bot to cleanly close the Talk pages of expired Wiklipedians ;-) Anyway, take good care of yourself, that's the highest priority. Landalva has messed up an unblock attempt - the priority has to be to get him actually talking -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It was small & I have a basket full of meds to down/spray etc until my return there next week. The problem with the suggested bot is that we would first have to verify the expiration using reliable sources, and a short ad in a local newspaper probably doesn't count. Just because I know a director of the Daily Telegraph doesn't mean that they're going to run an obit for me! Shameless name-drop, there, sorry. One shouldn't really name-drop, as HM The Queen said to me only last week.

I noticed the unblock request & agree with your rationale in refusing it. Is it worth explaining to Landalva that there is nothing to fear if English is not his first language etc? That is, we'd rather have some sort of dialogue than none at all. Off for a kip. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good idea - I'll add a comment. Take care, and get some rest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Bilby/Archive 6

Just substituting the cheeseburger(!) Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 16:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Just leave people's Talk page archives alone! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you following my actions or something? Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

When an editor (especially a young one) causes repeated problems and shows repeated signs of trying to do things they don't properly understand, they will often get a few more experienced editors keeping an eye on their actions - you really need to pay attention to the discussion at WP:ANI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

CWP 121

It is important that the public understands what cwp is. It is being used by government and was used to clean up Chernobyl Nuclear disaster, If we do not create the awareness of what CWP is than toxic water and contamination will continue to kill and cause cancer. Why don't you block all other chemical related articles, definitions and clean up methods that are posted in Wiki. Simply deleting this important information is unjust and not fair to the public. They need to know that there is an alternative to other chemicals and hope with technology like cwp for situations like what is happening in Japan, CWP was invented for cleanup of nuclear disasters, nobody knows this because people dont understand what it is or even that it exists...Since they don't understand they just ignore it and delete it thinking its spam! We have show that this is real and that this is a currently applied solution not an ADVERTISEMENT!...I think humanity deserves at leas the awareness...Do you not agree? Don't be so quick to judge and shut down important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyjuice (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems strange that you did it by creating an article about how good this stuff is. Anyway, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only accepts articles about notable topics supported by reliable references. It is not a forum for people to publicize their personal concerns - see Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it strange if its true. Its an actual product no different than chlorine and bubble gum... why would it not be defined in wiki... it is creditable and tested by over 19 institutions globally, this is not a personal concern ...its a fact. you seem to accept defining chlorine in wiki but why not accuse that of being someones concern, why is there a bias against new market technology being applied, what makes you an expert in deciding the credibility of bio-nanotechnology and Molecular organic chemistry and its new market uses? Seems you are telling me that anythig that is not understood is labelled as not creditable and should be deleted.. that is silly...What are your credentials to make this decision, did you do the proper investigation into understanding the true potentiality of this technology and current applications... seems that this is more of your own personal concern because you don't understand what CWP is, perhaps i should clarify in more detail in the article? hence the purpose of posting this article to create an understanding and awareness of this technology...It needs to be defined, its not a personal concern...??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyjuice (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Find reliable references from third party sources (see WP:RS) demonstrating that the stuff is notable (see WP:N), and write an article about it from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) which does not push any specific agenda, and you should be fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My RFA

Given your opposition to my nomination, is there any advice you can offer me since I do intend to try again in the future. You did say I was a good editor, so therefore I need to pinpoint what exactly you look for in a candidate. Of course your response and whether or not you support its totally up to you. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I'm sorry that my comment was so vague - I had (and still have) trouble putting my feeling into concrete words. It's really that I want to get the feeling that you are fully familiar with the policies you discuss, and that that familiarity comes from experience (or that you are not familiar with some - we can't all know them all - and not afraid to say "I don't know that area too well, and would not venture into it until I did".) But in some cases it seemed like I was seeing attempts to provide short snappy "correct" answers, which didn't really explore the policy areas in sufficient detail for me to know whether you really understood them. For example, I did not get the feeling that you really understand the IAR thing - all it seemed you were really saying was "The rules have to be followed except when they don't", and there's actually quite a bit more subtlety and depth to it than that - to me its part of how the whole rule-by-census thing develops. If there's a part of the rules that you struggle to get "right", I'd be quite happy to accept an answer along the lines of, say, "It's not something I've really experienced enough to properly appreciate, so I personally would not invoke IAR - at least not unless I had come to fully appreciate it". I don't know - does that example help to get across what I was trying to say? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: If you ever feel it would help to chat with someone about any particular area of policy, you're always welcome here - I'll be happy to share my own thoughts (which may or may not be considered "correct" by others ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you can offer advice to other editors whenever you decide to oppose in the future so that person can take the proper steps to ensuring sucessful nomination in the future. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed - I'm always open to helping someone work towards their next RfA with further discussion and advice -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lately, it seems I'm not the only recent self-nom. Yours and the current candidates have nominated themselves. Do you think candidates that are nominated by others stand a better shot or do self-nominated candidates have an equal chance based on experiance? –BuickCenturyDriver 18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, and I'm really not sure of the answer. I've seen people saying they're impressed by who's doing the nominating, but people also say they admire the courage of people nominating themselves - and most people do seem to make their judgment by examining the candidate's actual work. If it does make a difference (and I suspect it probably doesn't), if you're not a well-known editor then a nomination from someone who is might just help a little. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to say I've been getting encouraging news from the other candidate at the time of my nomination, RHM22[1]. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I think you'll have a pretty good chance with a future run - just a bit more experience and some work on what the opposes were saying, that's all you need -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

• News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

• WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123

Hi B!sZ. For my sins, I've taken Rcsprinter on as a mentee. I'll be keeping an eye on his edits, and hopefully he should be able to learn from his mistakes. I was wondering if you would consider commuting his block to time served, if he'd commit to not making amy more anti-policy edits. If not, I understand, but since he has accepted mentorship, I thought I'd ask. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's great news - you're a terrific mentor. And yes, certainly, I'll go and release his block now and leave him in your capable hands -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll see about terrific when I've released more than one into the wild, but thanks for the vote of confidence! Worm^TT · (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. He's now unblocked, and all yours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrator

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, how do I become an administrator?

Yours Faithfully, King Finland — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Finland (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Boing: I've responded on King Finland's talk page, in case you haven't noticed. If you have anything to add, the more the merrier... --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great, thanks, that looks like a very helpful response. I've got a nearly completed answer, so rather than waste it I'll add it too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi King Finland - in case you haven't seen it, I've replied over on your Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA stuff

Hi Boing. Now that we have both participated, I can ask what your take is on this (Q11). It is being used to obtain feedback on this contentious discussion. I have seen other indisputable evidence of systemic bias and tendentious editing, not only, but also during my own survival in the snake pit. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm away on business for a couple of days, and I'm just popping in to have a quick look at my messages, so I'll have a think when I get back - and possibly best not to comment while the question is still open. -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think I'd agree with your assessment of it. I also don't think it's a valid admin question anyway - as stated, without showing the actual example, I wouldn't know what it was talking about, and with the example, it looks like it's expecting an admin to decide something that needs a content/community/consensus decision. Not a good question at all, and I would not have answered it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fanboy and Chum Chum

Hi Boing!, IP user 68.37.124.56 is still being stubborn about submitting unsourced content, specifically by adding character ages again at Fanboy and Chum Chum Special:Contributions/68.37.124.56 Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the additions again and given him a week off. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

arbcom isn't responding and may not have received my e-mails

Hello, I have sent 2 coppies of my unblock request to arbcom, one in march, and one in early April, but no response, so I am seaking advice, what else is there for me to do, I'm totaly out of ideas and I have lost faith in wikipedia. what can I do? 204.112.104.172 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. To be honest, and especially considering your history here, if Arbcom are not responding to your unblock requests, I think you should probably just accept that Wikipedia might not the place for you and find a site more suited to your needs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carbon giant

The article Carbon giant has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tideflat (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Failure to use edit summaries

Hi, and sorry to bother you. I see that you worked out what Landalva was doing, which is more than I could figure when I saw the edit earlier. Anyway, another query from me if you have the time to assist.

What can be done in a situation where an IP contributor, who has made plenty of edits on related topics, consistently fails to use edit summaries? It is a bit of a nuisance, even though I guess we should rely on summaries anyway as anyone can say anything there, regardless of what their edit actually comprises. I have already issued a standard warning template & also tried to explain in a separate message. The edits are often controversial and sometimes arguably POV-pushing. There has been a lot of weird (to me) behaviour but underneath it all I have the feeling that there may be sometimes be useful info from an informed person ... if only they would actually cite etc.

Talk page is User_talk:113.150.9.211, although it is often blanked. There was an AN/I report filed by me relating to a different issue with the editor yesterday (now resolved as someone else stepped in to revert the material). - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think repeated refusal to use edit summaries and failure to interact, especially if changes are controversial and/or POV, is probably best served by an AN/I report the next time they do it. If you can present some diffs of some controversial/POV edits that had no summaries, and show failure to respond to attempts to communicate, then maybe a warning from an uninvolved admin might help - and if they continue, a block is likely. I'll try to keep an eye on their edits myself, but I can't promise I'll have much time for it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've given them a bit of advice on their Talk page too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My AN/I of yesterday actually covered a broad range of such issues - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bangladesh_Armed_Forces relating to one article, which demonstrated an example of what is in fact a pattern of behaviour. It is unfortunate because, as I said earlier, I do think this person has something useful to contribute from time to time, if only he would cite etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pity he didn't respond on that AN/I. Unfortunately, I think he seems to have a bit of a nationalist battlefield approach, and perhaps sees being reverted as being attacked. Let's hope that by patient explanation and discussion we can get him round, as it would be a bad result if we lost an editor from that part of the world when he is clearly making some good contributions - I think it's a real disappointment that we have relatively so few good contributors from the Indian sub-continent. Keeping our eyes open, and trying to talk, is probably our best approach at the moment, I think -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Indian etc "problem editors" will if anything increase due to the Wikimedia push over there. Caste issues are a major problem and the work I had to do on Paravar practically amounted to a rewrite ... and numerous caste conflicts along the way. As a Mancunian with no Indian background etc I found that quite a challenge. We Mancunians find much that is challenging, you will now say! Anyway, I guess we can live without the edit summaries if he starts citing, but otherwise it is likely to be a BRD cycle on umpteen articles. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

• News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news

• In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Yomiel

Yomiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, Zebedee. Since you were involved in blocking Yomiel, can you please look at the contributions here and here, as well as the recent ANI thread? I am really concerned with his inability to maintain civility and no personal attacks, as well as disruptive editing. I already gave him a final warning here on his talk page, but he has swiftly removed it. Is there anyway to help solve this problem? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. It's already been taken care of. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you? I said this would happen. The minute my block was lifted, Sjones' witch hunt continues. This makes the third place he's come after me since my block was lifted. He gave me a final warning unjustly on my talk page, and he won't leave me alone. I'm sick of being treated this way and portrayed as a disruptive editor. Make this guy leave me alone! He gets away with what he's been doing because he acts polite. No one is really paying attention to what he's saying.Yomiel (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the two of you have come to an amiable conclusion at AN/I - as they say in that telecoms ad, it's good to talk :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Yomiel has been identified as a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Fragments of Jade per WP:ANI#Patience is a virtue? and WP:ANI#Personal attacks, original research and trivia. So that issue is taken care of. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that is interesting - thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DESIGNDHAKA

Hey my recent article DESIGNDHAKA was deleted, maybe the reason was advertising. But the fact I was not promoting any products from that brand and was just putting info about that brand that people get to know about that. Now, as that has been deleted, I want to re write that article and this time want to make sure anything is not wrong. Is it possible to write again with that same name?--Iblish (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid there were a few problems with it...

1. it was written in a very promotional style, and promotional articles are not permitted on Wikipedia, even if not actually selling anything.
2. It does not appear to be a notable company. Companies only get Wikipedia articles if they satisfy the WP:NCORP guidelines, supported by multiple reliable references
3. We have conflict of interest rules, so if you have any connection with the company yourself, you probably shouldn't be writing about it.

Have a read over those guidelines I've given you links to. If you are sure there is no conflict of interest and that the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements, and you can provide independent reliable references, then it's probably OK for you to work on a new version. But it will need to be very different to the first version, and I would suggest you work on it in your own userspace first until you're confident it will not fall foul of any guidelines - eg create it at User:Iblish/DESIGNDHAKA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I knew...

As soon as I saw your message on the ip's talk page, that you had reverted at the same moment I did:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The overlinker

The anon editor you recently blocked for overlinking after I started an Ani about him came back today and basically started right up where he left off. I wasn't sure what to do (another ANI?, AIV still seems wrong somehow) so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. I've cleaned up after some of it and tried dropping another warning on his talk page. My next step... ?Millahnna (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the latest linking was OK, but a couple were way over the top again, so I've blocked them again - for 2 weeks this time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The mixed bags like that frustrate me more than the straight up vandals. Thanks for the follow up. If he still continues after this block, what should I do? Take it to one of the noticeboards? I'd hate to keep harassing you just because 3/4 of this guy's edits are problems. And I noticed the IP tag on his page is listed as dynamic so I'd hate to see it impact innocents. Millahnna (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If he does it again, just let me know and I'll block again - we can minimize the damage to innocent IP users by repeat short blocks. (And don't worry about harassing me - that's what I'm here for ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Table sorting and ANI

Thank you for your level-headed attempts to resolve the dispute at WP:ANI#Editing from 125.162.150.88. I seem to have been too terse in my description of the technical problem, so perhaps I can explain to you in a little more detail, as each extra editor that understands properly increases our ability to avoid such problems in future.

In many tables, there are two possible data items to consider: a single year like 2005 or a range like 2005–2006. If we write the range using an en-dash, then all browsers including Safari 4.1 will sort them as we would expect. However, Safari 4.0 does not sort them properly, but it would work if we used a hyphen instead of the en-dash. Jack prefers to ignore the Safari 4.0 problem as it requires no 'fixes' or difficulty for editors to implement and it uses en-dashes per MOS:ENDASH. Gimme prefers to use hyphens or as a written form like "2005 to 2006", neither of which comply with our guidance to use en-dashes and keep table entries compact. It is possible of course to use a sort key like {{sort|2005.5|2005–2006}} – which works with Safari 4.0 – but you then have to put a sort key on every item in the column (otherwise it screws up on Safari 4.0 again!). So there you have it, three possibilities: one is simple and MOS-compliant but fails on Safari 4.0; one is also simple and works on Safari 4.0 but fails to comply with MOS; the third solution works with all browsers and is MOS-compliant but takes effort to implement and maintain.

