User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

2015

Unblock

A-ha, a self-requested unblock. Things are looking up! - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Like — Ched :  ?  12:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• +1. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Apparently, the unblock is just for housekeeping purposes. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• nod. Worm^TT(talk) 13:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• nod. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

An old 'friend' returns

Hello. This is indef-blocked User:Doughnuthead speaking. I firmly believe I can finally be of positive use to Wikipedia, and I no longer feel the need to gain attention through malicious editing. I'd actually all but forgotten about all the nonsense i had caused in the previous years until i saw a funny picture online of a guy with a swollen head, which reminded me of my username. But more to the point, i realised that my ability to edit the talk page was barred. After taking a look at previous edits, i realised i was being a bit of a tube. You were right to take that ability away. So just a heads up that i can only edit on anon as this account is obviously still suspended. In terms of getting unblocked, i haven't made a single edit to Wikipedia in almost 3 years, and during this time i have matured enough to the point that i look back at what i was getting up to and think 'Oh god! Who was i even trying to impress?!' In terms of where i aim to get involved in on the website, I still hold a strong interest in football (soccer) related articles, along with hip-hop and old school rock related articles- hence my music taste. As it has been so long since I bothered to use the editing facility, I'll need re-shown how to work various parts of the site or whatever it's called. I only remembered how to request unblock by clicking on the 'edit' tab and noticing one of my old templates! Furthermore, I don't intend to be an overly active user on the site, as I begin my university course in September much of my time will be dedicated towards my studies, and so I intend to see Wikipedia as a hobby to input my thoughts and research every now and then. Finally, thank you very much for reading my request - I appreciate the time taken to do so and I apologise for my past behaviour. I was just a stupid kid (it lasted from age 12-15 if I recall!) and I hope to hear from you as soon as possible--89.241.208.230 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doughnuthead. I'm afraid Boing! said Zebedee no longer edits here. I see that Yunshui suggested you contact the Ban Appeals Sub Committee - that would be your best course of action. Worm^TT(talk) 13:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

3 years

This user has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian on 20 August 2012.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

?

Welcome back? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Was going to say the same that but don't want to copy Kudpung. —SpacemanSpiff 18:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Glad to see you edit again. I hope that you'll stay (and that I can remove your name from my userpage). Yash! 19:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• thought of you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• We like you and hope you come back. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

See User:EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Zeb is dead, long live the Zeb!"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Any particular reason you want it blocked? I'm happy to but see it as quite redundant. Worm^TT(talk) 14:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Get rid of it and remove any possible accusations of abusing accounts, please. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, was wondering! The string of digits seemed familiar but I couldn't place my finger on it! —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit like another mystery number! How marvelous! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It is gone. Worm^TT(talk) 14:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned:, you've hit me with an autoblock on my IP! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, look who popped up on my watchlist. The autoblock should be fixed now; please check. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And that's why I shouldn't be allowed to do anything. Ever. Thanks for saving the day Floq Worm^TT(talk) 15:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, all sorted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Welcome back! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • And from me too - only just found out... Peridon (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• I started editing after you last left Wikipedia, but in various places I've heard mentions of you and your greatness as an editor and admin, sometimes along with laments that you were no longer active. ;) I think several people became rather excited when you requested an unblock back in February. I'm happy to see that you've returned (I watch BN, so I just saw your re-sysop request there). Now I can see if you're actually all that people say you are. (Just kidding: I have a sense of humor. However, I'll just put this clarification in case someone takes that too seriously and starts an ANI thread for incivility or something.) --Biblioworm 17:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Now I can see if you're actually all that people say you are" - I'm not, and in all my years I've never met anyone who ever was ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wow I didn't even know you returned! - Welcome back Boing!, Nice to have you back at this hell hole also known as Wikipedia! , –Davey2010^Talk 03:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back

While folk are considering whether or not you are allowed access to the janitors' cupboard and cafeteria may I invite you to enjoy reviewing at WP:AFC? It's a pleasant activity which I think may appeal to you. Fiddle Faddle 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, it's an interesting area that I think might indeed suit me. And I'm sorry you had to withdraw from the Arbcom election, as you were one of my Supports. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a difficult decision to stop once started because momentum is easier to roll with than not, but real life changes took over. Thank you for your support. Fiddle Faddle 18:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Alan, this has really become a lousy workplace since you have been away. Step back a bit and let the 'crats get on with it though. Ignore the comments from the negative non-crats. If the 'crats refuse your bit it would be a clear case for testing the performance of our much criticiced Arbcom. If all else fails and you are forced into a new RfA, I have already written a nomination statement. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Those are wise words, thank you - and yes, I'm already seeing a more confrontational environment than I remember. I'm fairly confident at the moment that I'll not be needing a new RFA, as there is no policy-based reason to decline my resysop request (and there are several crats who recognise that and would flip the bit). But I'd be happy to accept your nomination should it come to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You should also consider whether being an admin is what you want. If it is, go for it, even via a new RfA. Remember, though, that Wikipedia is an absorbing hobby, and note the word 'hobby'. There are so many things one can do without cleaning supplies that the very access to the store cupboard makes difficult. What I am trying to say somewhat ineptly is that you should choose the level of stress you enjoy. We do not have to do anything here except create an encyclopaedia, and it is meant to be fun. Fiddle Faddle 01:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't I know it! ;-) But thanks for the reminder - I'll certainly bear it in mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back Boing! Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Also very glad to see you back Alan. Take care. Dr. K. 02:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Congrats at getting your tools back. Let's soon see the old Boing back in force as the admin who had one of the most successful RfA in Wikipedia history. There's work to be done! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

... welcome back Zeb. Just when we all thought you'd been spirited away... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

