Jump to content

User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

April 2018

Hi

Thanks for giving me another chance to edit back in October. I think I'm doing better here than before and I'm sure you agree I mean I've been a better editor i haven't vandalized Wikipedia at all since I was unblocked because I've matured over time and feel that if I keep it up my good faith edits, I can eventually become a valuable member of this great community. Timothy McGuire (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, thanks for getting back to me - I always like it when I get a bit of feedback from editors I've unblocked and hear that they're doing well. We all have bad spells when we're young (I vaguely vividly remember being young; I deliberately don't remember my bad spells ;-). And never mind "eventually" - you already are a valuable member of the community! (Ooh, and I see you're not afraid of a bit of controversy - "I like mountain dew just as much as coke and Pepsi" :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Grimoire of Ewaz

In reference to delete of Demon ewaz, my credentials are on Amazon and Lulu.com,etc. An editor should do research and not be a hater! As for the nonfiction demon Ewaz, you obviously know nothing of demonology! I have professionally edited 3 of my published books. ISBN, etc. Publisher, etc. Is on the said web sites. Some encyclopedia! Sincerely Mr. Robert Morga Author of Grimoire of Ewaz, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert morga (talk • contribs) 10:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not offered any opinion on your work or made any claims that I understand the subject. All I did was decline a speedy deletion request on your book because I thought the reason was inapplicable, and I deleted another article simply because it did not contain sufficient information to be able to determine the context (see WP:A1). If you believe my deletion was incorrect, you are welcome to request the article's restoration at WP:DRV. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My block and Swarm

I'm not sure how much you saw of yesterday's fiasco but there were two instances of admin overstepping, one of which is being presented to Arbcom right now. I was hoping to also have my case attached to it, but the started doesn't want to do that, and I will respect their wishes. But now I am faced with a problem. Should I go directly to Arbcom for this? Or should I go to AN instead? Do you have any advice?

Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tarage, At this moment, I think the better way to express your concerns is to make a statement at the current case request anyway as an involved editor, since these two instances are closely connected to each other and appears to involve the same policy. Alex Shih (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I don't like going against the wishes of the filer but... I don't know what else to do. --Tarage (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything stopping you from submitting your statement as long as it's within the word limit? Alex Shih (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
For sure there's nothing stopping me there. I just mean I don't like going against the wishes of the filer. --Tarage (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
From my past experience, Arbcom decides what's included in the scope of a case regardless; the wishes of the filer aren't all that relevant. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
What Writ Keeper said. I thought Tarage you meant the filer did not wish your case to be attached; it's slightly strange if they do not wish your submit a statement, but I suppose I can understand (detracts from the intended focus). Alternatively you can ask for a block review on AN. Alex Shih (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to Tarage filing a statement I just said I would prefer not to have the case derailed with presentation of evidence against another editor and in depth discussion of their block. The exchange is on my talk at User talk:Jbhunley#FPaS Case and Swarm.
But, damn! With this kind of needling still going on from the blocking admin I have to wonder what the hell went on with that block. Jbh Talk 01:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 01:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I know User:Jbhunley, had I seen any other way of going about it, I would have. The sad part is that these two cases are so interconnected that splitting them would all but kill my chances of seeing this black spot removed from my record. That he is STILL going on about it, to the point of hounding another admin, shows just how far off the rails this whole thing has gotten. I just want my name cleared at this point. And sadly, I don't think I'll be granted that unless I go to Arbcom. Still... the more he continues this path, the easier it will be to show malicious intent, punitive instead of preventative. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Combativeness?