Personally, I dislike Gimme's option since he has to keep watch over every article where he uses hyphens or words, because users and bots regularly come along and change hyphens in date ranges to en-dashes. He then has to revert them and get involved with trying to explain why he's making an article non-MOS-compliant. No wonder he gets grumpy! I should make clear that I've worked with Jack on a number of initiatives to improve usability and accessibility (like the "plainrowheaders" class) and regard him as a wiki-friend, so you will have to take that into consideration when judging my comments. Nevertheless your efforts to settle these issues are appreciated. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur that summary covers the issue. In particular, I'm glad RexxS mentioned that you have to put the {{sort}} code on every line to make sure it will work. However, I am disinclined to participate in any discussion where admins continue to tolerate uncivil and ABF statements like "Gimme deliberately taking a stance against whatever I'm working on". Gimmetoo (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you choose not to take part, you won't have any say in the outcome - but you will still be bound by any consensus decision that is reached. And I will be asking everyone to stick to the technical issue and not make personal attacks (which will include you too) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, your failure to act or warn the IP means you de facto support the IP's ABF and incivility. if you refuse to do anything to keep the discussion within the bounds of civility and AGF, then you will be responsible. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Listen, I've told you my take on that - you were both being dicks. And I told you I am absolutely not going to support your dickishness against someone else's dickishness. All I am going to do is try to help with the decision on the technical issue. And if you really want to act in good faith, how about you give this a chance and stop throwing mud at me before it's even been started, eh? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you told the same to the IP? If so, please provide diff. If not, why not? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I made my position quite clear in the ANI to both of you, and it's you continuing to make these demands of me here, not him. So obviously not, no, I have not replied to his non-existent demands the way I have replied to your continuing demands. Now, this is about the table issue, so if you wish to constructively take part in that, please do. But if you want to carry on making demands and accusations against me, please go elsewhere to do it - I will not be responding to any further comment from you that is not directly related to the table sorting issue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, it's in your best interest to participate in the RFC. I'm sure that bad behavior will not be tolerated by anyone so just voice your concerns about things and listen to what is being said and then you can help with at least hopefully coming to a solution on this which is something I'm sure you and everyone else involved would like. I don't have Safari or know anything about this problem but I too will be watching the RFC when it gets going. Maybe I can help, not sure, but I am willing to give it a try. Please just forget about all the rest for now and concentrate on fixing the problem(s) you are having. This is the only thing I can suggest for you right now. If you don't participate, you may not get things fixed the way you need to. I hope I see you there. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a great summary, thanks - I'm off to bed now, and I'll have a play with the options in the morning. One thing that would help - can you think of a suitable venue for a discussion? (Ideally, one where we might get decent participation) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I should have read this before my last comment at ani. See this for another bit of goop for Safari 4.0; it prolly would have to go on every damned row of a table. As I explained fully at Talk:Amanda Michalka#Sorting, this goop is far too much junk to paste into thousands of articles for a dead browser that's only going to decline in usage. It's not like it's a catastrophe for the few users that show up using Safari v4.0; it's just a nice extra that they don't get. Theirs is a self-inflicted problem. For the big picture view of this issue, see progressive enhancement. It is my contention that this is just one example of Gimme deliberately taking a stance against whatever I'm working on. Go read the old ANI threads; he linked to some and in those I linked to others. There's been a lot of talk about all this and it started with his reverting a lot of good changes concerning cite templates and list defined reference from Halle Berry.

• http://dowebsitesneedtobeexperiencedexactlythesameineverybrowser.com
• http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_safari.asp

125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw you asking at AN/i for previous RFC on tables and colors. Well here's a start which will bring you to even more difs about this. I hope this helps and is what you were asking for. [2] & [3] Let me know if you need anything else. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm specifically looking for discussion of the Safari 4.0 sorting issue, but what I'm seeing is more widely ranging discussion on table formatting in general. But it's all useful, and I need to dig into it and see what there is that's relevant, which I will do as soon as I have the time. Thanks again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table is about all there is re the endash, at least. The ANI thread mentioned is archived at

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#RexxS behaviour
  it is, of course, about gimme's behaviour.

125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. What I'm hoping is that we can separate out the technical issue from the behavioural issues, and if we can do that, then a technical resolution will hopefully help in any future behavioural problems too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The technical issues re sorting are actually pretty well understood, it's the value judgments such as "do we support dead browsers?" that are open. I'm not going to; too much goop for too few editors. And I'll clean-up articles that do so. Wiki-text is supposed to be easy to edit and too much goop that few understand is an impediment to editing. You're focusing on just one specific issue when there are many. For example, you'll find gimme and I taking the oposite stance re goop in the case of cite templates, but there's a key difference; cite template goop benefits everyone by properly structuring data for accessibility to all users, including tools. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I mean - We need a clear answer for "Here's the issue, what's the consensus on what to do about it?". And yes, I'm focusing on one issue when there might indeed be many - but a defeatist attitude that says it's not worth doing means no issues would ever get addressed. (And if we can knock off only one issue, at least that's one issue less for the two of you to go round in circles over the next time you bang heads) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack, wasn't this also talked about at the Village Pump many times? I'm not sure about Safari issues which I've only seen with comments like the recent AN/i thread going on. The RFC's from the past that I'm aware of is about whether the color or the choice of table should be forced on editors who disagree with the changes. This has been battled out in the past a lot and I don't think there was really any concensus for anything specific so a new RFC, if announced to a broad community, would be a good idea. Moonriddengirl tried to do that but it didn't work out as well as we had hoped. If I can help please don't hesitate to ping me. Personally, I'm now undecided about things so I will look forward to seeing what everyone has to say. Where are you going to announce the RFC, if you don't mind me asking? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know where - I was hoping for suggestions ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Further, I'd hope a new RFC could deal with individual very specific issues - for example, I'd like the Safari sorting question to be decided independently of any tangential stuff about colours, or vague meanderings in which nothing is agreed because no two people have the same set of opinions. I'd prefer to start with just the Safari question - but can add other questions if they are very tightly defined and can be individually resolved -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

Well I think Wikiprojects would be a good place. It came in handy when announced at Actor long ago. Also maybe we could announce it at places like tables to get that group too and finally can a notation be put at AN/i? I know that's not what it's for but it is well watched. Just some suggestions from my first thoughts ;), --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, they sound good - as many eyes as possible, I'd say, to try to get a strong consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If we could work through things sequentially, I think we'd have the best chance of achieving something. The Safari question seems to have been the trigger here at least, and if the consensus is to work around the sorting difficulties, the secondary question has to be at what point of usage do we stop providing a work around. If other points are to be discussed, maybe we need a concise list. Crohnie, you said above that Moonriddengirl's RFC didn't "work out as well as we had hoped" - part of the problem with that RFC was that it flew off in all kinds of directions, and thereby lost its focus. It wasn't definitive but in some areas, it leant in a particular direction and the editing that has taken place since then (as far as I believe) has strengthened that "lean" even further. There are now several editors who weren't involved in that discussion removing rowspans as an impediment to accessibility, and several have been removing the coloured headers, adding sortability, moving the film titles into the first column as row headers.... and these edits have been mostly accepted. I think that shift in attitude can be traced back to the edits that took place after that RFC so if there was not an immediate, obvious result, there has been a result over time that's reflected in a number of high-profile/high-traffic film bio articles. (The ones most likely to be subject to revert, but which mostly aren't.) I think that's partly because a lot of editors don't know or care about the colours, rowspans etc, but will copy and paste what exists, and if what exists is faulty, they'll replicate the fault. Now there are a lot of tables that are not faulty, and they are being replicated. It's a small step, but at least it's in the right direction. The Safari issue is separate to that, of course, and it needs to be resolved. In the long run, I think the RFC achieved something. Rossrs (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rossrs nice to see you again. Yes, the focus got lost in that RFC which was unfortunate. I have to admit I was hopeful that a consensus would be strong so that all of this was done already. There's too many with hard feelings now as you know. That said, I'm again hopeful that this new RFC will also bring closure with consensus on all of the suggestions be discussed now. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just as a further comment, there are clearly still some hot heads around today, so I won't start the RFC today - perhaps another day will cool things slightly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Draft RFC

I've started a draft RFC at User:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC - please make any comments at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC. Please do not start any discussion in the RFC itself yet - I just want comments about any errors or omissions that should be rectified before it goes live. Actual discussion of the issue itself should wait until it's live. (And please note that any personal attacks or incivility at this stage will be removed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Solution 1 should say readers rather than users. Combining two options for "solution 2" is confusing; they should be separated because the issues are different. Using "2002-2004" (hyphen) is a date range that MOS-related bots will change to a dash. On the other hand, because "2002 to 2004" has neither a hyphen nor a dash, it is not directly non-compliant with MOS:ENDASH, and is not changed by any bots I've noticed. Also put minimal coding "for" 2a and 2b; one of the objections to "solution 3" is that it "snots up the wikitext". Gimmetoo (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good points, thanks - I'm just off to bed, so I'll update it in the morning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That draft looks like a good start to me, and I agree with Gimmetoo's suggestions, with one exception: I think Solution 1 is correct in saying "users". Could these comments be moved to User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC, so that they stay part of that history, rather than here, where they'll eventually be archived? Rossrs (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've copied these comments over to User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC and will continue the discussion there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My joke didn't work

Hi Boing! I was wondering how a thread that I had commented on at ANI a couple days ago had finished finished up. When I couldn't find it in the archives I dug into the edit history and found that you had made this comment [4]. First I should thank you for the best wishes - I only wish that they were merited. I was trying to make a lame (really lame as it turns out) joke about the Royal Wedding overload that had assaulted my TV for the previous 72 hours. Oh well, if I had just been a tad more thorough and typed "Royal" in my edit it might have raised a chuckle :-) Thanks again for the thought and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I did get the joke - my response was my own attempt at humour ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh good. Since I could only find that one edit I didn't know if others had added to the joke. Thanks for taking the time to respond. MarnetteD | Talk 14:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia users name "superinjunction celebrities"; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger of User:Landalva articles

Hi, just letting you know that I have merged and redirected the weird Ardash samiti article into Khanpur_Saidpur,Ghazipur and requested a CSD of Khanpur village. I see no point in delaying this any further.

When (ohpefully!) the CSD has gone through I will go into the target article and clean it up a bit ... but do not expect me to find references for an obscure Indian village!

Hope this is ok with you, as the only commentator to the very short merge discussion. With User:Landalva as the only other major contributor to the articles, it seemed daft to delay. But feel free to call me daft for doing it. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that all looks good to me - it really doesn't look like Landalva is going to get back to us, and the three articles really were all the same subject. As I've been involved, I won't deal with the CSDs myself, but I can't see anything controversial -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Wasn't expecting you to deal with the CSD but was slightly concerned I had rushed into the merger, so I am pleased to have some agreement on that action. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

HELP

I was not trying to continue any kind of edit war. It is very UNCLEAR in Wikipedia how to go about things. I have no idea where to go to do what you have said. I want to do it the correct way but it just is not clear how to get to the different areas to do it the correct way. SO how do I get to the place that you have said. It's taken me this long to get to know how talking to anyone in Wikipedia works. How do I do what you instructed in your last telling off that you just gave to me, which of course I wasn't trying to get. I want this resolved so I'm NOT going to do anything else that stops it being resolved. HELP!!!!!!!!! (Bertbert1 (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) If you go to Talk:Joan_Armatrading then you can raise your concerns about the article there. You should not edit the article as you have been doing without getting some form of consensus for your changes. This may take some time to emerge and, indeed, may not emerge at all or even may go against what you believe to be correct. Wikipedia operates on consensus, so you will have to live with the outcome, I am afraid.

It will help your case a lot if you can provide a reasoned argument and not get too antagonistic in your statements. If you can provide reliable sources for your points then that will really help your case. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, what happened was that, after coming off a block for edit warring to remove some content from the Joan Armatrading article, you removed it again and explained why on your own Talk page. While it's good to explain your reasoning, there were two things wrong there. Your own Talk page is the wrong place, and you must explain it where interested parties will see it - on the talk page of the article itself. Secondly, once your changes have been contested (which yours were several times), you must seek consensus *before* you make them again. So what you need to do now is head over to the article's Talk page, at Talk:Joan Armatrading. There, start a new section explaining what you think should be removed and why. Then wait. Do not change the article. Just wait - for people to respond. If the resulting discussion agrees with your reasoning and supports your desire to remove the material, you can then go ahead and remove it - that's called consensus. But if you do not get a consensus supporting your removal, you'll have to just leave it alone. Hope that helps - if there's anything else that's unclear, please get back to me here any time. (What Sitush says is spot on, and more concise than my waffling, but I'd started this so I finished ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Should have kept my nose out of it. Verbosity is A Good Thing^TM when dealing with new contributors. I need to learn that. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it's helpful to have input from several editors - it helps to reinforce the guiding principles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

F.E.W.

• Francis E Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.156.183.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.43.161.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have crossed swords with Francis E Williams before but found him to be thoroughly unpleasant and vindictive. Luckily he doesn't edit on Somerset-related articles now so things have quietened down nicely (look at history of Transport in Somerset for some evidence of his past behaviour) and I just ingore him (although he is still on my watchlist) and we do have a couple of articles in common. I must say I'm really surprised you let him get away with that bating incident just now. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in two minds and I was very close to just blocking him - but as I saw it so quickly and reverted it, I reckon I probably got it before the IP saw it and hopefully any damage was averted. I'm hoping the warning will be sufficient to head off anything further, but I'm keeping my eye on things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And he came straight back and did it again - he's having a week off now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to assume good faith in the past but suspect that once the week is up nothing will change. Thanks for listening though! --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You both need glasses and a brain to share, you`re not reading!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.161.176 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) (trolling struck -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

Well, I'll still be here in a week too! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

BT Internet residential customers have a public IP address typicall in the 86.... 213... or even 217... range and you can get a different IP - often in a completely different range - just by power-cycling or using the BT router/modem's web page to disconnect then reconnect the ADSL. However the same BT wireess router also acts as a BT Openzone and FON hotspot which changes their IP if they connect to that SSID on their home network. This is typically in the 109... range. As for the others - that's just dialup, so anyone with a 3G wireless modem or even a plain old telephone system modem at home can access their ISP. Bottom line, all of this is the work of the same person. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one using the O2 3G phone addresses the other day too. Whatever it is truly bizarre behaviour and wikipedia will be a better place without it. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)--Biker Biker (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I use BT myself for part of the time, including Openzone - and I also suspect some of his previous IP "opponents" are him too. He appears to have declared he's abandoned his registered account and gone to full time IP vandalism now, which is indeed pretty bizarre (and really rather sad) behaviour, but it does unfortunately mean we haven't seen the last of him -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• To Francis E Williams, if you're watching here - if you have any constructive discussion you'd like to engage in, about how we dealt with your recent dispute with the IP editor (in which I thought we had treated you pretty well), you still have access to your own User Talk:Francis E Williams page if you log in. So if you raise it there in a clear manner (and not the cryptic messages you have been leaving us), I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But you will not get any response posting here from an IP address -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

LogicalDOC content replacement

Dear Boing! i am about to edit the deleted article LogicalDOC. We produced the new version of the content here in my user space [5]. I think that the article is objective and follows the Wikipedia rules. In addition please take a look to this talk page User_talk:Sprmw7/LogicalDOC, to have an opinion from another Wikipedia administrator.