HI

I have no idea if you remember me, although I'd like to think so. I wanted to say welcome back, you have been sorely missed. Ummm ... but ... ahhh. Others have said this - and it is true; the environment here has changed greatly. It's not just about "content" anymore. There are now agendas and political issues in play throughout the site. Forewarned is forearmed. You're one of the wise one .. best of luck. — Ched :  ?  03:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

How could I not remember Ched?! ;-) Thanks - I'm planning to keep firmly away from any drama here (well, apart from my ACE guide), and stick to just doing the kind of gnome work I used to enjoy in the past. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi too

Hey! So you've been back for a while, and I didn't know. Yes, it probably will be wise to stick to gnomery: I sometimes wonder if I should have stuck to that, which is what all of my early editing was, before I let myself get dragged into other things. (Come to think of it, I was one of those who encouraged you to go into other things. I feel quite unhappy about that, but perhaps you can forgive me.) I wouldn't worry about the "agendas and political issues" that Ched mentions: there's absolutely no need to get involved in them if you don't want to. It's great to know you're back. Would you like a block on Eighty-two-dot-thirty-five-dot-one-zero-seven-dot-thirty-one? I don't care whether it's blocked or not, but since you asked for the other one to be blocked, I thought I would make the offer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. And none of it is your fault for encouraging me - I'm a big boy and responsible for my own decisions ;-). And yes, please block that other one for me - I'd forgotten it until someone reminded me of it. (I could block it myself now, but probably better if you do it for me). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my God! Yes, I see you could block it yourself now, I hadn't noticed you'd got the mop back. Honestly, Boing, I'm surprised to see that, in view of what you said about sticking to gnome work, but it's up to you. I only offered to block because I assumed you couldn't, but since I offered and you accepted, I'll do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean to help with admin-gnome things like CSD, AIV and RFU where I see backlogs are quite a bit bigger than they used to be (and were I think my approach was effective). I'm keeping well away from ANI, AN, and any centres of drama. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I assumed you meant gnome editing, rather than gnome admin. Personally, I have never been even tempted to get significantly involved ANI and similar crap: I go there only if there is something else which leads me into it, so if you intend to keep clear of all that, then I'm right with you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear...

I'm afraid I've just seen your "ACE2015". Doesn't look to me too much like sticking to gnome work and keeping away from "agendas and political issues". Are you sure you want to go there? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wanting to write that is actually the reason I came out of retirement and was the first thing I did, as I really felt it would be irresponsible not to speak up. But I've said what I wanted to say, and that's that now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I bet you're quite pleased about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, hee hee hee. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you going for the record?

I don't know what the highest number of sysoppings and desysoppings any one editor has ever logged up, but seven must surely put you somewhere near the front of the field, if not right at the front. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it really that many? Wow! It's nice to know I'm a leader of something in life ;-) Well, actually, it's not, but that was during a very frustrating/frustrated year or so when I felt I was banging my head against brick walls as the time - but the answer is to stop banging and leave the walls for others to worry about. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with commenting

You must requesting by other Administrators to village Debelo Brdo be deleted. Census is incorrect and census is just a copy from the village Leskovice census in Kolubara district. Jovan741jov (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I yet can't write a comment at Articles for deletion page. Jovan741jov (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Jovan741jov (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no rush to delete the article - the discussion will remain open for 7 days (or longer if needed). I don't know why you cannot edit the page itself, but I will copy your comment there for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the population figures are clearly not copied from Leskovice, as they are different. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I loggined! Delete your copied comments and whose chance to Debelo Brdo be deleted?

You have commented, now please just wait. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please redirect Tornik (peak) to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/28 November Jovan741jov (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jovan741jov: Please tell me a reason to delete the article and I will fix up the deletion request for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bestin Anto

I agree that page would be fine for a contributor, but this is someone who has not edited for two years, and never edited on any subject but himself. WP:CSD#U5 was revised last month to cover cases like this where people are using WP as a social-networking site.

In fact, I suspect he has returned as user BAPro Man (talk · contribs), whose only edit so far has been to tinker with the Bestin Anto user page. I have welcomed him back, advised him to use only one account, and explained about WP:NOTWEBHOST. We'll see whether he responds. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, sounds good - let's see what he says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

History merge?

Hello, you recently deleted Draft:Kresten Bjerg as there was already a mainspace Kresten Bjerg. However, I believe the mainspace article was created from the Draft article and probably requires a history merge or some other method of maintaining attribution for the previous development? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. If that's the case, then you're right, but I've no idea how to do a history merge. Best I can do, I think, is restore the Draft so that someone else can merge it, and I've now done that. Perhaps ask at WP:AN for someone who can do the merge? Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

(talk page stalker) You both may find Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves useful. Fiddle Faddle 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Very handy, thank you! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You just need to slap the target page with {{histmerge}} template. (It works even if the source page is deleted.) The history merge will be actioned promptly. 103.6.159.87 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of comments subpages

While deleting Talk:*/Comments pages, please link WP:Discontinuation of comments subpages in the deletion reason. I noticed that you deleted Talk:Love/Comments and Talk:Kendriya Vidyalaya/Comments without doong that (even though it was linked from the db-g6 rationale). 103.6.159.87 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, thanks - I will do in future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

tammy cochran

My submission regarding tammy ' s lifting of Angels in Waiting is not unreferenced. I know the writer. We have screens shots of the conversations. She is a fraud. And she knows it The statements previously posted are true as hell. Fedcase3 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here on Wikipedia without reliable third-party sources, and if you reinsert it you will be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why was the page deleted?