I ask you if i can proceed recreating the article LogicalDOC with the new contents.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The biggest problem is going to be whether you have demonstrated notability well enough, and I think the sourcing is currently a bit weak. You have a couple of inline external links, but those aren't really about the subject itself, and external links are best done via the References or External Links sections - we don't really use external links as a Wikilink substitute. Of the three References, the Bossie awards one looks good (though I have no idea what those awards are about), but the others are an independent product announcement (not bad, but products get announced all over the place) and a blog post of a press release (not really very good). If you can find other independent sources talking in some depth about the product, that would strengthen the article a lot - and you really need to do them using the standard inline <ref></ref> style. In summary, I think it would probably survive really don't know if it would survive in its new version if you want to take the chance, but a bit more work on sourcing would help a lot. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just had a look at the previous deleted version, and the sourcing of the new version isn't really that much better - I've amended my comment above. Also, I hadn't realised it was protected against creation. If you want to take a chance and run with it as it is, I'd suggest you have a word with the admin who protected it at User talk:Ihcoyc and ask for it to be unprotected - point to this discussion here and to the Talk of your userdraft -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks i will do. Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Attack?

That one you deleted while I was doing the other one - it was actually true. There was a group of them sentenced for flogging fake Persil and this was one of them. (I've heard of faking in many fields, but never before washing powder!) Peridon (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to take it out as an A7... Peridon (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha, that's really quite funny - a ring of international soap powder counterfeiters :-) Thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the judge comment that it all came out in the wash? Maybe the group were just adopting WP standards: be Bold. Sounds like a great article for DYK. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Groan - that was bad :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Closure

Drums fingers

Paces coridor

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

:-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He's not expecting an addition to his family, is he? Maybe a mop might come in handy... (Must be worried - can't spell 'coriddor'.) Peridon (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, definitely something to do with mopping corridors - or something :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Snarky comments

After dozens of blind revets by Mr. Norton, I have to spell it out, and I'm not sure he will accept the obvious that easily. Anyway, it's under debate at ANI, I hope somebody will appear who can read the evidence. I'm determined to get rid of this obstruction. If people can destroy my articles without anybody caring, I will voluntarily leave Wikipedia. Thank you for your interest the matter. Kraxler (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If there are blind reverts, you need to take it to the Talk page and discuss it, and get other people involved if you think the other guy is not listening - "spelling it out" in rude comments is guaranteed not to work. Also, one thing that won't help is treating articles as being *yours* - have a look at WP:OWN. But anyway, I want to help you here too, because I can see you're really only trying to work in good faith. But if there's a battleground approach, it'll look bad on both sides, and you (and maybe others) will end up getting blocked - and I really don't want to see that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and advice. I know perfectly that I do not own the articles. But I care for them, that's what the watchlist-tool was created for, or isn't it? I have created hundreds of articles, and I have cleaned up hundreds of articles, on my watchlist are about 900 pages now. During years of research I acquired a vast knowledge of the subject of New York political and electoral history. Many times other editors or bots add something to these articles, and there has not been any problem in 5 years. I had steered clear of any edit warring so far, because if there has been a dispute over style or content, with any other editor it was possible to debate the issue, and check the guidelines. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I was wrong (especially if shown a guideline I hadn't seen before). But I never met anybody like Mr. Norton before: He blind-reverts everything first; he insists in editing articles he doesn't know anything about; and he does not care for any of the guidelines I quoted on the talk page or edit summary. I certainly got a little het up about it, but since nobody else really cared for the issues at stake, I bow out. I can only pray to God that Mr. Norton don't come across too many of the articles on my watchlist. Kraxler (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Re the BLP/N edit conflict - I was using the browser on my phone, and it seems to ignore the edit conflicts some times! Sorry, I wasn't trying to gag you! Regards, The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, I don't think it was your fault - I think there's a software bug. A few times I've seen the wiki software lose edits when two people submit at the same time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point...

I just have a low tolerance for users like that. I'll leave it up to another admin with a note on the talk page. Thanks, Boing.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was just going over to leave word that if an uninvolved admin wished to lift the block, they could with my blessings. The guy is still ranting on. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• • And double thanks. I wish that the user had explained the username at the get-go. I unblocked him and made him a user subpage. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, sounds good :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things

One - I'll be away for the weekend without mains power and not much time to edit anyway. Could you keep an eye on my talk page in case people start getting excited about something or other? Two, I've put a couple of comments on User Talk:Ebrahimi-amir and a very brief bit of translation. (No, I can't speak North Azeri...). He's been on az-wiki since December 2010 and seems well-behaved and to have been awarded barnstars. His interest in the Qozlu, Ardabil article comes from his having created it here and at az-wiki (where it's written in South Azeri and I can't do anything with that...). He seems prolific with Category work and to have created quite a few articles. I think there's been a misunderstanding here, and possibly he could be safely unblocked. Knowing what referencing and linking is like on other Wikipedias, it might have been an acceptable link over there. Anyway, that's my 2p worth... Peridon (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help - I'll keep an eye on your Talk page. Thanks for the info on Ebrahimi-amir - I'm very keen to get non-US, non-UK, editors on board, but also weary of people who aren't capable in English. But this sounds like it might be a good case for emphasizing the former, and I see Atama has now unblocked - I'll add a supportive comment. Have a good weekend -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I think you're doing a good job on the site. Keep up the good work. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind, thank you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Organized crime in the Philippines

Hi Boing. I had already deleted this once, so then he tells me on my tp to restore it for him so he can work on it, so I tell him to get where he got it before, but not to repost it at Wikipedia! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. He's also uploaded a number of images with dodgy copyright status - I've nominated a couple for deletion and will check the rest shortly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Telepathy - I was just going to come back to you on this: I notice you've been PUFfing them or FfDing them. Well, I did a this on one of his files, but I'm not very good at image stuff, all I know is, when they've got to go, they've got to go. If I chose the wrong deletion type/criteria, please let me know. BTW, he's been blocked anyway now for 60 hrs by another admin. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I was just going to ask you how you did that and what you think is the best way of reporting them, because I'm not very good at image stuff ;-) Blocking seemed inevitable really - let's hope he responds constructively -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This one is F11 in the Twinkle CSD menu when you are on a file page. They call it a 'soft' speedy, or something like that, because it actually works just like a PROD. It appeared to be the right think to do in this particular case, because it matches the case description, and I'm wary of deleting images cold even if I'm fairly sure they should go quickly. All things considered, I should probably have killed it without a second thought. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations abound

While we are taking care of these copyright violations, I have tagged one of the users uploads (File:File-Soviet Air Force MiG-31.jpg) for speedy deletion as redundant to a currently used fair-use image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted - it's gone -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Warwickshire Police Authority

FYI, I've restored this article which you deleted (and salted) this article as copyvio since there was an OTRS tag on the talk page confirming permission. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know - my apologies for missing the note about the OTRS ticket -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries - it's not something that comes up on too many articles. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:96.38.173.3

And they wonder why they're blocked: [6]. TNXMan 16:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It beggars belief sometimes, doesn't it? :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

'Alo

Could you please unprotect my talk page now? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hi - I set the protection period to be short, so it should have been unprotected automatically. It looks OK to me now, but if you try to edit it and have any problems, please give me a shout -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, odd. I still had a 'View Source' link at the top, but it took me to the edit page. All good, thanks. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wondering

On ENGLISH WHELPS (talk · contribs). It is a rare combination of block settings: 24 h, account creation disabled, "offensive anti-English user name". Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't come here to say this, (that's further down!) but 24 hours for an offensive name is weird. It's not going to be less offensive when the block's over? GedUK  07:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it took me a few minutes to work out what's happened here. I don't know all the templates and things for username blocks, and I was in a hurry to go do something else, but it looked like he was active - so, I did a quick temporary block and reported him to UAA for expert attention. But - they've got a bot there that removes reports if they're blocked, haven't they? Aargh! I'll fix it up a bit later if it hasn't already been done - otherwise occupied at the moment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

'tis easily done! I've indeffed it. GedUK  10:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So

So, how you getting on with the mop? You seem to have a very busy talk page with lots of interactions, so that's good! Just thought I'd drop through and say hi :) GedUK  07:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi :-) I seem to have ended up doing more than I'd planned - I've been doing a lot of RCP lately, and I'm sure I'm encountering a lot more vandal-only accounts than previously (or maybe it always seems like that?) And then when I see the CSD backlog building up, I find it hard to just let it sit there while doing other stuff, so... I'm sure you know what it's like :-) But it's good to help shoulder the burden. Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

pre-emptive?

[7] 7 days for 1 IP edit four days after last vandalism, 2 days since semi removed, and that edit in an entirely different time period from the others... just seems a little pre-emptive to me? --ClubOranje^T 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, we had a lot of Barcelona-specific vandalism of the UEFA motto by IPs and new editors just a few days ago, including [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and more. And now it is unprotected, we are back to the same thing. The IPs geolocate to different countries - US, UK, Portugal, Israel (which would explain the different time zones), so I can't help thinking there's perhaps some web forum basis to it and some ongoing coordinated vandalism. But OK, I've reduced the protection to 3 days, and we can see what happens when that expires -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: If you think the protection should be reduced further, or lifted altogether, please feel free to do so - I'm happy to go with your judgment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, I just didn't see it as a lot of V, but I can at least see your reasoning with regards to the forum idea. Besides, I'm not able to do it right now ;-) --ClubOranje^T 06:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

• News and notes: More research on newbie editors; Baidu plagiarism; bin Laden coverage; brief news

• In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news

• WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games

• Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back

• Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.16.5, 1.17b1; 1.18 branched; UploadWizard the default; Berlin Hackathon; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ajaib Singh

The revision

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ajaib_Singh&oldid=428093774

is nice and simple, clear and to the point, and free of any 'controversy', much to the chagrin of the English-illiterates. So please either remove the entry, or permanently make the link I provided as unchangeable, and everyone will be happy, everyone with half a brain, that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyste123 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Being an admin does not give me the power to decide on article content disputes. So if you want it changed, please discuss it on the article's Talk page and try to get a consensus for your preferred version of it. Do not just remove parts of the article without discussion, and do not remove the infobox or the image without providing a good reason. If you think it should be deleted, what you need is WP:AfD. (And concerning your proposed version - a References section that says "Above quotations can be referenced on google.com" is not acceptable). Oh, and please do not use my Talk page (or any page, for that matter) to post personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, go learn something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyste123 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with your being condescending towards me, but I thank you for removing the negative comments about the other Wikipedia editor -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, i'm here just to say that i'm not an illiterate.

Second thing: Sirio Carrapa was initiated by Kirpal Singh and then becomed the italian representative of Ajaib Singh. There are tons of photos that show this. There are many copies of the Sant Bani Magazine that say this. There is a book that say this. There is people initiated by Ajaib Singh who now follow Sirio Carrapa as his Master. So there are a lot of references. All this references are well linked in Sirio Carrapa's page. If you like, or not like, doesn't care. So i will check the page 10 times every day and i will always undo your vandalism. --GurDass (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. and many thanks to the administrators of wikipedia for helping with this madness. --GurDass (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to help with guidance, but I can't adjudicate on content - if the two of you disagree about the content, please discuss it on the article's Talk page, at Talk:Ajaib Singh -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

the problem is that I write with references, he removes without reason. This is the "little" difference! --GurDass (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but removing sourced content without discussing it is against policy, and I can and will act on that. My point is that the discussion of succession, references, etc belongs on the article Talk page, not here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You see Boing, the problem with having a title like 'editor' or whatever you go by is, suddenly you think you know something. All you know how to do, judging by your comments, is work with illiterates. BTW, an i-l-l-i-t-e-r-a-t-e is someone who doesn't know how to write, spell, or express themselves in English, but if you don't believe me, you can look it up. It was fun (not)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyste123 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what the word means. Wikipedia attracts people with a variety of abilities in English, and the way the collegial community works is by welcoming those whose English might not be perfect and assisting them by improving it in a friendly manner, not by abusing them in edit summaries. So please stop or you will be blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Action Ambulance accounts

What's your opinion on User:ActionAmbulance and User:Oneofthescotts? Should they be blocked too, or no? No legal threats coming from them obviously, but one is a user name issue and the other was vandalizing. — Moe ε 17:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Strictly, I suppose they should be blocked. But in the circumstances, I'd be tempted to put off a decision on them if they've stopped actively editing and see if we can turn the main problematic editor around - if we can get him to work with us, we can hopefully calm this down and get an amicable outcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's true, thanks :) — Moe ε 17:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on your behaviour and the situation in general

		The Admin's Barnstar
		In the last 48 hours, it seems that every single page on my watchlist has had some gross outbreak of utter stupidity, POV, random insults, or just a general failure to move forward the aims of the encyclopedia. Did I mention stupidity? By coincidence or otherwise, in the majority of these incidents, you turned up with calm, measured, thoughtful actions or advice (including blocks, where necessary) and things were generally better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks - that was unexpected, and is much appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping sort out this apparent ongoing issue with the Template:San Jose Radio article. I reverted all of the edits that the editor did which removed the template from the radio station pages (about 23 radio station articles in the San Jose area were effected). I do not understand what the problem with the template is, but I suspect the editor has something against the area. This is the second time he/she has done this. I again thank you very much for your help. Hopefully this is the last time. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 23:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem - if you see anything similar again once the latest block expires, please do let me know and I'll do what I can -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee! I have a problen in Azerbaijan (Iran) article with Xashaiar . I write my opinion in Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran). I don't want to inter edit-warring. Please help me. Best regards.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a bit busy in real life today, but I'll have a look at that as soon as I can -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

the article was deleted by you for no good reason

I am disappointed to see, that you deleted the article ELIZAVETA KOPELMAN (user: elizavetakopelman) on the basis,that supposedly it was a direct copy from the internet site www.duecapi.com Well, it was not ! If only you have read it through from the beginning to the end, you would know, that it as in fact NOT a direct copy. I request an apology from you, and the article ELIZAVETA KOPELMAN to be back on the site.

elizavetakopelman Elizaveta Kopelman 11:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizavetakopelman (talk • contribs)

Hi. The article you created was deleted as a copyright infringement, because it copied almost the entire text from http://www.duecapi.com/easyconsole.cfm/page/artist_article/artist_id/19, with just a couple of sentences added - and I'm afraid that is nowhere near enough to avoid copyright laws. For it to not constitute a copyright infringement, the entire article must be written by yourself in your own words, with none of it copied from any copyrighted source. (Had only a small part of your article been copied, then I would have edited out just that and left the remaining text, but with the copyrighted portion removed, which was almost all of it, there was not sufficient left to warrant an article). You should have a read of Wikipedia:Copyrights and some of the articles linked from there to get an understanding of how copyright works. (Oh, and if you actually are Ms Kopelman, as your name suggests, then you should have a read of our conflict of interest guidelines - and if you are not Ms Kopelman, then your username may be in breach of our Username policy) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

from elizavetakopelman

Oh,and you should do your job properly, if you are made an 'administrator', and also learn to exercise courtesy and mind your own business, where it is required (my user name etc is non of your business) Just who on earth do you think you are ? A bit of so called internet power and you think you are entitled to treat people this way ? You should not be performing this kind of administrative work, and wikipedia should dismiss you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizavetakopelman (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your comments - all feedback is appreciated. Wikipedia username policy is indeed the business of administrators, and it would have been amiss of me to neglect to direct you to policies which might be applicable and which might be of use to you - and please note that I was not actually asking you to reveal who you really are -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

User:125.162.150.88 block

You might want to review your block notice - user does not appear to have edited 24 hours. pablo 10:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

They were edit-warring this very morning, just minutes before the block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Read it again. They were not edit-warring at the page 24 hours, which is what the block notice says. pablo 10:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I completely missed what you were saying, and I thought you were telling me they hadn't edited for 24 hours. It looks like I entered "24 hours" in the wrong Twinkle input box, as that was meant to be the duration not the page, so I've fixed it now. Sorry for the confusion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. pablo 12:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant thanks too ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive update

Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter. Participation GOCE May 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs So far, 54 people have signed up for the drive, and 33 are actively participating. If you signed up for the drive but have not participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you have not signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. If you have questions about getting started, feel free to talk to us. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. We currently have 17 articles awaiting edit. Progress report We are making slow progress on achieving our target of reducing the overall backlog by 15%; in order to accomplish this goal we will need to complete about 400 more articles. However, we are making good progress on the 2009 backlog, as we have eliminated over half of the articles from 2009 that were present at the start of the drive. Let's concentrate our fire power on the remaining months from 2009; leaderboard awards will be handed out for 2009 articles this drive. Thank you for participating in the May 2011 drive. We hope it will be another success! Your drive coordinators – S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Brigitte Burdine

Admittedly American actress, film and casting director sounds more important than her reality, as a voice-casting director for video games. Nevertheless, there does appear to be enough coverage of her work (mostly coinciding with her death) to survive AfD. So although I disagree with the edit summary, good call Jebus989^✰ 16:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (and my edit summary was conditional - I wasn't saying there actually is a notability problem) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant that being a casting-director and actress is a claim to importance—I was under the impression that, generally speaking, a job-title alone is not a claim to importance (with obvious exceptions like CEO of company X). If an article makes no mention of an important role or any link to a notable production, is casting director alone enough? (Genuine question to improve my CSD tagging) Jebus989^✰ 16:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I get you. I think "casting director" alone might have been marginal, but I thought having "actress" there too, and an IMDB link, was enough to beat A7 - IMDB isn't sufficient for notability itself, I know, but I thought the combination was enough to push it beyond A7. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Jamy Ong

Sir,

Im a fan of Jamy ong (a youtube singer/coverer).. i was trying to make her a wiki site but it said it was deleted and could only be edited by admins.. please let me make one..please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermacio (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia has minimum notability standards for creating articles about people, including musicians, and being a YouTube singer is not generally considered sufficient on its own. If you have a look at WP:BAND, you'll find the notability requirements for musicians and bands, and at WP:GNG you'll find the general notability guidelines. If Jamy Ong should some day meet these requirements (and I wish her every success), someone will then be able to write an article about her - but at the moment, unfortunately, it doesn't look like she is sufficiently notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Louis Laing

Hi. I believe you deleted an article for the football (soccer) player Louis Laing, of Sunderland A.F.C., on 24 March 2011 - quite rightly, I'm sure. Anyway, he made his first-team debut yesterday so now he's genuinely worthy of an article. Was the one you deleted worth resurrecting, or shall I start a new one? Clicriffhard (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's got enough to be worth resurrecting - an infobox and some relevant looking info. Probably best if I userfy a copy for you, then you can work on it and move it to mainspace when you're ready. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Done - it's at User:Clicriffhard/Louis Laing for you to work on -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier: March 2011

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

Hello Wikifiers! Sorry this Newsletter is late, It should have gone out a month ago. I've been very busy in real life and didn't have time to get over to the newsletter. In this edition of the Newsletter, we have an editorial written by our new executive coordinator; Guoguo12. Guoguo12 has succeeded Mono due to an indefinite wikibreak. We also have the results of the February and March Mini drives. Happy Wikifying, Sumsum2010, the assistant coordinator of WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

• News and notes: Geographical distribution of Wikipedia edits; Sue Gardner interviewed; brief news

• In the news: Education minister's speech copied from Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales interviewed; brief news

• WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute

• Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Block 130.88.92.8

Please block IP 130.88.92.8 as an admin. Look at his talk page! Thanks. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I've given them 24 hours off, and will watch out when the block expires -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed there were 2 IPs doing it, both in that University of Manchester range, so I've blocked both of them - and I can semi-protect the article if it continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Sant ji.jpg and File:Ajaib.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

can you please help me to manage the images as you said in Talk:Ajaib_Singh? Ajaib Singh is dead and an historically relevant person so maybe i did right uploading this picture in that way: File:Ajaib_Singh.jpg, maybe not... but thinking more on it, is better a portrait like File:Ajaib.jpg or File:Sant ji.jpg for the page.... --GurDass (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a bit busy now, but I'll try to have a further look at this tomorrow. If we need a non-free-use image, I think there must have a good possibility of getting one accepted, and I'll be happy to help do it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about this - seeing as the article now appears to have an acceptable image, I don't think there's anything else that needs doing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

IP User 68.37.124.56

Hi Boing!, Sorry to bother you. Might I please request your eyes on a recent edit by IP user 68.37.124.56. User has submitted an unsourced air date for an episode that hasn't aired yet. This false info has been submitted before by other IP users. Probably the same kid. Either way, they aren't getting the hint that unsourced content, edit warring and shenanigan submissions are polluting the page. [14] Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

He's had plenty of prior warnings and blocks for adding unsourced material to those articles, so I've blocked him for 2 weeks this time (though it's an IP, it almost certainly is the same person) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Youth Energy Summit!

Hey, Thanks for the help in my review. I was hoping that you could look at this page. I think it remained fairly notable up until my edits ended. Then a member of the YES! organization added all of the teams as section headings. I am afraid people will look at this and decide it is a non-notable list of teams. Can you remove that as I was once part of the organization and it would look bad for me to remove them. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy to see you back with us :-) I'll be happy to have a look at that as soon as I can - I've been a bit busy and I've got a few thinks backlogged at the moment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, not to add too many more things to your plate but can you look at another article when you have time too? I made my first major copyedit on this page. Can you tell me how I did? Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just got round to checking these - the YES article has already had the lists removed, and the copy edit job looks pretty good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Athletics

Hi Boing, I believe your link/example on naming disambiguation pages supports what I am suggesting. Athletics should be renamed "Athletics (disambiguation)" according to the WP page you reference. Then, the Athletics page can simply redirect to one of the two content-rich pages I'm suggesting. This creates a win-win, because we follow the WP guidelines, and the user can better navigate WP to find the information. If you would, please look again at what I'm suggesting. Sincere thanks. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, "(disambiguation)" should only be added if there is no obvious primary topic - an Athletics redirect would not constitute a primary topic. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: I have your page watched, so best keep the discussion in one place, I think -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Movie?

The Magic Roundabout it was called something else but this it was a strange movie. --Tonkatrucksblue (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I only know the UK TV series myself, but the original French version was called "Le Manège enchanté" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for chiming in on the Pfistermeister ANI discussion. I can kind of see where Bugs is coming from, but to my mind saying, "It's okay to flame other editors as long as their edits are actually worthy of flaming," is opening the door to a world of problems. Thanks again! Doniago (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I do understand Bugs' point too, and we shouldn't get too hung up about the occasional frustrated "idiot" comment - but Pfistermeister's history shows it runs a lot deeper than that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

thanks for reverting to ignorance. you are a perfect example of why wikipedia is not to be taken seriously. go take your gang and celebrate your victory by using a nice steak dinner... you ROCK!!! --Sfiga (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply on your Talk page, as an addendum to your new block notice -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Zero Energy Design

You went through and deleted a lot of my factual contributions to Wikipedia - some of which are in arbitration. I would merely ask that you offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to help me make my generaous donations better. A real editor is not just a deleter, but rather a helful coach. Escientist (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't, all I did was remove some redlinked "See also" links, as per policy - we only include "See also" links that link to articles that actually exist, and this is one that has been deleted multiple times. Should you get a version of the article kept, you will then be welcome to put back the links. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

AN

I hope these actions are ok with you,[15][16] seemed the best course to take, but let me know if you have any issues with either. Dreadstar ☥ 02:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks, I appreciate your help - and the message below seems like a good outcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I am very sorry for accusing you of administrative abuse. I also mean no ill will to you. I hope we can be on friendlier terms from now on. Shakinglord (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Shakinglord (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

That's kind, thank you - I'm happy to accept -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite requests and removal of tagged content

How do. I tagged a statement as needing a citation in March and someone removed it today. It is not what I would consider to be a massively controversial statement, although it is indubitably in need of a cite. I have opened a discussion on the article talk page & a third person has come in with the comment that one month is "generally" as long as something should be cite tagged before being removed.

The article is Dosa. The comment relates to nutritional content of the food and is pretty bland, IMO. It is certainly not making claims for it being, for example, a "superfood" or "guaranteed to stop you getting cancer/having a heart attack" or "curing your addiction to adding content about obscure reality shows/hip-hop artists."

I have responded that I do not consider a month or so to be really sufficient. It might be if the article was a current affairs issue or BLP etc, but ... What do you think?

Of course, you do not have to respond. Feel free to enjoy your weekend doing more useful things :) - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's not an offensive or especially controversial statement, and it's not a BLP violation, I's say a couple of months is not enough - I've added a few comments to the Talk page. (Do something useful with the weekend? Hmm, if I was in the right part of the world, I'd fancy going out in search of a masala dosa :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a thought. I'm not far from Curry Mile. Be back in a bit. P - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it with the livestrong citation. I've found cites for it being a street food also. Will add later. I cannot believe how this has become such a big issue. I realise that I tagged it in the first instance but at that time I was really involved with something else & so just did some quick work on this; however, it has not taken long to find some sort of source.

I remain unhappy with the list but think it best to steer clear for a while. I remain unhappy with Curb Chain's reaction (how I was supposed to explain my reasons for reverting in the edit summary is beyond me, hence the courtesy note). Although our paths have never crossed before, perhaps I should steer clear of him for a while also.

Thanks for your consideration of the issues. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it was more of an "I must win" mentality rather than anything else - some people just seem to take disagreements personally and see them as fights. I wonder if moving that bit to a separate "Nutrition" section might be an idea now that we have a few sources? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You may have correctly diagnosed the symptoms. As far as creating a separate section goes, I would be content to see such a thing. It could be stressed in there that although the dosa itself has some nutritional advantages we are not asserting the nutritional status of the 1,001 types of filling. I've seen it quoted as a recipe in some diabetic cookery sources, btw, but have not determined whether they would be classed as reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done and expanded a bit. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good (Hmm, I wonder if a peanut butter and jelly dosa would work?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since they do not work separately for me, I really wouldn't know. I like peanuts, I like butter, but that peculiar paste just makes me want to chuck for some reason. It wouldn't surprise me if you started reading that last sentence thinking that I was doing a parody the of lyrics to Jave Jive. Anyway, you may be interested in this. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Armbrust has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Not sure what I've done to deserve it, but that's very kind, thank you :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

Tell me, does this genius of yours come naturally, or is it by training? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyste123 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for popping over here to alert me to your latest edits - you have now been blocked again, for continually disrupting the same article and for repeated use of abusive edit summaries. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A little help

An ip on Schaefer Ambulance Service deleted whole sections in small increments, can you please revert those edits? I dont use anti-vandalism software so I can only undo one edit at a time. Thanks! Shakinglord (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The IP was doing it incorrectly, certainly, but I've actually reverted a lot further back than that. A previous editor had added a lot of material from their own reading of a legal case, and having the entire article focused almost solely on negative legal issues made it look like a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:Balance - I'll add a note to the Talk page to explain what I've done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I also noticed a new unreviewed article that I cant decide if its notable or not. The article is: Kevon Glickman. Shakinglord (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about that one - I'm not really an expert on notability of businesspeople. But the sourcing is poor, as all three sources (in the External links section) are primary/self-published. I've tagged it as needing better refs and have added a comment on the Talk page. I suspect he's not sufficiently notable myself, and I'd consider listing it WP:AfD to get some discussion on it, though I'd maybe leave it a week or so first to see if anyone improves it (or if anyone else nominates it first) - but that's just me, as it's not really my area -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, and by the way...

Shakinglord (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Shakinglord (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I must offer you one back some time :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

• News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news

• In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Two months is "very experienced"?

You've been an admin for two months? And this makes you "the very experienced admin"? George Dance (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, those weren't my words - but I think they were meant to refer to my general experience of how Wikipedia works than my actual time as an admin -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I left an explanation on his talk page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

My point was that Zebedee made a kind offer of support. Span (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the comment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We may need a new userbox

Hello again B. Speaking as a wikignome I think it makes us proud when one of our guild rises to position of admin! I think that may deserve an additional title such as "Wikignome with Laurel Wreaths" or "Wikignome with Bells On". If I knew how to do anything with photoshop I might play around with trying to create a new userbox, unfortunately, I don't. Ah well, keep up the good work and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, sounds like a nice idea (but I have no Photoshop skills either), and thanks for your kind comments. With spending a lot of time learning the admin ropes, I haven't been doing as much general gnome work in recent weeks as I'd like (wikifying, copy editing, spell checking etc), but I'll be getting back to it all soon  :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Wikification Drive

Sumsum2010·T·C 04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Boredsohere

HEYYY!!! :D I made another account becuase i can't even ask to be unblocked on that one D; Fireguy33 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you need to request unblock on your original account, not create new ones to evade the block - you should email unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. Your new registration is now blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tower4Sitz

Thanks for blocking, but just so you know it's a recently confirmed sock of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. Usually when the sock is confirmed they aren't allowed to appeal the block. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

NP. I saw there was an SPI, but I thought I'd just block for the trolling for now and leave it to the SPI people to update as necessary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hi, would you mind removing the 'reviewer' usergroup from my account, as it is no longer relevant? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Just a quick question, how do you make and use an archive? Do they have to be matinenced or does Miszabot do that? Thanks! Shakinglord (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know how Miszabot works - I do it all manually by making my own archive pages and manually cutting and pasting. Best I can suggest is you have a read of the general help page at Help:Archiving a talk page, and the MiszaBot instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

... or just copy the set up from someone else's page, such as mine. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

or that ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

contest deletion of Kushwaha of India

There is indeed an entry on Kushwaha but it has been vandalised by cut paste form irrelevent site and hence not useful. My past requests in this regard have not been seen. I had asked that the article be locked. Hence a entry on kushwaha of India is required. ```truthalwaystriumphs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthalwaystriumphs (talk • contribs) 11:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If the current article is not good enough, then you should improve that article, and not create a new one with a different name -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you think an article needs to be protected/locked, you should request it at WP:RPP - asking in the edit summary won't do it, as it is very unlikely that an admin will just happen to see it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

protection request Chinaman

Hi, you moved my protection request for the page Chinaman out from the UCSD report, but the issues are related, and various pages (also including Chinaman (term) have been protected. I think its helpful to retain the request within that wider context. Given your help I wasn't going to just revert you on the ANI page, but I think you should understand my concern that the pattern be documented, and not addressed piecemeal. μηδείς (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove your request at ANI, I moved it to the end where it should be - and I have replied -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood there, sorry. Edit-warring on the Chinaman disambig page is not necessarily related to the UCSD stuff, and I think it is better treated alone - and I think it is best addressed by the usual AIV/RPP/AN3 routes. Anyway, I've blocked the user now and have the page watchlisted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd have preferred something stronger, (protection as with Chinaman (term) and indefinite block) but given your quick reaction (you blocked him just as I was copying the last diff into my own an3 report) I expect you'll follow up if necessary. You will see that the IP edits on Chinaman prior to the new user were involved in the wider issue. I am just going to add a comment to the UCSD section for reference of anyone later on looking for patterns. μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to protect the disambig page against just one editor just yet, and there were only 2 edits from the IP which were both quickly reverted - the Wikipedia way is to keep things as open for editing as possible, and to block troublemakers rather than protect articles. I also think an indef block for a first offence would have been a serious over-reaction. But yes, I have it watchlisted and will escalate actions if and when I think it's necessary - though others are, of course, welcome to and likely to jump in sooner if they see fit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Lerpong Wichaikhammat

Hello Boing! said Zebedee. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Lerpong Wichaikhammat to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine - I was in two minds about it anyway. Thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct Image?