I was creating a page for the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research and got an error message saying one had already been deleted. The Perkins is the premier adult medical research institute in Perth, WA. The kids institute in Perth has a wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telethon_Institute_for_Child_Health_Research and the Director of that Institute has a page too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Carapetis and one of the laboratory heads at the Perkins has a wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Filipovska So why was the Perkins page deleted? Can I resubmit one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licmj (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi. The draft article at Draft:Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research had been declined for submission in May and had not been editied for more than six months since, and under such circumstances a draft becomes eligible for speedy deletion under criterion WP:G13. But as you are interested in taking it over to work on, I have restored it for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Retzol (Retzawl), Assam

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Wikipedia:Retzol (Retzawl), Assam, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia; doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
• It is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Was just about to delete it after leaving our friend a message ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we both moved it back at the same time! Fiddle Faddle 13:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah :-) It's a shame we weren't able to get through to him, but we tried our best. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Still trying. We each have left him a pleasant note. Fiddle Faddle 13:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I also managed to make a mess. See Retzawl, Assam which is, perplexingly, a redirect now Fiddle Faddle 13:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you made a mess - It all looked fine immediately after the move, with you as the mover in the article history (but we me apparently as the creator of the redirect from the WP page, so something got screwed by the software). But now it's messed up. I tried moving it back again, and I got a "Database error" message - and that's all I get now when I try to access the article. I've no idea what to do now, and pressing things mean I need to be away for an hour or so. Perhaps ask at ANI for help from a cleverer admin? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the history, and did a null edit on an earlier, clean version. Go me!! Took me a while to guess what to do. I think it was a database locking issue that happened when two of you moved it simultaneously to the right place. MW software is not as robust as we like to think. Fiddle Faddle 14:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Aha, clever you! And you're right - MW software is indeed not as robust as we like to think, it is merely as robust as we know ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Mamas and Papas

Would you also please delete page User:The mamas and the papas/sandbox. I marked it as pure vandalism, but it's really an attack page, and should not be allowed to remain here, silly or not. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Lallienzuol hmar

Do you think the editor was really totally unable to understand what he or she was told, or have we all been taken in by a troll? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what to make of him now. He created a reasonable article, which isn't typical of a troll. But then again, he wrote it in decent English, so an inability to understand what we were saying to him seems unlikely. Whatever the explanation, I think extending good faith as far as we did was worth a try. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

City Harvest Community Services Association

Thanks--it never hurts to look twice. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello! I'm not sure what the sandbox is used for. Mind if you explain it a bit? Thank you. :))

It's a place where you can practice editing - can't suggest any more than that really. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk page moved and deleted

I see that you deleted an article Arundalmia. The article was in fact the page User talk:Arundalmia, which had been moved and blanked. By moving the page and having it deleted, the editor effectively evaded the policy that user talk pages are not normally deleted, so I have restored it and history-merged it back to User talk:Arundalmia. My guess is that you didn't notice the page move in the history, but I thought I'd let you know. This method of getting a talk page deleted is tolerably common, and very often effective, as admins don't always check page histories before deletion. (Sometimes it appears to be an innocent mistake, particularly in cases where an editor creates a draft in a user page and then moves it, as talk pages are by default moved too, but I have also seen cases where it is very obviously a deliberate trick to get one's talk page history deleted.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ach, yes, I missed that - and I've come across the same thing a few times in the past, so I shouldn't have made that mistake. Thanks for rectifying it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Another admin action request

Would you please be so kind as to revdelete [1] as a personal attack. Thanks again. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. It's an obvious vandal-only account, so I've blocked even though they've only had two warnings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Any more thoughts about WP:AFC?

Your gentle touch around a steel core would suit it, and I am sure it would suit you. Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't actually given it any more thought yet, to be honest. I may well start work there, but I won't rush into it (especially as I won't have a great deal of time over the next few weeks). I'll read the guidelines, check out the script, observe for a while. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To your advantage is that you know the other side of the pancake, AFD. It is, really, the converse of AFD, but often with a happy editor receiving the news. IT also allows us to guide folk and potentially capture new editors. Oh, and it is fun! Fiddle Faddle 10:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not having much time

If that means you still have active relations with TH, let me knw. I'm working on a project near Kumpa for the next few weeks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll send you an email. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Second verse, same as the first....

Another revdelete needed. [2]. Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Not sure what it is about that article, but I'll watch it and will consider a short semi-protection if it continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Again, I appreciate it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Albanian Superliga

I want to report a mass delete on this article : Albanian Superliga, entire columns was deleted, and I just wondering why no one is doing something ? And it is not the only page, if this will continue happening, massive data from Wikipedia will dissapear!--2607:F358:101:45D:6DD5:CB53:60F5:E722 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That appears to be a content dispute, so please discuss it on the article talk page and seek a consensus. And if you think it reaches the point where it needs admin attention, please take it to WP:ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Hmm, you are clearly User:Alexiulian25 evading your block again, so your IP address is now blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not know him. I just asked a question because I have seen massive changes on Albanian Superliga without a reason !?--2607:F358:101:C:F295:5064:644C:31B3 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Go away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The edit summaries here and here give reasons. Like Boing! said Zebedee says, this should be taken up on the article talk page, but not by you since you've been blocked. clpo13_(talk) 18:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Did you notice that Discorser and Jxmie0 are in agreement that they were both wrongly blocked?[3] OMG consensus! You'd better unblock them, hadn't you! Bishonen | talk 23:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC).

Argh! What can I do? How can I refuse?! :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Life is short, Boing! I say disengage from the roller coaster of the Discorser saga. I've never seen such WP:IDHT behavior as nothing either one of us said made any impression and I doubt further explanations will sink in either. I think the distraught appeals at the end are manipulative and are of the kind that can be turned on and off when necessary. I'm usually a very empathetic person but this case has had so many lies and twists it is impossible for me to have an attitude of good faith any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Yes, I also think the histrionics are pure manipulation. I really try to extend good faith as far as I can, and if they'd come clean at an earlier stage then I would have helped them get out as cleanly as they could. But I have nothing but contempt for those who try to lie and cheat their way to success against others who actually put in honest hard work - and, forgive me, I sometimes find it selfishly rewarding to rub that in. Anyway, your wise words are appreciated, thank you, and my hands are cleanly wiped of this thing now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder

I could do with some sensitive help that might also require the mop and bucket at User talk:Lallienzuol hmar. I'd prefer them to engage with us, but it may require a longer block, something that always seems to me to be a last resort. I've had to make a WP:AIV report, but he seems to be intelligent if we can only get through to him. I think he is a retired head teacher and may be used to having his own way. I get this from his insistence at one point of adding "himself" to the article he keeps moving about, describing the gentleman ad the second headmaster of the school in the article.