I noticed there is a dispute to the image on the 2011 Major League Baseball All-Star Game article. A poor image was uploaded to wiki commons with improper copyright tags. Plus the image is inverse. In reponse I put a clearer verson in the page, with the rationale and tags intact. After the page was reverted by an IP, I'm going to need your opionion on this one. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I don't really know anything about logos and related copyright issues (or anything about baseball), so I think it would probably be best to start a discussion on the Talk page - or maybe ask at WP:WikiProject Baseball. Sorry I can't be of more help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

hello

Hello. I found the maneer you talked to me in my discussion page a little irrupsive and irrespectuous. If you want to talk like that with people, Wikipedia not the appropriated place.

And i'm not a vandal, i bring my culture and respect Wikipedia rules.

Wildkoala (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for repeat vandalism -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I want to thank you for your repeated input to help with my problem with my watchlist. Nutster (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind, and unexpected - thank you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Dwarm12345

The user is complaining on his talk page that he is still blocked from editing other pages. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, strange, I can't see anything wrong - I'll reply over there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your excellence is requestedI

I've got a problem at User_talk:John_KB#Revert of your revert. I am trying to insist that the heights of 2011 Miss Universe contestants are sourced and the other user is saying that the heights are in the individual articles for the contestants. Problem is, those individual articles often do not have cites for the heights and, in any event, I feel that it is WP:CIRCULAR. He did a full rollback the first time, and on his second go effectively did the same thing again.

I'd rather see the darn things right in the summary article we are currently in dispute about, and I have already had to amend two individual bios where they were wrong (which kind of proves my point, I guess!)

I'm not even interested in Miss Universe, but crap sourcing irritates me, and this is not a new contributor as he has 9000+ edits to his name. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And now he has deleted the stuff from his TP, moved it to mine, accused me of not knowing policy, ignored the fact that I told him I had asked for admin advice & that it would be better staying on his TP until there was a chance for the admin to look at it etc. Getting a bit irate here. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to come back to this a bit later, maybe tomorrow - it won't hurt to leave it to cool for a bit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, no rush. But he kept buggering with his talk page, so the discussion has now ended up in partly in his history and partly in full view on my page. I'm just going ahead and doing my stuff. This isn't a content dispute, it is a policy dispute: I say the articles need to stand alone, the other guy says that the bio link was sufficient (which I am now proving is not in fact the case due to incorrect info there, or lack of a citation altogether). - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've heard arguments that for a list the sources in the individual target articles are sufficient, but I think that only holds water for a bare list and then only to show notability (but not to support any actual information). For a list like this, containing actual information, I agree it does need proper standalone sourcing - and I think that's supported by policy -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly my view. Have a think, if you have the time and inclination. If you decide that I am wrong then let me know, otherwise let the other guy know please because although he is now letting me do my stuff he appears (IMO) to misunderstand policy in quite a big way. His argument was to rely on a de facto circular reference (ie: no citation but the info is there in the bio articles, to which there are links). - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: I think that he probably now accepts my point - see this on my talk page. The citation system is a disaster for that article, and there is still much to be done given that it is "sort of" a micro-BLP for each contestant (I assume that they would be offended if their ages were a bit on the high side of reality, for example!). - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Alice Walker

Hi Boing, would you mind having a look at Alice Walker? It's had a lot of IP vandalism in the last week and I think it could use some protection. Thanks Span (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it's been going on for several days now, so I've semi-protected it for a week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks very much. Span (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of patents by India WIPO

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have brought Number of patents by India WIPO (which you declined for CSD A1 last week) to AFD. The entry is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number of patents by India WIPO if you wish to make any comments. I believe you were perfectly right to decline the speedy (the context was clear), however I still feel the article is unsuitable and have carried through with the process for deletion. Hope you have a lovely evening. France3470 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle, twinkle, little star

Hi Boing. I noticed your comment at Twinkle talk. We shouldn't be needing workarounds, we need tools that work after they have first been tested and debugged. This new Twinkle control panel is full of good ideas, but its now full of new bugs too many to list, and all this comes right after its problems with the new Wiki software upgrade, and the introduction of Firefox 4. It's incredible that to use all Twinkle's tools and features on Mac, I now have to have four browser windows open: Safari in in monobook and vector, and Firefox in monobook and vector. The other problem of course is that the Twinkledevs are notoriously slow to respond to problems - if they respond at all (quite often they don't). It's got so frustrating, along with my jungle broadband that seems to be managed more by obscure spirits than by man, that I'm thinking of retiring from Wkipedia. Rant over ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

I actually think they've done a good job on this and have been pretty responsive to bug feedback - and it really did have to be rewritten, or it would never have worked with the HTML5 standard. Hopefully, the new rewrite to use the API rather than faking human form-filling will make it a lot more robust too, and we should see fewer of the common failures - you know, when it just stops mid-action and doesn't do anything. And I see they've fixed the FF3 dialog problem too. Not sure why you need four windows open. Maybe you use different things than me, but it's always worked ok in either Firefox or Safari, and vector, for me - with the brief exception yesterday when it wasn't working properly with FF3. (And nah, you're not going to retire ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not going to retire - it was just hyperbole (which I'm famous for!). So I assume you use Mac? If so, we need to get our heads together on this. Meanwhile, I'm still a great fan of Firefox rather than Safari and I've finally moved to Vector although I don't like it one bit. Have you noticed that some of the Twinkle dropdowns are truncated on the right margin and need to be 'stretched' to read all the content? The delsort automation doesn't work anymore, and the blocking shortcut menu seems to have disappeared. The Twinkle operation often 'hang' and/or don't place the uw on a user's tp. Sometimes, gadgets just don't load at all, especially Rollback. If you have time, you could perhaps take a quick peek at User:Kudpung/vector.js and see if I have installed all the scripts correctly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news

• In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Royal Railway

• Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism

• Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired

• Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Pie

(No, I'm not going to smush it in your face!)

File:Pie.jpeg

illogicalpie(eat me) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Baked it meself, too!! illogicalpie(eat me)

Yum, very kind :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hi, I should know this by now but where should I take this user, who has received multiple warnings for rmeoval of cited content across numerous articles & over a fair period? - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The WP:AIV people might deal with it, though they may reject it as technically not vandalism. Or you could take it to a friendly admin ;-) This user had certainly had plenty of warnings from a variety of people, so I've given them a 24 hour block to try to get them to take notice - and I'm prepared to block further if it continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind for the future. I did think that AIV would reject it but had never seen an equivalent noticeboard for plain old disruption/removal. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wannagonnagood

I for one am always happy to see a truly repentent user unblocked. Yes, by all means feel free to unblock him. Thanks for letting me know.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll do that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

State (physics)

Hi, I have just deleted a later version of this page as an expired Prod. However, I notice that on 17 May 2011 you deleted an earlier version that had been merged into State. Assuming that content was indeed merged, that deletion breaches our GFDL licence because the history of merged content must be retained. Unless I am missing something, I think that the version that you deleted should be undeleted and converted into a redirect. There are other ways of retaining the history but that is probably the simplest. I should welcome your reaction, please. TerriersFan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good point, I'd overlooked the fact that its contents had been merged - I've done exactly what you suggest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Frahaan Hussain

Is using an image I would like to nominate for deletion. As long as it is used here, this will be refused. What I have to do? Commons is not for self-promotion content and I donated to Wikimedia Foundation in faith that my money will be used for educational purposes (That's why our ministry of finance assessed WMF as being charitable). What are the steps to take? Thank you in advice. Sincerely -- Rillke (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I can't see why there would be a problem removing it from that page as it is not an actual article - and I guess it's not good to tie Commons images to non-articles. I'm not certain though, but I've gone ahead and removed it anyway. It's possible someone might disagree and have a reason for keeping it, but other than that you should be able to go ahead and request its deletion now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. -- Rillke (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tribes (band)

you're an idiot for deleting the Tribes(band) article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.168.238 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's any help, you can find the Idiot's Guide to band notability here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you think my decision was wrong, I'd be happy to respond to a civil request -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock???

• WIshIcOUldsAywhOIhAtEOnhErE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BSZ, this guy just started something about you and two other admins, I've just reported him on WP:UAA. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, how sad ;-) Could be one of a number of people, but I can't see them being here for long - thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, User:Boredsohere - that was the prime candidate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bingo~!  Looks like a duck to me --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

MajorHawke: sources

Ounce i figure out how to format sources here you'll see alot less complaints from me "that genre is wrong! idiots". Well I appreciate your respectfulness, but you seem tothink im slow or something. And calling someone a ahole is not abuse, for example saying to someone "I wish you were never born, go kill yourself" is. Thanks for the block! MajorHawke (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)MajorHawke, I left you a couple tips on references on your talk page. I personally, can only create the most basic of references on my own. I use the help section of the editor to make sure they are correct. I find it invaluable.

On to the assholes and idiots comments... let's say you called me an asshole, or an idiot, or both. Couldn't care less. Wouldn't make a difference to me. But, the thing to remember is this; not everyone has as thick skin as me. It's always best to assume that the other editors you are dealing with have thinner skin than people like me (or Boing!). Besides ensuring you're not dragged back to ANI or get a longer block, it also helps create an environment where the other editors are more likely to give what you say due consideration. People are always more likely to stop and listen if one presents their points in a civil fashion. An one of the guidelines says "comment on the content, not on the contributor".

Now, I've been in management at various places, and learned I always need to look at the content of a conversation regardless of the tone of the conversation... but I suspect I'm an exception in how most people handle such things. So, I truly hope you give this some thought. If you need help with learning how to do proper references, or help on stuff like reliable sources (or anything else for that matter), please feel free to drop by my talk page and leave me a note. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Followup:

• "I wish you were never born, go kill yourself" - that's an attack (and probably incivility as well)
• "that genre is wrong! idiots" - that's incivility

Perhaps that's the confusion. Both are against guidelines... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nah, MajorHawke, I don't think you're slow at all - I just think you need a bit more experience, that's all, and that is easily solved. I look forward to seeing properly sourced changes - and as I said, please feel free to ask me for help at any time. Robert really is good at helping people too, and he's definitely worth listening to -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does it say talk page stalker?? MajorHawke (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's a term for someone who watches other people's Talk pages and offers help on them - you can see at the top of this page I have "Talk page stalkers are welcome here - just join in any time you feel like" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some of us turn to others for help when we need it, or have collaborated together on various things, or look to each other (ie: follow what each other do) as learning experiences. In Boing!'s case, there was an editor who kept getting himself into trouble at AN/I, and got blocked a few times. He too had some civility issues as well. I'm a regular viewer of AN/I as I find it a great place to find out what the community thinks about how various policies, rules and guidelines should be interpreted. I managed to rescue him from AN/I and took him on as one of my adoptees. It was a bit of a rocky road, but it's ended quite nicely, with us communicating on and off Wikipedia, and him working diligently (and collaboratively) on various GA articles, numerous Featured Article submissions, and multiple DYK submissions. Boing (and a few other of my fellow editors (admin and non admin alike) was observing (and I believe active) and I believe was one of the people who helped in that rescue. At the time, Boing wasn't even an adminstrator... but you'll find (if you hadn't noticed already), that his attitude is much the same. He'd rather help a new editor than see them run afoul of the bazillion rules, guidelines and policies due to a simple lack of understanding them all. On that note, I doubt there's anyone here who understands them all, but that's where collaborating with other editors comes in handy, as we can help support each other through the never-ending learning experience.

Ugh, so to end my rambling, I follow the actions of Boing! and a few other editors... partly to see if I can help out, partly to learn from them, and partly because I like making WikiFriends who I can collaborate with. And I believe Boing! also does the same - as do my own talk page stalkers... so, that's what a talk page stalker is. At least as it applies to us. You can click on that link above to read more. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Side note: Yeah, what Boing! said, which shows why I dont write much content... I tend to ramble. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

68.37.124.56

Hi Boing! IP User 68.37.124.56 continues to add long-winded physical descriptions to characters at Fanboy and Chum Chum against openly explained objection and numerous invitations to discuss why this level of detail should be included. I would like to nominate the user for another edit block for possible edit-warring, and/or to request semi-protection of the page, as there are not too many useful edits coming from IP users. Its sister page List of Fanboy and Chum Chum Episodes recently earned semi-protected status. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've tried explaining again, because I think they mean well. Semi-protection is an option too, as there seem to be several IP addresses editing, but let's give it one more chance first -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Boing! I think you made a good call. I feel that the user is either incapable of understanding why this level of detail doesn't belong on Wiki, or that there's some other kind of chemically compelling need to include it in spite of my protests. Anyway, good call with the compassionate academic approach. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you see who is in the right, if anyone?

I recently tagged a couple of articles for deletion through various methods. There is a discussion on my talk page left by an admin who is a self described inclusionist. Could you offer some analysis of this? Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look and a read over the discussion on your Talk page, and will offer my comments there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating! Participation GOCE May 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog. Progress report During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their June drive has started. Coodinator election The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Tea with toast (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), and Torchiest (talk).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I being touchy?