Anything you can do short of a block would be useful, though a block may be required. Fiddle Faddle 17:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to have a word with him, and I'll watch what he's doing. If a block is necessary, I'll make sure it's a short one with a full explanation of why it was necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message for him, so let's see how he goes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It will require luck. At present I think he is way past the end of his day. I think he is on the Nepal/India border. I don't want to badger him, but we do need him to stop and work with us. Fiddle Faddle 18:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess that puts him close to midnight, so he may well have finished for the day. I'll add a few words praising the article he created (it's not at all bad) - perhaps a bit of encouragement might help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If only it stops moving about(!) I like the article, but all of the others he has created are the title plus a url to the topic. I am 99% sure we have a language issue, but there are several regional languages for the Hmar people and I know none of them. Fiddle Faddle 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that's something I can help with that's short of a block - I've move-protected it for a week. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That will definitely help Fiddle Faddle 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be impossible to get through to this editor. I hate it when they ignore every attempt to communicate with them. Fiddle Faddle 18:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was a shame that his first action today was another problematic move. It's only a short block, but if he does the same when it expires, I think it will have to be an indef until he starts communicating. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't check, but have you explained that to him in words of one syllable? Actually I shall go and do it as nicely as I am able. Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had, but please do - you might be able to word it better. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, so you did. I seem to have written him an essay afterwards. Go me! Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks good - if he doesn't understand that, I don't think we can really do any more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I predict that my essay, your brevity, and the block, will all be ignored. I have a temptation, with regard to rope, to suggest you unprotect the article from movement for the expiry of the block. We will then see, probably at once, whether our friend has chosen 1 or 2. If he chooses 2 then there is a mess to clear up, but the decision is made, and it has been his free choice. This means that the block is preventative and volunteered for, not punitive. Fiddle Faddle 19:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that might not be a bad idea - today he moved the talk page because the article page was locked. I'll go do that now, and I suspect we'll know either way tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like my moves today (which I screwed up at first because he'd moved a talk page to an article page) effectively reversed the protection anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

and folk wonder why I do not want to be an admin! Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah well, rope it is. Seems like he waited until he thought no-one was around. Fiddle Faddle

(talk page stalker) rudely interrupting. Just one thing: you guys realize "move" is a term of art that even native english-speaking newbies are unlikely to understand? We're so used to it that it's come to seem natural... but I think it took me about a year of editing here before the penny dropped. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

(You're never rude!) That's true - I remember being bemused by it and not understanding why it isn't called "Rename". But this editor has never responded to any message on his talk page, ever, and that's the real problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We have an IP editor there now. one poor, one acceptable edit so far. Antennae twitching. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, so we have. Let's AGF for now and see how it goes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help & advice. ROSWO at RMonREM.

Happy to help - hope you like it here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Yes Your Comments: Feedback is important. Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 8k Your Comments: An Arb shouldn't need anything more than an admin, and 8k seems around the minimum level for RFA these days. Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 2 Your Comments: Again, about the same as I'd generally want to see for RFA. Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: C Your Comments: I'd actually like to see some non-admins on Arb to provide a better balance. Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: 0 Your Comments: Arbs should not need to be admins at all. Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Callanecc, Casliber, Drmies, Gorilla Warfare, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kudpung, NE Ent, Opabinia regalis Your Comments: I looked for mature and level-headed candidates who are not drama-mongers and who have the ability to empathise with others. The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: Boing! said Zebedee (talk) General Comments: Nothing more just now - will answer the extended survey later.

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Gamaliel, Hawkeye7, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Kevin Gorman, Kirill Lokshin, MarkBernstein, Mahensingha, Rich Farmbrough, Thryduulf, Wildthing61476 Your Comments: The reasons are varied (see User:Boing! said Zebedee/ACE2015) but generally I opposed people who are too keen on drama, are too autocratic, are too political, can not handle critical feedback, do not have the ability to empathise, or do not have sufficient experience (not all reasons apply to all candidates, obviously) Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: see comments Your Comments: There definitely are, yes, but ArbCom is a nasty job and I don't want to put any pressure on anyone. Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: I thought it was a critical year and things could have gone very badly, but thankfully they didn't Your Comments: ACE2015 brought me out of semi-retirement because I saw (and am still seeing) a critical juncture for Wikipedia, with the simple drive to build a great encyclopedia of knowledge increasingly coming up against political and social activism. The latter is not necessarily wrong in itself, but when it is at the expense of the former then it is very wrong. Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: A, B, D, K, L, M, N, O Your Comments: O = generally showing the ability to empathise with others, especially those one disagrees with, as that is a skill that many people do not have but which is essential for Arb. Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: N/A Your Comments: I really don't think Arb suitability can be ascertained from which noticeboards one contributes on. Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: N/A Your Comments: Same answer as above. Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Nothing I can think of. Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: Boing! said Zebedee (talk) General Comments: No further comments.

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for User:199.127.132.54

User:199.127.132.54 is vandalizing his talk page. CLCStudent (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I've revoked talk page access for the duration of the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for explaining the deletion of Traction Wars nicely to Niall Gifford (talk · contribs). ubiquity (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind. I think understanding notability is one of the things newcomers have most trouble with, so if we can explain in a friendly tone then we might even get them to stay and help! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

greetings

In view of your above comments, I may or not have something that may or not be relevent. Perth airport has been re-arranged by a floating ip of the long number variety today, with the ip having the avowed intention to re-arrange info, but has been reverted - also by bgwhite the admin, but every time the revert happens, up another ip pops up (having sent a comment to the previous, where are the wp;rs or source are asked for), It is popssible the editor is not be seeing the messages on the earlier ip numbers ... sigh..as a consequence got a pleasant response in no uncertain terms from the latest incarnation. I am not returning to the article at this point, as I am not sure if the floating ip will ever see a warning or not. JarrahTree 15:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put a 24-hour semi protection on the article so it cannot be edited by IPs, and we'll see if that helps. If it continues once the protection expires, we can always protect it again for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I've blocked the latest IP for the personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks, pity - meant well, but wasnt getting bgwhites comments, or the welcome warnings at the earlier IP numbers, there is always something squishy, dizzy and squirmy about floating ips, they are a breed which feels like mercury out of a broken thermometer, trying to go down before you can catch em JarrahTree 15:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice analogy. I know what you mean, and it's always better to try to educate newcomers wherever possible. But once they start to respond by hurling nasty insults around like in that edit summary, and by deliberately vandalising articles, we really need to do something firmer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Heading

RE: Removal of comments on the Bosnian pyramid claim talk. Sorry I have no idea how I did that, all I did was post a few comments myself I didn't delete anything, my browser did go a bit haywire at one point and I had to go back a few webpages so I don't know if that did anything. either way, my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.20.63 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it happens sometimes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

A good block there

That was a very good block if I may so myself. 81.158.98.220 (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete of Isabella Queen

Hi There,

I had trouble inserting the third party references (see below). If I can insert these, does the article get to stay?

http://www.purelondon.com/Press/Isabella-Queen-Company-Bio http://www.purelondon.com/press/Must-have-accessories-to-shine-at-Pure-London-for-Spring-Summer-16 http://issuu.com/purelondon/docs/lookbook_05_-_onsite_bpl_emerging_n/19?e=0/15064974 http://www.purelondon.com/press/Pure-London-radiates-newness-after-strong-second-day http://www.fashioncapital.co.uk/industry/industry-bios/14305-introducing-isabella-queen-accessories http://www.bellanaija.com/2015/11/11/get-to-know-nigerian-french-luxe-bag-designer-isabelle-ugochukwu-of-isabella-queen-watch/ http://issuu.com/demurmagazine/docs/08?e=0/30356283 http://alawaiki.com/2015/06/15/one-to-watch-isabella-queen/

What do I need to do for the article not to get deleted? I do not see how other than not being able to insert references, I broke any of the rules.

Please let me know.

Thanks Isabelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelle.Ugochukwu (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Isabelle,

Firstly, you would need to be sure the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements as explained at WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, and that you can provide evidence of in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, as explained at WP:RS. The sources you have provided above all look to me like press releases and promotional material, which are not acceptable as evidence of notability. Is there anything, for example, in the mainstream national press (I've just done a Google News search and I found nothing)? If you look around at other fashion brand articles, you'll often see coverage by the Independent, Guardian and Telegraph cited, among others.

Then you would need to write the article in a neutral encyclopedic tone, and not in the marketing-speak style in which the first version was written. Many companies try to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool, and that is very much frowned on.

Finally, if you are the company's founder (as your name suggests) you would need to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, as explained at WP:COI, and almost certainly not directly create the article yourself - I would suggest you use the Articles for Creation request process.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We and others share a common disgust

I am not about to mention is specifically here, but I just thanked you for an edit that is relevant to it.

The question is, is this worth pursuing in any venue at all? One of the questions to recent ArbCom candidates was about gender bias, and another set of questions was based loosely around it. I am also unsure if the editor is expressing bias or is expressing a veiled accusation of sock puppetry, or, with precision what that editor is expressing.

So I thought I'd bounce it quietly off you without being specific about the who and the what and the where. Fiddle Faddle 12:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not worth pursuing, unless you can show a pattern of such behaviour. The forum that the comment was placed is one where such comments are frequently made, unfortunately. Worm^TT(talk) 12:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I detest such behaviour. The good people get pilloried and the less pleasant get away with it. I have fought those who discriminate most of my adult life having been discriminatory as a teenager. Excellent tps. Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Excellent tps" - I attract the best Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Should I blush or feel excluded? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not exclusive! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I got the thanks, thanks ;-) I understand what you mean, but I think it's probably sufficiently ambiguous and that the results to drama ratio might be too low to make any effort worthwhile at the moment. I also can't help thinking that, unless it turns into overt gender bias, it's maybe more productive to let people speak and to counter any apparent/borderline bias/prejudice with rationality. Does that make sense? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Perfect sense. I note that cream and scum both rise to the top, but that only one is desirable. Fiddle Faddle 12:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) To me, yes, - I am not sure I like the header, - I rather try to fight disgust. Did you see my (no, Bach's) wake-up-call? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm playing it now :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Only singing is better. He gave us altos the chance to first present that wonderful "funky" Halleluja, in the opening chorus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You would *not* want to hear me sing, I can assure you of that! (But yes, the opening chorus is terrific.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I may now have to change my signature to Ashley Hilary while finding both of you the key to a room! Fiddle Faddle 12:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Fresh Prince reference? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I understood to a room "to see who can do something that the opposite gender can do better", but singing ability has nothing to do with gender. Just Mozart didn't know what altos can do, but Bach did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Mozart? Bah! All icing and no cake! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Listen to the slow movement of K 271, for bread. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede that the lad did pull the occasional rabbit out of the hat during his brief tenure, but he wasn't in the same league as the master. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Bhammoud/Sillydollar

While I don't disagree that the user was creating a draft page per se, and asked for advice on requests for feedback. However, that was more than 4 years ago, and it was clear that the response on RFF was "not notable" and "likely CSD if in mainspace". No action was taken. If it is not G11, wouldn't it be at least U5?--Cahk (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Duh! Sorry, I'd looked at the time of the last edit (which, of course, was yours, not the author's) and hadn't spotted the creation was actually nearly five years ago! It's zapped now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of a speedy close?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan is something you may have a different view from mine on, but I think it needs handling. I view it as closable as speedy keep. I have no issue if you disagree.