Hi Boing, if you have a mo then could you cast your eye over Talk:Burndennett Cricket Club. Am I being touchy? I've been called many thing before, but not that! - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not especially egregious, but it's out of order - I've left a comment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I sense some protectiveness towards a series of articles going on. I have since reviewed the AfD that is referred and am wondering whether it is worth the hassle of continuing down that road. I do believe that the two articles I CSDd fail to demonstrate notability, even if the admin involved thought that they demo'd importance, but it seems that in sports related stuff pretty much anything goes. Since being in a league appears to be the marker and notability seemed to be inherited in that instance also, perhaps I should write an article on my local pub's darts team, which I think includes one person who has played for Lancashire (I do not step up to the oche anywhere myself, so I might be wrong about that person).

I'll have a think. Might be easier just to withdraw the AfD and just let the place get flooded with NNs, as happens with schools & one-line stubs for villages in Nepal. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say I find sports-related notability difficult to follow, and I'm not sure what leagues count. But I have seen some English football team articles deleted for playing in non-notable leagues, so I think I'd be tempted to let the AfD run - it would at least help to establish the status of that league -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle Logs...

Hi! I have tried enabling CSD and PROD logging in the settings control panel, but I get

• Saving preferences to User:RobertMfromLI/twinkleoptions.js: Could not resolve redirects for: User:RobertMfromLI/twinkleoptions.js

Not sure what I'm doing wrong... tried manually creating the file and then saving... same results. Hoping you have a few ideas... Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange. Do you have any Twinkle prefs set in your .js page? I believe you need to remove those and only do Twinkle prefs via the new prefs page - it's something to do with the order in which scripts are loaded. I've actually removed all Twinkle stuff from my .js page now - I only use the Preferences/Gadgets page to enable it, and the new prefs page to set my preferences -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your twinkleoptions.js looks a bit strange. Mine looks like User:Boing! said Zebedee/twinkleoptions.js. I'd suggest taking everything out of your skin.js and only using the Gadgets page/TW prefs page - and if that doesn't work, maybe get on to one of the Twinkle developers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a copy/paste from the instructions. I removed it and tried again, with the same results... a few repeat attempts though, and it seems to have went through. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I found I needed a few refreshes and a bit of cache clearing to make things work properly - you usually need to clear your browser cache if you make TW prefs changes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=432570813

You should have kept your head down so that bit of bent Australian wood wouldn't hit it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair

I am sorry that it has come to this. Not entirely surprised, but sorry. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not your fault - you're clearly trying to defuse things and improve the article. It's just that there's too much emotion at the moment (and I know how passionate the whole caste issue can be). I hope a 12 hour protection might allow people to cool down a bit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi...Umm...

could you please look into the revision history of this article and please tell me if that isn't sockpuppetry. 24.244.139.116 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I'm a bit busy right now and am likely to be for a few days - I suggest you try WP:SPI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone deserves a break, and B!sZ does especially. I will have a little look. :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Very kind, thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Storm is in teacup, nothing more to do there... until something else happens :) I will keep an eye on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ends and means

Thanks for your message. The issue made me think: why are animals (and other human beings) not just ends, but also means? Because respect would surely rule out another being as a means to my ends, which I think you had in mind in deleting the 'not only as a means' ?

I think it is because to acknowledge a being as an end can only be done by a being who is an end in itself. To acknowledge some being as an end is to say that I can be a means to its wellbeing. But to do that is to acknowledge myself as not only an end but also a means. An end because I acknowledge another end. And a means because I acknowledge that there are other ends than myself.

So beings who are ends are also means. But not simply means.

In the context of veganism, this suggests that we can enter into reciprocal relationships. And there are many of these, where animals are treated as ends and also means.

For example, we can interact with guide dogs, pets, and horses, in ways where there is the potential for the animal to be treated as a means (guidance, companionship transport) as well as an end. Examples of being an end would be where the animal benefits, perhaps knowingly, from the relationship and there is mutual contribution to each other's wellbeing.

Hope this makes sense. Or even interesting sense!

TonyClarke (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Foo Bar Buzz Netz and Noisetier

I see you got my mail and responded, this note is more so others tracking the issue via your talk page are aware as well.

I have provided basic background by email to the admins involved - Boing and Zero - (to a point they can understand the background but not to the point of breaching privacy policy), as a first step, to see whether they believe the matter can be dealt with on-wiki. If there is consensus it can be addressed on-wiki then this information will be posted at WP:ANI for the community to discuss and to also consider how to avoid it in future. If consensus is that it cannot easily or safely be resolved on-wiki, I will suggest the matter is treated per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Confidential evidence and referred to Arbcom to decide upon. There's a good chance it can be handled safely on-wiki but I'd like to consult briefly before making such a call, in case I'm wrong or others aren't convinced.

I hope all involved will hold off any posts or escalation until we at least have clarity of consultation whether it can be handled on-wiki. Hopefully as all concerned are active right now, we'll have this within a short while (24 hrs latest). Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've replied by email to the people involved here, with my opinion that there are reasons for not continuing this in public -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Curious about deletion of article

My name is Dylan Holton, and I created a wiki page based on my music experiences as a musician, and my future plans regarding my music. I was using this article as a reference for those abroad who are searching for more information about who I am and what my music entails. Is there a more clear, specific reason why my page was deleted? There was no harm, or spam, or anything false in the whole article. Could you fill me in at all just to verify what I need to fix to make it a successful post? No hard feelings! Just very curios. I put a lot of time into the coding etc, so I really am interested. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.82.80 (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted the Dylan Holton article as it had been tagged for Speedy Deletion category A7, and I agreed that it did not make sufficient claims of importance or significance. But please don't take it personally, it's just that Wikipedia only carries articles about musicians if they satisfy quite strict criteria, for example having released several albums on commercial labels or having had chart successes - being "upcoming" and preparing to self-release your first album doesn't make it, I'm afraid. You can check the notability requirements for musicians at WP:NBAND. Also, due to our conflict of interest guidelines, people are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves - once someone makes it to the big time, someone will surely come along and write an article independently. Regarding the text of the article, if you did not keep a copy and would like me to email it to you, please let me know an address I can use (if you're worried about spam, you can use one of the many throwaway email services, or format it in a way it can't be automatically harvested - write something like "This(at)somewhere" and don't use the @ symbol. I'll delete the email address from here as soon as I've used it). Regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, I could temporarily restore the article to a page in my own user space from where you could copy it - let me know if you want me to do either of these things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 LBC United Football League

Houston, we have a problem. Our story begins with a group AFD long ago and far away. Not really, it was in February.

User:Banana Fingers Nominated a bunch of not too notable foot ball teams for deletion. The result was a resounding "Keep".

Please note the redlinks. I've found 3 articles that were near the close of the AFD truncate by Banana Fingers and recently tagged for speedy deletion. They were moved to new names by Banana Fingers . Someone once said, 1 is an accident, 2 a coincident, 3 enemy action." And so I've found my AGF severely strained here. At any rate, you and AlexF were deleting admins on 2 of these. I checked myself just in time. I suspect that all the redlinks represent articles deleted as CSD's after truncation by Banana Fingers. I'm off to lunch and I'm loosing the ability to type due to fatigue. I was wondering if you could look into these. Thanks Dlohcierekim 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the redlinks were all ones deleted after Banana Fingers had moved them. Not entirely sure the moves were malicious, as the A7 tagging was done some time later by other people. I've restored the ones that were deleted, and have tagged all the Talk pages with AfD "keep" notices - and they're all on my watchlist now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bangor Mall

Nice work on the restores. What's current thinking on a recreated article that was previously deleted under PROD? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Effectively the same status as a contested PROD, I believe - so should really go to AfD. But malls generally tend to be considered notable - there are hundreds of articles on them, dozens of lists, and there's even a project -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Project is WP:MALLS -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Obscenity and personal attacks at Talk:Nair

Greetings, I appreciate your efforts to calm folks down at Nair after that nuiscance ANI was filed yesterday. I feel that I am one of a few editors working to add reputable, accurate citations to the article Nair, and are largely being countered by those who object to any material, however well-cited which could be read as "negative". The issue of Nair polyandry, a topic widely discussed by academics and full footnoted, was dismissed as "Once again, you Nadar guys are calling Nairs as bastards and Nair women as prostitutes. But what about your own women?... I have just reminded you that whatever you write about Nairs can backfire on you. So stop shouting at me and concentrate on your work, i.e adding degrading stuff to this article."

Since the block was lifted, editors have left edit summaries such as "Call you mother a dog, racist asshole", and Talk comments such as:

• What the fuck you think is the meaning of that passage?
• So you are saying that it is fine if you call us dogs, but it is something terrible if we return the favor? He did the right thing. When you deceive someone by offering him dog turd covered in chocolate, the bad taste will never go away. The next time even if you offer him Swiss chocolate, he will reject it. The same thing has happened here. You have deceived everyone here by pretending to be someone neutral. But you ended up adding all sort of third rate stuff which some one even partially civilized will dare to add. when you again pretend that you are someone who is here to implement the Wiki policies rather than to abuse someone, no one is going to believe you
• Referring to academic Sadasivan as a "mental caste", "casteist", "anti-Hindu" and "Nazi" but refusing to actually provide any academic or media sources critiquing his academic credibility, and instead offering only OR and "I know that's not right, and you guys don't know anything about India."
• Constant allegations of "caste hatred" (a Ctrl-F of the page shows how often this is leveled, with no explanation beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

I feel that myself and Sitush and others are working very hard to add cites, and have been responding to this hostility with simple "please provide refs", "here's why Ref A works", "here's how Ref B doesn't actually say that", and at the worst of moments have edged on "snippy" but nowhere near the level of emotion and hostility employed against us. I emphasise that some editors who are apprehensive about "negative" content are still behaving professionally (such as Rajkris), are debating sources and providing info, etc. But fundamentally three of us are doing massive work, and a whole passel of other folks are basically hanging around the Talk page abusing us, refusing to actually add useful content or provide reasonable refs, etc.

I'm not asking you to weigh in on technical issues (though if you'd recommend some venue to get neutral parties for POV debates, that might be good, WPINDIA isn't proving helpful yet), but I would appreciate it if you could swing by and remind some folks that the level of emotion and vitriol involved (which I would argue is totally one-sided) is undue. If I or any other editor claiming to be "removing POV" has somehow overstepped, I'd be glad to hear about it, but I think those of us doing the bulk of the work have added "positive" and "negative" material in comparable quantities, and yet a contigent screams at us if any single phrase can be interpreted as even slightly compromising Nair prestige. Thanks for any insight. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me a few diffs of some of the actual abuses? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, give me a few mics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm probably not going to have time to do anything tonight, but I should be able to try to help tomorrow - at least issue a few civility warnings -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, do you want me to take this over to a different admin?

• I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you people. If you get some sort of pleasure by insulting my caste then ban people like me from Wiki and go ahead with your perverted stuff. Adding derogatory abuses composed by caste fanatics is a great thing to do in wiki. I have again and again asked for the intervention of an Indian moderator (i.e someone with some knowledge about this subject) to this dispute and you have turned down it all the time. I have tried my best to point out the meaninglessness in this edit. But you people can't understand what I am saying. There are more degrading things written about Nairs by bastard Sadasivan. Read all his books and then fill wiki with his shit. Shannon1488 (talk)[17]
• 16:42, 6 xunu 2011 Robbie.Smit (Alderique | contribuciones) (80,484 bytes) (Call you mother a dog, racist asshole.) (esfacer)[18]
• Bolding implied threats: Mister Matthew, I have already told you that I am not interested in what is going on here. I was just going through, perhaps happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and made a simple comment. But if you want to provoke me by replying rudely, then I swear, I am not like these non-confrontational Nair guys. I'll tear you apart. Like all other communities in Kerala, my community also suffered extreme humiliation from the Nairs. But bygones are bygones. Many of my best friends are Nairs. And I appreciate them for their friendly behavior and helpfulness. This is essentially a Nair vs Nadar fight, and I'd rather sit back and enjoy the show. I don't think Sitush is a Nadar, after seeing this - link, which is evident from his edits as well. Nadars from SIUC / CSI groups are well known for their slum behavior, and both of you (you and cartik) are not an exception. ...I am just making this post because you are acting like a Hollywood film star. You are acting that are not aware of what is insulting going on here. Can you go to the street and tell face-to-face to anyone what you wrote here. I am not sure how many of your teeth will remain intact if you do so. ... Here you are saying all the Nairs are bastards. ... Once again, you Nadar guys are calling Nairs as bastards and Nair women as prostitutes. But what about your own women? .... I have just reminded you that whatever you write about Nairs can backfire on you. So stop shouting at me and concentrate on your work, i.e adding degrading stuff to this article. Riyaz.Pookoya[19]
• Don't act OK. I know Sadasivan's works. His only ambition in his life was to degrade Nairs. What the fuck you think is the meaning of that passage? ... then give me a secondary source supporting that, other than that from the mental case Sadasivan... Why you are not adding these things? You want to insult only Nairs? Robbie.Smit (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[20]
• So you are saying that it is fine if you call us dogs, but it is something terrible if we return the favor? He did the right thing. When you deceive someone by offering him dog turd covered in chocolate, the bad taste will never go away. The next time even if you offer him Swiss chocolate, he will reject it. The same thing has happened here. You have deceived everyone here by pretending to be someone neutral. But you ended up adding all sort of third rate stuff which some one even partially civilized will dare to add. when you again pretend that you are someone who is here to implement the Wiki policies rather than to abuse someone, no one is going to believe you.Axxn (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[21]

I emphasise that nobody has called any of these editors, or the Nair as a class, a "dog", and we have in fact repeatedly reminded them that not only are we not "calling" anyone that, but the cited source himself is saying "here's a Brahmin story that mentions dogs, but it's historically interesting but not true." There are a few folks supporting our "side" who have been a bit rude (KondottySultan, though he has raised some valid points, but in an unfortunately indelicate way), but the primary editors working on the actual article are receiving all the abuse and just weathering it.