I view it as an MfD too far, opened for imperfect reasons but in good faith. The contributing editor is not a native English speaker and has apologised for his transgression, something that is not a reason to open an MfD anyway. I would have done a non admin closure, but I am involved. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, as the nominator has agreed too, I see no reason not to close as a Speedy Keep - I have made it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Please would you unsalt Akhtar Raza Khan so I can accept this draft for good or ill and close this chapter? Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhtar Raza Khan (3rd nomination) deleted before. Do you have five minutes to look at both? Sorry, I only just saw that part. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anything is needed there - I've looked at the version deleted via that discussion and the latest draft is significantly different and better sourced, so a WP:G4 would not be valid. I'll watchlist the article and will reject a G4 speedy if it happens and I see it first (as can you if you see it first). Perhaps you could add a comment to the talk page to that effect after it has been accepted? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Consider it done. Fiddle Faddle 22:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice job.

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - and to you too! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

BLP and photos

Can a photograph violate WP:BLP ? Say, one taken by a Wikipedian that shows several children and claims that they are members of X, Y or Z caste without any means of verifying. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a photo itself would be a BLP violation unless it is faked/manipulated, but I'd think a claim of what it shows without any verification might well do. What's the photo? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant, sorry. I removed the photo from an article here but am now wondering whether we need to change the image description itself. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The description appears to be only in the file name, so I'd say be bold and rename it, perhaps to "Children in Tamil Nadu"? (But make haste, for if it gets copied to Commons then it will be lost to all common sense, as that is a bizarre land in which strangers fear to tread). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, so I'll do it. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Except it seems that I cannot. How do I rename an image file? - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I get a "Move" option in the "More" menu, and I didn't think it was an admin-only thing. Anyway, I've moved it (with reason "Asserting that identifiable individuals self-identify with an Indian caste is a BLP violation"), and it's now at File:Children in Tamil Nadu.jpg. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspect I need File mover permissions to do that. We have an edit conflict and so I'm afraid you'll have to delete what now exists under the old name. Sorry for creating work. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You now have File Mover rights, and I've cleaned up the old file name. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} ... sends you warmest wishes for a:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Thank you, and same to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Unblocks

Go ahead; they're all welcome to edit independently. DS (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Lemonade insurance

Hi Boing! Can you help me out. You deleted Lemonade insurance because of an expired PROD. I'm not disagreeing with the deletion, because it is probably TOOSOON, but I thought PRODs were supposed to stand for 7 days, and this article was just created today. The article caught my attention because of the Insurance Journal reference, a publication I'm pretty familiar with. What is the flashing red sign that I'm not seeing? I beg patience. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I saw it as a fairly obvious CSD:A7 myself, and that's the deletion reason I gave - but if you think there's any indication of importance that I missed (eg Insurance Journal reference, which I did not check), I'll be happy to restore it (or you're very welcome to restore it yourself). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I've rechecked it and I agree with you - that citation is probably enough to beat A7, so I've restored it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the nominator at this point, but it might meet GNG (Insurance Journal is probably the most read industry publication where I work), and it is certainly a compelling concept. If anything it probably demonstrates one of the weaknesses of GNG. Nevertheless the regulatory hurdles this will face are both daunting and fascinating to me. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Good job it's only a start up. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hehe. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

...And a happy New Year!

GAB^Hello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wishing you the best,

GAB^Hello! 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - and to you too! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Hi Zebedee, is the continued rolling back of an IP's own Usertalkpage considered vandalism if he does so after having been blocked for editing ([4])? Your block was 15:33, he rolled the block message away at :38 and :45, and me inbetween to unroll his, um, rollback.

If I may, I have another question: what is it with this "31 hours" block, why not just 24 or 48 hours, what is so good about the 31? Thanks, Poepkop (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, removing warning messages and block messages from a user talk page is allowed and you should not revert the removal of them. About the only things that are not allowed to be removed are declined unblock requests while the user is still blocked. As for 31 hours, that's just the default used by Twinkle when you issue a vandalism block to an IP - I think the thinking behind it was for 24 hours plus approximately the remainder of the next day's daylight hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks & Merry Christmas! Poepkop (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And the same to you! Always feel free to pop over here if you need help with anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Estellalup

Can you please block him/her. Because of disruptive editing against another admin Tomica on Russian Roulette (song).115.164.189.113 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, Tomica does not appear to be an admin, not that that would make any difference. Secondly, it looks like a content dispute based on popular music genres (in which I have no knowledge or interest), so please discuss it on the talk page and, if that does not help, follow the procedures at WP:DR. Alternatively, if the two of them keep edit warring then feel free to report them at WP:EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You're getting these too eh? Wheeeee! SQL^{Query me!} 12:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Max Deutsch

As you know, there are those among us who want to delete this article. Please keep a weather eye out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

AFC

I really think I will come on over and join you at AFC, as it seems like a pretty good way to help people contribute (and I can see that having someone around with the janitor's keys can help from time to time). Do you have any suggested preliminary reading? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In terms of preliminary reading, I started out blind. Soon I discovered I was a cyclops, and later developed imperfect sight, something I have now. I think I will simply give you a small set of advice:

• Be fair, yet firm
• Do your best to add value to the script by judicious use of comments. User:Timtrent/Reviewing is one that I keep open in edit mode on a scratchpad when I review and I add one or more paragraphs tailored to suit the occasion
• Know that you will get talk page questions. Your workload will alter
• Obviously, put your name on the list of reviewers and turn on the script in your preferences
• Start with the easiest to get your eye in. These tend to be the newest. As soon as you feel ready, try and do some old ones. These can be very hard
• Never be afraid to ask for help
• Never be afraid to get it wrong
• Always check for copyvios first
• Only do it to relax and when relaxed

Gosh, I'm sure there is more. There is a review procedure, but it is common sense. After all, this is the other side of the pancake which has deletion on it

I am more than pleased you are coming to play. The only admin tools I would like are the ability to delete and/or unsalt things in the way. We can make scene's day when we review and accept, and deletion kills folk off. So plunge in and make a fool of yourself a couple of times Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, thanks - immediate first thought is that if I was afraid of getting things wrong I'd have had to give up on life 30 years ago ;-) AFC does sound like the more rewarding side of the coin than deletion - I've done a lot of deletion over the years, but it always pains me to delete something that someone has created in good faith, even though I know it needs to be done. Anyway, time for bed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have always preferred https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_JQDfuMZi0 but I have been a Bob Davis fan since the late 19760s when I used to go and see him at folk clubs. Saw this first hand when it was brand new. Fiddle Faddle 23:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, know it well - live would have been good! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

One thing I have started to do of late is to follow any images in draft submissions through to Commons and propose any with usual licencing for deletion there. This seems to be more important since en WP loads straight to Commons nowadays. I have even been introduced to bulk deletion nomination tools there now! Fiddle Faddle 21:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I do that with new articles I come across by new accounts - it's surprising how many seem to stumble on a photo on the internet and upload it to go with a new article. I'll check out the deletion tools, ta. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I was aimed at something called "Visual File Change" that one installs in the usual location (wherever that is!). IT turns up in the LH margin on Commons, then Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have never seen such a brouhaha as the meat psychology one when I have tried to accept a draft before! I am steering scrupulously clear of the meat of the discussion because I have a genuine and verifiable "Don't care one way or the other" over this draft, but the MfD looks as if it will run and run and run. Fiddle Faddle 09:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even looking at it myself! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is starting to head towards a religious fervour Fiddle Faddle 10:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So many things here do, sadly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hamwil

You are probably right – I just figure it can't hurt to give him a chance. Worst case we entertain a banned user for a few minutes, best case we get a productive editor. Why not? Prodego ^talk 17:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I agree - AGF costs nothing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

please do not write me more!! Silly

Perhaps no one has told you but you're obviously frustrated and I would like that please do not write me more. For my part I have decided that I will not bring anything more to wikipedia, because wikipedia is a monopoly of information manipulated by a lot of abnormals like you.Emces2015 (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I see you have now been indefinitely blocked for your continued personal attacks. That's an unfortunate, but inevitable, outcome. Anyway, I wish you every success in being normal outside of Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That article

The article with no substantial content was actually created by me by mistake after clicking on the link on the now deleted portal. I just left it there because it consisted of a speedy template anyway. Philmonte101 (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)    –

• Thank you - and same to you! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you for inspiration and support even when absent, and for returning, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - and to you! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year Boing! said Zebedee!

Happy New Year!

Boing! said Zebedee,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

Thank you, and to you! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Tantiv4: request for speedy deletion Comment

Hi, I created a page Tantiv4 , about a new Company/Product, and it was marked for Speedy Deletion. Unfortunately, due to timezone issues, I was not able to contest this, before deletion.

The tag used was A7. The administrator who tagged it, User:DGG, says:

An article may be deleted under criterion A7 only if it contains nothing that any reasonable person would think amounts to suitability for an encyclopedia, not just that it will probably not be accepted in Wikipedia

As such, I request un-deletion, to enable me to:

• attempt to provide more evidence of significance, and if possible, notability
• ask other editors who know the topic to improve the article

Un-deletion will also enable this discussion to take place on the Talk page of the topic.

Thanks, Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 03:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghane (talk • contribs)

Hi. The article gave no indication that the company is sufficiently important for a Wikipedia article. It's a company that was incorporated only this year, has only nine employees, and the only references were the company's own site and that of a group with which it is apparently associated. Although notability itself does not have to be proven to survive an A7 deletion request, we need at least something that makes it likely that it would be. My approach is essentially that there needs to be at least one claim which, if it were backed up by reliable sources, would probably satisfy at least one of Wikipedia's notability criteria. I saw none - the article was essentially just "X is a company that does stuff", and we delete many articles like that every day.

I suggest you have a read of WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:RS, and if you can provide some evidence that the company is likely to satisfy them then I'll "userfy" a copy of the deleted article (that is, I'll place a copy in your user space) for you to work on - but I would only be wasting your time and that of others if I did so in the absence of such evidence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am not claiming the article was about a notable company, but that insignificance (A7) was wrongly applied; hence the deletion without a discussion. I accept this is about a small (start-up?) company, and I would like to see if this can be expanded and made better, before taking a decision on its worth. Can you please undelete to my user page; I will see if it can be improved, and re-submit to the main namespace later. Thank you Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 02:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghane (talk • contribs)

Firstly, I am satisfied that there was no suitable claim of significance and that A7 deletion was appropriate. Secondly, for the article to survive, the company does indeed need to pass Wikipedia's notability requirements (it might get past A7 with a claim of significance but would subsequently be deleted by discussion at WP:AFD). I said I would userfy it for you if you can provide some evidence that the company is likely to satisfy those notability requirements, and by that I'd need you to provide some sources that satisfy one or more of the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. If you can do that then I will userfy it, otherwise you will need to take it to WP:DRV where my decision can be reviewed by other admins. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for the page to be moved to my user page, so that, as I said, I can try to improve it, and then demonstrate significance or notability. This would not place an undue burden on the process, I believe, and will enable me to adduce evidence without having to rewrite what I had done. You can then take a call on if it meets applicable standards. I am not arguing with your decision to delete the page (I am in the UTC+0800 timezone, and did not see the tag User:DGG placed on it in time to contest). I am just asking that I not have to redo work to offer evidence. Thank you. --Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 11:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghane (talk • contribs)