Not asking for technical expertise, just someone neutral to let folks know that the above sort of language is completely non-WP. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I should be able to have a word with them later - I'll format a common message that I can tweak to suit each one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be good, Boing. Thank you. The above snippets are the tip of a much larger iceberg. I am also concerned that some of their authors have flat-out said (sometimes on several occasions) that they have no intent to collaborate in improving the article, which is something I consider to be one of the essentials of involvement in any WP article. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've issued a few individual warnings, plus a general one on the Talk page - I haven't warned about any comments in the ANI, as I don't think it would be right to do so after it has been closed. Let's see how it goes - will respond to any further individual incivilities/attacks if and when they occur -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

• Board elections: Time to vote

• News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news

• In the news: 60% of doctors use Wikipedia; growing in India; brief news

• Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes

• WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It really was marginal, and I thought it was going to succeed at one stage - but being so close, I'm pretty confident you'll succeed in a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Enidblyton11

Seeing as the confusion on this page is my fault, I've added an explanation of what's going on. Sorry for the trouble.  -- Lear's Fool 03:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation - standard offer seems like the only real option -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/28bytes 2

Should the question by Malleus be removed or changed in any way? It is clearly more of a statement than a question. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This RfA will probably succeed with or without a couple of isolated oppose !votes. In the interests of avoiding drama, which is the main reason why so many good editors refuse to go through the ritual of RfA, I think it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, let it be - it's given the candidate the chance to respond with what I think is a good answer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To be honest the answer by 28 bytes is indeed excellent, and I actually see no problem in the question. It most certainly should not be removed or refactored. Pedro :  Chat  09:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I posted this before 28bytes answered, but I really like the answer too. It had seemed to me that the question was not asked to gain more information about 28bytes, but was instead asked to deliberately make 28bytes look bad. I didn't know if there was a rule against this. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

... and here we go again at Nair

See this. I have reverted this addition of content (originally by another user, who may have been unaware of the sitatuion) twice today & dare not do so again. The article which is linked to is wrong, but that is a discussion/project for another time. The talk page clearly shows lengthy discussions about the claims to kshatriya status (a caste ranking to which practically every Indian caste-ist wants to claim if it is their caste, and deny if it is not). All of the claims have been disproven, time and again. I am getting fed up of this small group of disruptive editors. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has reverted - I've given him a warning not to re-add unsourced material if nobody has been able to verify it, and if it carries on I think we just have to escalate the warnings and ultimately block if necessary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I do realise that most of these discussions on the article talk page may well go right over your head but that you appreciate that there are 2 or 3 involved contributors at the moment who really are trying to improve the article big time and are providing copious sources etc. There has even been vague talk of taking this to GAN at some point in the future. GA status would be quite a remarkable achievement for a subcontinent caste article but I think that it is do-able if we can get some stability. I would prefer that stability to be via consensus than blocks etc, but it simply is not looking likely. Your oversight is appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the discussions of the actual content go whizzing over me at a stratospheric height ;-) But it's quite easy to see who's doing things properly and providing sources, etc, and who's slagging people off as sons of whores for daring to insult their caste. GA for a caste article really would be a remarkable achievement. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for context, this is pretty much how most major caste articles are. Of probably 800+ caste articles, I'd say easily 100 would involve knock-down-drag-out fights to bring into proper WP compliance (though folks tend to keep removing pov/ce/cu maintenance tags, obscuring the issue). Of the rest, at least 400 would be subject to drive-by IPs reverting to a previours "earlier caste" draft, or swapping in "warrior class" for "labouring class" without even bothering to remove the old footnote. Here's pretty much how cleanup of the 100 high-vis ones tends to go:

• Original: The Fooian caste is a glorious caste of warriors and kings, descended from the god So-and-So, and were pretty much the most important caste in the history of India.
• NPOVeditor: Let's see, I'll add claims to be descended....[1], remove glorious, and I'll add this anthropology cite saying they were historically bricklayers[2], and a British chronicler work noting they were kings of some small principalities in Fooabad around 1400-1600[3][4] until they lost some wars and took up trades.[5]
• AngryFooian: Nonsense, revert.
• NPOVeditor: please don't remove cited text without some explanation. I'm restoring for the moment since your revert restored uncited text, please drop into Talk and explain your concerns.
• Angryfooian: Revert.
• NPOV editor: Revert, edits removed cited text, undid copyedit/formatting improvements. and restored uncited claims
• Angrfooian: How dare you sir! The Fooians are the most glorious caste of all time and you are filling Wikipedia with lies and that is why it has no credibility. Your source (from Cambridge) is a liar and lackey of the racist Britishers, and your source (from U of Calcutta) is a frothing Brahmin partisan. You are clearly a member of the ghastly Gooian caste which has oppressed and belittled my people for too long and we will not stand it! If you revert again I shall post on the Gooian page on Facebook alerting the community to this slander, and will contact the Fooian Benevolent Society so that they may bring a lawsuit against Wikipedia for fomenting caste hatred!

Pretty much everything mentioned above has occurred to me (often multiple times) in a few months of doing caste articles. On the bright side, a lot of the smaller working-class castes either aren't on the Internet, or their descendants have changed their last names and dropped their old customs like a live grenade and won't come near an association. Sitush, when we need a break what say we go clean up a few articles on ratcatchers, whisky-distillers, and shrimp fisherman? They seem nice blokes, good anthropology sources, and might actually go a month without a drive-by IP froth.

In any case, thanks Boing! for bringing some outside perspective to this. I'd like to believe our "side" (or so we've been labeled) is working on the side of the angels, so glad that our good intentions are apparent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That account would be funny if it wasn't so accurate :-) Working on caste articles does look like a bit of a thankless task, so I'm happy to help where I can - and to give recognition to your hard work -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

problems on publishing

hi Zebedee iam having problems creating a new page on wikipedia, my Page name was BESNIKET. i created this page based on the materials i had from a secure source. iam one of the members of this tifo group and iam sure about the information i publish. for pages like BESNIKET, Peqin Albania, KS Shkumbini Peqin. iam asking you to take the maximum attention to my articles that i publish here on wikipedia.

Many thanks! Ergys Kajo, Peqin Albania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergys89 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted because it did not give any indication of why the organization is important or significant. Have a look at WP:GROUP for the notability requirements for groups of people, and WP:GNG for the general notability guidelines -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair overspill

You will doubtless not be pleased with me! Two of the culprits at the Nair talkpage have taken a pop at reverting legitimate edits on Template:Kshatriya Communities today. The entire issue of whether the Nairs formed part of the kshatriya community has been discussed to death on the Nair talk page, so there is no reason at all why they should be reverting my removal of the caste from this template.

They were involved in the talk page discussions and every one of their numerous provided sources turned out not to support the claim that they were making. Just a heads up. - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a similar issue at Category:Kshatriya. Given that Category:Nair and Category:Rajputs are subcats thereof, I've been moving all Nair and Rajput in the parent cat into their caste subcats. However, the cat tree now shows all Nair as Kshatriya. I don't know if there's any comfy way to pick-and-choose which Nair are considered Kshatriya by people other then themselves, and/or by people outside of Kerala where the Nairs have influence. Honestly, it's a similar issue with Rajputs (not to mention the scores of clans who suddenly "discovered" Rajput status in recent centuries and are disavowed my the major Rajput clans). It's a tough issue of claimed status, vice "how widely is this believed?" vice "supported by academics" status. Unfortunately, as we've seen these also seem to be part of deeply-held origin myths, so it greatly upsets certain editors when the fact that these designations are contested is noted in the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Shannon1488 for a week for edit warring on Template:Kshatriya Communities to reintroduce a contested addition - I haven't blocked the other editor, who only added it once. I've also protected the template for 2 weeks - let me know if it needs unprotecting. I really don't know what to do about the categories though, sorry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. There may be a need to remove Tamil Kshatriya from that list before a fortnight is up, since that article is extremely likely to disappear before then, but I guess that a redlink in a template for a few extra days makes little odds.

I have just attempted to address the issue in the lead of Nair with this edit. My feeling is that the thing needs to be tackled early on in order to provide an opportunity for warring editors to see the two "sides". As I say in my edit summary, feel free to revert it. I do appreciate that it may have zero effect. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That might help, yes - but are there any sources to document that the belief exists? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are near enough 100 listed on the talk page where the claims are referred to, being practically every source provided by Shannon. The problem is that these are generally old sources and although none of them actually admit the claim to be correct (and many deny it is correct), modern-day members of the caste continue to misread them/take them out of context etc. The academic debate has long moved on from this but plenty of (unreliable, by definition) websites persist in it. It is a somewhat awkward thing to deal with using reliable and modern and, indeed, is one of those situations where a circular reference to the talk page would prove the point!

The claim is discussed to some degree in the second para of Caste system section and the para immediately above the subsection titled Nair#Attempts_to_achieve_caste_cohesion - both are cited. It is also mentioned obliquely in footnote 7, where Panikkar (a Nair himself) says that Kshatriyas were sometimes used to perform one of the Nair "marriage" rituals - the people who performed these rituals were selected from higher ranks in society, which is discussed in the article body. The article sort of invites the reader to do their own synthesis, I guess. An early 20C census report commented on the claims and denounced them, but I would rather not use it unless we must because (a) it is old and (b) it may well have been looking at things through the eyes of the British Raj, which could be jaundiced.

I really do not know how to deal with this in a non-inflammatory manner, especially since there is the potential of adding undue weight in what is already a lengthy article. The whole situation is a mess. As I see things, this is more of an issue relating to contributors to Wikipedia than it is to readers of it. I would rather than the insert I made earlier did not exist but am trying to pour oil over troubled waters. Feel free to revert it. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I get what you mean. I'd prefer to avoid making content changes myself, as I wouldn't be able to do any admin things if I got involved - I'll leave the content decisions to you folks who know more about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the "involved" issue. I just wanted to ensure that you were aware I had added something that some people may in fact consider to be baiting. I do not see it as baiting, but in this peculiar world there is no guessing how others might see it. In other words, if someone should come along and remove it then I am really not that fussed and would not expect you to consider such a revert as edit warring etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your furious defense of the racist propaganda posted by Sitush & Co. makes me wonder whether you are his homosexual wife. So, are you gay? There are many other easier ways to do it. You can protect the article and give exclusive edit rights to the trio. I don't know why you are having such hatred towards us... may be because some of you were illegitimate children produced by Nair fathers.. is it so? Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see someone has warned you about this. I think you were lucky not to get a straight block, to be honest, so please understand that more of this kind of behavior will not be tolerated here. This kind of stuff really doesn't bother me at all - but it will serve as evidence of your aggressive attitude and your abusive approach to others. As you have been told many times, if you want to add material to articles you must provide sources, and if you want to remove sourced material you must discuss it first on the article Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I report the new editor who has done this? A toddy tapper, while a genuine traditional occupation, is often bandied about here as a term of abuse. Preprended with "Racist", the username seems likely to be unacceptable but I am not 100% about it. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks like a UAA violation to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do it. Probably a sock of one of other of the errant contributors, and I've no idea what the text says on the user's talk page. But I cannot go on a fishing expedition with possible sock owners. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I already reported Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Just registered today, so I expect it probably is a sock - but not sure there's enough for an SPI report. I've semi-protected the article, so at least unconfirmed accounts won't be able to edit it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Thank you very much for deleting the IFUTURELIST page earlier. When I tried to move IFuturelist to that correctly formatted page, I was told the page could not be moved there because IFUTURELIST is on a title blacklist. I checked the blacklist and could not find that title. Can you please help me with the page move? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about the blacklist, but checking Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Capitalization and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) suggests that the current title should probably be kept - for example, the latter says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official": avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS. instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting because while I've made several similar uncontested moves recently while working from a list of titles that required the first letter to be lowercase (ex. iTunes vs. ITunes), there are three associated titles each with their own move requests. They are at Talk:Manga (band), the band, plus two of their albums, Talk:MaNga+ and Talk:MaNga (album). The band depicts their name as "maNga", and while the albums correctly show the uppercase central letter "N", the band's article does not. When I tried to move the band's page, the move was contested. And then somebody decided to request the albums' page moves. Anyway, the trademark guideline is being cited, and I am using WP:COMMONNAME to argue that page titles should reflect what our readers expect to see. Hopefully some good will come out of all of it. Thank you again for your help! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear cut - and some guidelines do sometimes appear to be contradictory. All I can really suggest is a page move discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Aluminum/Aluminium

I tried to fix the article name of 7005 aluminum alloy to match the names used for the other alloys, but you changed it back. Is there a particular reason aluminum is preferred on this one type of alloy and should not the Aluminium alloy article link correctly (e.g. also to the 7005 alloy article)? Keanu (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I think I'd misunderstood what you were doing - I saw titles that didn't match article contents, and I think that confused me. I'm a bit surprised that the British spelling seems to be used at Aluminium alloy and Aluminium, but if that's the way it is then I guess that's fine. I'd offer to reverse my changes if I could remember what I'd done and if I wasn't heading off to bed - but no objections if you want to change it back again, and sorry if I caused you extra work -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This was decreed by the manual of style: WP:ALUM. Favonian (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Not a valid speedy deletion reason"

Why is it not, other than the links being redirects, no other content was added to the articles. I have already spoken to WhatGuy about making these redirects, User talk:WhatGuy#Redirecting actors to TV shows and he gave me no answer, well he hardly responds on his talk page, anyway. I follow much of his edits and he hardly gives an edit summary for his edits and some of the info that he adds in articles are unsourced. For some reason if an actor does not have a page on Wikipedia, he redirects the link to where he sees the redlink in. These edits are very disruptive and messes with the article count of this site. He's been on Wikipedia for two years now and is making edits like an anon or a newbie. Some thing needs to done about this. I guess I have to take these redirect links to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, so they will be done with properly. QuasyBoy 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The valid Speedy Deletion reasons can be found at WP:CSD, and if you have a look you will see that "Link redirects to a TV series, not a biography" is not amongst them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because this is a rare case. WhatGuy's redirects are totally unjustified. Many of his edits leave me scratching my head, actually. One of his redirects were deleted because they served no purpose what so ever, See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 16#Katelyn Pacitto. Like I said I will take this issue to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. QuasyBoy 22:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, CSD is not for rare cases, it is only for blatantly obvious deletions which fall into specific categories - you are right to take it to WP:RfD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IntelligentUniverse

You tagged IntelligentUniverse (talk · contribs) as a sock of Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs) but IU's talk page has him saying he is Liveintheforests (talk · contribs). He created Metal objects (Out-of-place artifacts) while blocked as Liveintheforests, which Liveintheforests continued to edit - virtually all edits being copyvio. Not only that, IU claimed he was no longer using Liveintheforests although that clearly wasn't true. Should, at least, the tag be changed? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was actually Tnxman307 who blocked and tagged the user page as a sock of Anglo Pyramidologist, on May 30 - my June 10 reblock was after Liveintheforests got his access back. But yes, I think that sock tag should be changed or removed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Beowulf mining

Would you please consider deleting your assertion that the editor who created the article must own shares in it? I don't think that's valid speculation at this point. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There does appear to be evidence off-wiki, but yes, you're probably right - I'll remove it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanx

I've given Karl my sincere and abject apologies. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I expect I'll do something similar some day ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

• News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

• In the news: Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Wikipedia "cleanser"; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft

• Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page

• Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

• Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues with User:Ancient indian historian

Greetings, I can go through more formal channels if this India theme is becoming a hassle to you, but in the meantime you've been a good NPOV guy who's not involved in the conflicts.

I'm having particular issues with User:Ancient indian historian on a number of articles about western Indian agricultural tribes. Not to get you into the nitty-gritty, but in sweeping brushstrokes the issue is again legendary descent, claimed (though not clearly documented) associations, etc. For metaphor: imagine you have the English Foo clan, who claims descent from King Arthur. Great, we have a couple footnotes stating "Fooians say they're descended from King Arthur". Various authors, including now AIH, like to keep jamming in lengthy passages about King Arthur, in some cases just copy-pasting whole paragraphs from King Arthur without attribution. I try to explain that people can just click the blue-link if they want, and besides that the link between Arthur and the Fooians is pretty insignificant other than that they claim descent (already included and footnoted). We have similar issues with editors wanting to jam Foo full of any prestitigious group with a similar name, so "here's a picture of a castle built by the Foobu dynasty, and some amazing stories from 1400AD". When I come and say "okay, not seeing a real direct connection other than a vaguely similar name, can you add in material showing a clear historical linkage?" I get waved away.

Long/short, articles like Yadav and Ahir are about castes of shepherd and cowherds (nothing against that, important social role), and editors, currently mainly AIH, keep trying to refocus the article to be about legendary ancient kings, groups called "Yadava" (which only indicates that they claim the same descent, not that they have anything to do with Indian shepherds in 1923) that did awesome things in past centuries, etc. Also big into downplaying any issues of what these guys actually do for a living up to recent times (sheep/cattle), and avoiding the fascinating issue of how they formed political associations in the 1920s, starting telling related castes to "rediscover" their legendary King Yadu descent, claim kshatriya/warrior status, etc.

In any case, here's a representative diff[22]. And if you look at his contribs[23] the pattern is pretty clear; the massive copy-pastes from other articles usually described as "comlete relevent article from other article", etc. Thanks for any help in this matter. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

More simple, the editor is making huge changes - including removal of what appears to be cited info - without prior discussion. He has only recently been blocked for this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Folks, I want to try to help here, but I've got a few very busy days in real life and don't really have time to look into it. If you can get anywhere with this editor by explanation and/or warning, that would be ideal, but if that doesn't work, I'll see what I can do as soon as I have the time - it will be a few days, though -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No probs. He is at 3RR (or beyond) in several places at the moment, so it can be sent to WP:3RRN if necessary. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours for repeatedly removing sourced content without discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, BsZ, for the kind words, support, and encouragement from start to finish. I really do appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Boing!

For the record, let me say that I think you're doing a really good job. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very much appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I - Nair

Just a thought, you have (rightly) notified involved people. However, that includes people who currently cannot respond due to their blocks. In the interests of fairness, is there a way round this? Could they, for example, be told that they can put a comment on their talk page & it would be copied over to AN/I ? - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point - I'll do exactly that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to strike one of those notices, at User_talk:122.172.175.239. Boy, this is confusing! I am amazed that you have managed to keep track. It looks from the article talk page as if the above IP might be gearing up for some article edits come July & so it may not be over yet.

The ANI seems to be confirming your decisions, which comes as no surprise to me. You will note that myself & MatthewVanitas have both now adopted a position of semi-collaboration when it comes to comments on the article talk page. This is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia but I am fed up of providing repetitive responses. I think that MV feels the same. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks - that one isn't blocked. I think you and MatthewVanitas have both acted with great restraint, especially considering the repeated and blatantly false accusations, and I think you're wise to ignore further similar abuse. But with the support we're getting from the ANI, I won't ignore it and I feel confident to crank up the suspensions if necessary - there's really no point trying to reason with them any further. And if we get any IP disruption in July, it will take but a moment to protect the article further. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is very surprising!. I thought any one with valid referenced article can edit wikipedia. If you look in my history I have never edited it yet. I just said , will be free in July so I can collect articles & present it on that time. I am terribly disappointed to know that you will allow only Mr sitush & 'MV' to edit it. ( 122.172.216.117 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) )

Veganism page

Re: Dietary and Ethical vegans

There are no such things in existence. Vegan means abstaining from all animal products - diet AND otherwise. It's irrevlevant why one is a vegan - whether it's due to ethics or not (unlikely, but possible). If you ONLY abstain from animal products in your diet, you consume a vegan diet, are a strict vegetarian or eat a plant-based diet. You are not, though, a vegan.

This is incredibly misleading and innaccurate to create these false terms and advertise them as meaning something, when they don't. They need to be removed.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethehens (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss it on the article's discussion page, not here - what is relevant and what is not is decided by consensus, so if you can get a consensus in support of what you want, then you can make it so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, btw, if you check dictionary definitions (eg http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegan) you will find several, including "a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products" (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary). As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia covers a broad view of topics which have various definitions, and can not be used to emphasise one preferred definition -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Internet in Thailand

Hi Boing. When you're in Thailand, how do you usually connect to the Internet, and what is your experience when connecting to the WMF server? E.G.: How long do pages take to load, and saves to upload, and how stable is the connection? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We use a 2Mb broadband connection from True Telecom in Bangkok, and it's generally been pretty good for access to Wikipedia. Can't be sure of actual timings (I can time some actual pages next time I'm there, which hopefully will be fairly soon :-), but I've never noticed anything to make me think it's significantly slow - at least, no slower than I'd expect considering the bandwidth we have. And it seems generally pretty reliable. We had a TOT connection for a while before that, but it wasn't really usable - speed was erratic, and it was horribly unreliable and would keep dropping out for long periods. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for this :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, could you take a look at the Angana P. Chatterji article again? It's seen a few vandals (you communicated sternly with one in April, thank you) and I think I'm handling it ok, but it would be nice to have a more experienced eye there and let me know if there are better ways for me to engage with people. I don't want to scare away non-vandal editors. Thank you. Torren (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted further, as the latest IP had made quite a few non-NPOV changes, and I've issued a warning. I've also put it on my watchlist now, so I'll see any further such changes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt help! Torren (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Voices-voix deletion

From the creator of the Voices-voix page that was created/deleted on June 17th

What can I do to decrease the chances of the article being deleted before trying again? The coalition has been mentioned in numerous publications, below are some of the organizations that have published information on voics-voix

http://www.alternatives.ca/en/project-campaign/sign-voices-voix-declaration http://www.nupge.ca/content/3349/nupge-joins-voices-voix-new-coalition-fighting-preserve-democratic-institutions-canada http://www.equalityrights.org/cera/?p=1129 http://ontariohumanists.ca/tag/voices-voix http://rabble.ca/toolkit/highlights/federal-election/voices-voix

Thanks for your help

Raiseyourvoice2011 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The real problem with the original version was that it did not show any evidence of importance, and only had the organization's own web site as a source. If you were to recreate it using some third party sources, as you have suggested here, I think it would stand a better chance of survival - I think it would at least be enough to avoid speedy deletion, and should anyone have any further concerns they could then be discussed. So I'd suggest recreating it using those sources, and I'll keep an eye on the article too and will help if I can. One thing you do need to bear in mind, though, is that you need to be careful of any conflict of interest, and an article would need to be written from a carefully neutral point of view - in fact, it is often suggested that you do not write about anything you are personally associated with, and leave it to others to do -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick response! Do you have anyone to suggest who could "sponsor" the article and write it for me, to avoid COI? I have the draft written up, including those third party sources, which could be used. Raiseyourvoice2011 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

• News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

• WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

• Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mass AfD

Hi, I vaguely recall seeing some mass AfD articles in the past but cannot find them. I have the feeling that the process in slightly different in these situations. Are you aware of any explanatory articles? - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cancel. Found something and have done my best with it. It is probably not 100% correct but I doubt that it is far off the mark - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ards Cricket Club. If someone turns up and reformats it then I'll learn from that. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific instructions, but that looks fine to me - it's very similar to others I've seen, and I've copied that kind of format myself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

richard Aguirre article

If you could please help me to move the Richard aguirre article to a userification status so that I can develop the article. Mr. Aguirre is a famous San Diegan with both a political and musical back round that is of notoriety. I feel that I can get the article up to speed with all the references it will need. Thank you for your help. Wikimikesd (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The version I deleted was "Richard Aguirre" (with quotes). But versions at Richard Aguirre have been deleted four times now, the last time as a result of this AfD discussion on June 18, and it has also been deleted at Richard William Aguirre. Both of those versions are now protected against being recreated, which means that it will probably be difficult to get a new version accepted. In the circumstances, I think it would be better if you spoke to the admin who deleted the Richard Aguirre version and protected it, at User talk:Postdlf, to ask for assistance now, as they will have carefully evaluated the deletion discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Little help?

Hi BsZ. If you have a free minute, could you take a look at this? I'm not sure what to do about it... talking has done no good, and I obviously can't do anything administratively since I'm involved, having written some of the articles in question. 28bytes (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

yadav are kshtriya's

I have already mentioned reputation sources name who claims that yadavs are kshatriya on discussion section of yadav page, but after so many days i am still waiting for the response from the editor of yadav page. Neither they are telling me whether the sources and claims are true or false information nor they are editing the page.

sources which claims yadavs are chandravanshi kshatriya are:

Yadu (Sanskrit: यदु) is one of the five Indo-Aryan tribes (panchajana, panchakrishtya or panchamanusha) mentioned in the Rig Veda). The Mahabharata, the Harivamsha and the Puranas mention Yadu as the eldest son of king Yayati and his queen Devayani. yadu is described to be the father of all yadavs and he is a chandravanshi kshatriya. so when father is a kshatriya so his childrens will be same kshatriya but not shudra,this is a common sense.

references:1. Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Delhi: Pearson Education. p. 187. ISBN 81-317-1120-0. 2.The Father of Yadu - Yayati - Ancient Indian History 3.Horace Hayman Wilson (1835). "India". A manual of universal history and chronology (Originally from Oxford University). p. 26.

In the world famous sanskrit epic of ancient India MAHABHARATA (Epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana are the basis of hindu religion), it is mentioned that Karna who was the son of Surya (a solar deity) and Kunti,Though Kunti had not physically given birth to the baby, she was unwilling to be accused of being an unmarried mother and so with the help of her maid Dhatri, she placed the baby Karna in a basket and set him afloat on a tributary of the holy river Ganges, the Ashwanadi, in the hope that he would be taken in by another family.The child Karna was found by Adhiratha, a charioteer(shudra)of King Dhritarashtra of Hastinapur. When karna grew up, he became more interested in the art of warfare than in merely being a charioteer like his father Adhirata. Karna met Dronacharya, who was an established teacher in the art of warfare. Dronacharya taught the khastriya princes, but refused to take Karna as his student, since Karna was a son of a charioteer(shudra) and Dronacharya only taught Kshatriyas, or warriors. And during that time mostly kings were yadavs and yadavs were permitted to have education in Gurukuls like others khastriya's.So this is a centuries ago proof that yadavs were classified as khastriya's but not as shudra's. And more precisely a SINGLE CASTE CAN"T BE CATEGORIZED INTO TWO VARNA (here khastriya and shudra, either it can be khastriya or shudra but not both) according to POST VEDIC DIVISIONS. so yadavs are khastriya's.

refrences: 1.Hopkins, E. W. The Great Epic of India, New York (1901). 2.http://www.karna.org/body_story_behind_karna.html 3.Oldenberg, H. Das Mahabharata, Göttingen (1922). 4.Pāṇini. Ashtādhyāyī. Book 4. Translated by Chandra Vasu. Benares, 1896. (Sanskrit)(English) 5.Vaidya, R.V. A Study of Mahabharat; A Research, Poona, A.V.G. Prakashan, 1967

The following is a list of the 36 major royal Rajput(Kshatriya) clans as listed by James Tod in 1829.

   Ahirs
   Agnipala
   Balla
   Bargujar
   Bhati
   Byce
   Chauhan
   Chawura
   Dahima
   Dahiya
   Doda
   Gahlot
   Gaur
   Gherwal
   Gora
   Hun
   Jaitwar
   Jhala
   Jat
   Johiya
   Kachwaha
   Kirar
   Mohil
   Nikumbh
   Pala
   Paramara
   Pratihara
   Rathore
   Solanki
   Lohana
   Sengar
   Sikarwar
   Silar
   Sisodia
   Taunk
   Tomara

here Ahirs, which is a subsect of yadav caste is cleary mentioned in the list at the top. References:

1.Tod, James. Annals of Rajasthan, Vol 1. Page 175 2. Brig. A. Mason, M.C., R.E. (2007). "The Thirty-six Royal Races of Rajput". kipling.org.uk. Retrieved August 2, 2010.

Most of mine sources are vedic puranas, ancient indian epics, vedas or claims made by reputational authors.

After mentioning all this on the discussion section of yadav page, the editors are not giving any respose. They are behaving like a dictator. Is this justice? I guess here a sense of personal enemity to malign the caste of HINDU religion. So thought it would be better to bring this sensitive matter of hindu caste into your notice.Vikraantkaka (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

BsZ, I may have missed this on the article talk page. I will respond there some time today. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Talk pages of Yadav and Ahir are full of Sitush and I repeatedly explaining that nobody here is qualified to analyse multi-milleniae old texts and apply them to modern social groups, so Vedic resources are not at all applicable. So far as other cites: Yadav specifically outlines that there is a controversy between the Kshatryia and Shudra designations. What you and others are asking is not that we tell "both sides of the story" (which we already are), but that we entirely remove the Shudra designation from the discussion. Not going to happen, random Vedic claims and observations by British adventurers do not outweigh modern academic works. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Folks. Discussion on the article Talk pages is the way to deal with content disagreements like this, and that is what appears to be happening. In my admin capacity, I can do nothing to settle content disagreements - all I can act on is things like edit-warring, personal abuse, etc. So if you can't get a consensus regarding a content issue on the relevant Talk page, you should investigate the steps in the Dispute Resolution process, or try asking for help on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Can Talk pages be IP-blocked?

Hate to bug you on the same topic, but Talk:Nair is getting repeatedly hassled by random (or possibly not so random) IPs making disruptive edits, dragging up arguments with no understanding of WP procedure or bothering to read the rest of the page, complaining when they don't get an answer in under five minutes, etc. Is there a certain point when a Talk page is just considered disruptive, and can be closed temporarily to IPs? Again, I do regret that we, and you, are tangled in this junk, but the page appears to be victim to extensive Orkut canvassing, and that aside is a moderately high-traffic (15K-18K month) page that has rested on a POV version for years, and whose NPOV turn is bringing complainants out of the woodwork. Thanks for any insight on dealing with this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff has semi-protected the thing for for a few hours on more than one occasion recently. I doubt that more can be done than this because otherwise access would be denied to new IPs. They are already unable to edit the actual article, meaning that the TP is their only means of achieving change etc. Range block is not feasible in this particular instance because the range is diverse. Basically, Spiff's system of brief semi-pp, open, brief semi-pp again seems to be the only solution. My mother is getting a lot of mentions by these IPs. She would be amused. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry folks, I've been very busy in real life with several professional work things on the go so I really haven't had time to spend here, and I'm likely to be on minimal wiki-time for at least the next couple of weeks - I'll try to do what I can when I can, but I can't promise anything at the moment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Spaceman is on the case. No worries. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, my recent SPI requests have now unearthed five or six socks, being those I had previously raised suspicions about. There would be more if only they could link users to IPs. And a new registered user who is almost certainly a sock has just become active. Pour l'encourager les autres, I would point out that Paravar settled down nicely after a period of substantial battleground activity; I am hoping that the same will happen here but it may take a little longer. I shall leave the Nair article in my Will to those people of sound mind and thick skin! - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Modify comment

Ha ha! You should have seen the first draft of my comment. :) 28bytes (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation

Sumsum2010·T·C 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15