Unless you can find evidence of notability as per WP:N and WP:NCORP you will be wasting your own time and that of others in trying to improve the article - and we waste a lot of time here dealing with articles about non-notable companies. You don't need to redo the article to show evidence of notability, you just need to find some reliable sources as per WP:RS. So find those sources first and present some links here, and I will userfy the article if I am satisfied that there is a realistic chance of notability. That is my final offer - if you don't like it then feel free to request a review at WP:DRV, and if another admin thinks it would be to the benefit of the project to userfy the article they have my blessing to do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, that is clear enough. I am asking on the on WP:DRV, maybe another admin would not object to me wasting my time, as you put it. --Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 14:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tantiv4

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tantiv4. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Wrongful Article Delete

Boing! said Zebedee,

Great day to you. I believe you have wrongfully deleted a page I have created for myself: a public figure of Trinidad and Tobago. All the information included is accurate, original to me, and corresponds with the information on my own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cefltd (talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. As it stood, the article was a copyright infringement, even if the material used does belong to you. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to find out how to release material in a suitable form for re-use by Wikipedia (and, by extension, by anyone else for any purpose). Having said that, the style of the writing was totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia anyway, and it had no independent sources indicating notability according to Wikipedia's standards (see WP:N). So even if we had no copyright concerns, the article would still almost certainly be deleted because a) it did not demonstrate sufficient notability and b) it was written in a promotional/marketing style (and with a promotional style title too). Finally, as the article was about yourself, you should probably not be the person to write it anyway - please see our Conflict of Interest guidelines. So, please do not recreate the article until these problems have been addressed - when you think they have been, I suggest you create a draft and submit it via the Articles for Creation process, where it will be reviewed for suitability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Page move

Hi re: the psychology of eating meat draft, that would not be an uncontroversial page move. It's a POV fork, and a draft that at least one reviewer has rejected. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The draft has just been accepted by @Timtrent:, so I'll ping him to see what he has to say. I'll comment on the Draft too and will ask him to hold off accepting the article and not make the move until this is resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If SlimVirgin considers it to be a POV Fork then they should send the draft to MfD, or, if the draft is accepted, the subsequent article to AfD. This was not in my view, the way they should have handled it. Reviewers check that the Draft is acceptable, not whether we have POV forks, etc. On that basis it is valid to accept it and have the argument later.

Thanks for the ping. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave that for you two to sort out - my only involvement was in deleting the redirect as per the G6 request, as the draft looked to me like it had been properly reviewed and the review had satisfied the AfC reviewing guidelines. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That was my only concern, too. There seems to be a hornets' nest here, and one I genuinely have no hornet in the race for, to mix several metaphors. Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Boing, just to let you know that I started a discussion at Draft talk:Psychology of eating meat, and Tim subsequently opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat. I'm happy to go along with whatever others decide; I was just concerned to see it happen without discussion. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, sounds good - I'll leave the content discussion to you fine folks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Boing, sorry I forgot to ask: would you mind undeleting the history of Psychology of eating meat? I would like to refer to it in the discussion. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I've done so - and you're always welcome to revert or modify any of my admin actions yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeenagx

With regard to the page AWR Certified Pre-Owned Cars. This was deleted by Boing! said Zebedee This is a good company. There service is really useful. More people need to know about it. Does it look promotional to you? I've made it as objective as I could after the first rejection. Let me know what you think or if you have any tips for me--JeenaGX ^(talk) 11:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC+4:00)

Hi. The quality of the company and the usefulness of its service, and your feeling that more people need to know about it, are really of no relevance to whether Wikipedia hosts an article about it - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a business directory. Some of the text of the article read to me as the kind of thing the company's marketing department might put out, but even rewriting that would not solve the problem. What is needed is notability according to WP:NCORP, and that was not demonstrated - it's essentially just a used car company. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Composcompos12

nothing to do with me, but i dont think that indef block was fair. compos was getting trolled by someone editing his user page and making lame summary comments while doing so. the full text of the "blow out your head" silliness made it clear that it wasnt a actual threat to do anything more than make a vandalism report. he was drawing a parallel between coming into someones yard and coming into someones user page. add to that, the guy is obviously not a native english speaker - which is why he said "will" instead of "would" and its clearly not a threat. its still stupid, but not a threat. Zachlita (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It was not a language issue. And it's not a question of whether it was a real threat. It's simply a grossly unacceptable way to interact in a collaborative environment. They can request unblock if they wish, and if they retract that statement and make a convincing commitment to never speak to anyone like that again, any admin can unblock them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

hopefully they will take that option rather than IP/sock edits. probably they just wont edit wikipedia anymore. i worked with non native speakers in the past, im kinda protective towards them. thanks for the reply. Zachlita (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexiulian25

I'm writing here mostly to make sure you're still paying attention to this users edits, since they appear to be in violation of the conditions you set when you unblocked them. They've resumed making uncivil comments directed at other editors (possibly personal attacks depending on how you read them) notably here here and here. They've resumed edit warring at Finnish Cup and Cypriot First Division. Their user page shows a worrying level of contempt for the project as a whole. None of it is quite as egregious as the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place, but I think it's serious enough to consider reinstating the block. Happy new year. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. I'd been looking in on occasions and had seen a few problematic interactions on their talk page, but I'd missed those clearly uncivil attacks on other editors. While you're right that these latest are not as egregious as earlier problems, they're still a clear breach of my unblock conditions, and so I have reinstated the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25