Hi, I'm okay with your unblock as it was almost up anyway and I myself made numerous offers to unblock Tarage, but I'm genuinely concerned that you felt I was being combative and/or emotive. Can you please diff me which comments you felt were inapproprtiate? I felt I was pretty reasonable and unemotive. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 19:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Would also appreciate a justification for your labeling the block as "controversial". Swarm ♠ 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to try to make a big deal about this but blocking policy is pretty straightforward about unilateral unblocks without communicating with the blocking administrator, and "controversy" isn't given as a reason to do so. Therefore I interpret your action to a statement that you've determined that there was unambiguous error or misconduct on my part. Please be in your thorough explanation of what precisely this error was, so that I can prepare my Arbcom statement accordingly (for the case against me, that is). Swarm ♠ 20:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) At the risk of prejudging Boing's reply to you, Swarm, I'm going to give you some advice.
If you attempt to dispassionately read through the exchanges at User talk:Tarage #April 2018, you'll see that Tarage states that you blocked them even though they had not made an edit since receiving a warning from another admin. That would be rather unusual. You did not refute that, and that in itself is almost certainly enough for Boing to characterise your block as "controversial", i.e. "giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement".
In that same series of exchanges, you were unwise enough – in my humble opinion – to use a phrase as inflammatory as "quit threatening me and just take it to ArbCom". I suspect that, on reflection, you may feel that it could be characterised as combative for an admin to be responding in that way when defending their admin actions.
My advice to you is try to see the events from the perspective of a neutral observer, if you can. Tarage was warned by Guy – an admin action – specifically for incivility (misuse of the word 'vandalism'). You blocked Tarage for personal attacks, which almost certainly will be seen blocking as the same offence that they were warned for, despite their not having edited in the meantime. It's clear that Tarage wasn't happy with their warning, but removing Guy's warning – even with the edit summary "Get off my talk page. Never come here again." – is considered as having read it, not having rejected it. I don't think it is a good idea to ascribe intent to other editors' actions, and your partial justification of the block based on your opinion of Tarage's removal of the warning really does seem to me to fall short of what is expected at WP:BEFOREBLOCK and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK.
Now maybe that's what Boing sees as "unambiguous error" on your part, or maybe not, but I wouldn't recommend that you count on blaming Boing for unblocking as a defence for yourself at ArbCom. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: I actually did refute the notion that Tarage was blocked for the same thing he was warned for here, and I argued on top of that even if I did want to block for disruptive editing, I would be justified to do so based on the clear rejection of the warning.[1][2] Banning an admin who warns you from your talk page is specifically considered to be in violation of the disruptive editing guideline (as explained at WP:Tendentious editing#One who "bans" otherwise constructive editors from their talk page). So, claiming that removing the warning for disruptive editing was an innocuous act that shouldn't have been held against them doesn't really make sense, because they committed clear disruptive editing in the edit summary while doing so. Claiming they were punished simply for removing a warning is completely untrue, as I made clear to the user here. I did not say I was going to blame Boing as a defense. By unilaterally unblocking, it appears he's siding with the blocked user in their claims of administrative misconduct. If this is the case, I would like a full and thorough explanation of what exactly the accusations are so that I may defend myself against them. Lastly, if my comment pushing GMG to take me to Arbcom rather than threatening me was the "combative" or "emotive" comment, that's absolutely ridiculous. I was being directly threatened with the specter of an Arbcom inquiry, I told him to follow through or to not threaten me. That's reasonable, not "combative". Swarm ♠ 22:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm: I'd rather not have to litigate it on Boing's talk-page, but if you insist:
You refuted nothing; you only stated the opposite, which disproves nothing. Understand the difference between making an argument and mere contradiction.
You didn't block for DE, you blocked for the same PA as Guy had given the warning for, so that line of reasoning goes nowhere. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK applies.
Tendentious editing is not the same as disruptive editing: one is a behavioural guideline; the other has the status of an essay. I wouldn't rely on an unvetted essay as a defence if I were you.
Don't use hyperbole and don't put words into my mouth: I didn't say that the removal was innocuous; but it's not a blockable offence, and you'll find that confirmed if you have to argue it at ArbCom.
The removal was not "clear disruptive editing": you're relying on an essay for that interpretation. Editors are given a lot of latitude in how they manage their talk page, and nobody has to leave anything in place, other than a still active block notice which has an active unblock request. You should know all this.
Tarage's edit summary was uncivil, but it's a huge stretch to turn "Get off my talk page. Never come here again." into a blockable offence. Admins should expect editors to vent when warned: it's human nature for editors to feel helpless and to lash out, and Tarage's comment was mild compared to many I've seen.
By unlaterally unblocking, Boing was doing what he thought was right. You made a bad block and he reversed it. You need to concentrate on understanding why a respected admin with many years experience should take such a contrary view to your own. That doesn't, by the way, mean he's siding with Tarage. As I see it, both Targage and you were in the wrong, and Boing isn't obliged to align himself with either of you.
Don't call me ridiculous. That's not becoming of an admin, and you should know it. Of course goading a fellow editor to take you to ArbCom is combative – it's virtually the definition of the word. It's not reasonable and you're likely to be the only person on Wikipedia who thinks it is.
It's time for you to drop the stick, stop blaming everybody else, and engage in some self-reflection. You're not a bad admin, but you've still a lot to learn: start with learning a bit more about how you interact with others when you're under pressure. A touch of humility will go a long way to avoid this incident getting out of hand. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Sorry for using the word. I really am. But this is just a little bit ridiculous.

You refuted nothing; you only stated the opposite, which disproves nothing.

I "stated the opposite" of what was accused? The definition of "refute" is to: "deny or contradict". By stating the "opposite" of what was accused, I think I satisfied the "deny or contradict" definition of "refute".

You didn't block for DE, you blocked for the same PA as Guy had given the warning for

Genuinely puzzled about this one. Guy didn't warn for personal attacks. Guy warned for DE. Although I gave a thorough justification for both a PA and a DE block, Tarage was warned for DE. He was blocked for PA. Though he breached the DE warning and could have been blocked strictly for DE, as explained both on his talk page, and below.

Tendentious editing is not the same as disruptive editing: one is a behavioural guideline; the other has the status of an essay.

No. Sorry. But, you're simply wrong. Tendentious editing is explicitly considered to be part of the disruptive editing behavioral guideline. Nothing at that guideline page is unclear in this regard. Absolutely nothing. WP:TE is an extension of the WP:DE guideline. It's explicit.

I didn't say that the removal was innocuous; but it's not a blockable offence

As I diffed, the removal was not the "offence". Banning the admin from the talk page was, and such an act is specifically mentioned as an example of tendentious editing. Again, tendentious editing is not just an essay, but a firm breach of the Disruptive Editing behavioral guideline.

... it's a huge stretch to turn "Get off my talk page. Never come here again." into a blockable offence ...

As I've repeatedly mentioned above, that act is directly considered to be tendentious editing, which is a breach of the disruptive editing behavioral guideline, and thus, a blockable offense.

By unlaterally unblocking, Boing was doing what he thought was right. You made a bad block and he reversed it.

That's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that he breached the blocking policy in declining to consult me before unilaterally overturning a discretionary admin action. He did not claim that I made a "bad block", he claimed it was "highly controversial". "Controversy" is not something that allows a block to be unilaterally overturned, thus my demand for further explanation beyond "highly controversial".

Of course goading a fellow editor to take you to ArbCom is combative

"Goading" implies that the act of taking me to Arbcom wasn't already declared as a goal by GMG or Tarage. I was wholeheartedly encouraging both of their stated goal of appealing the block to Arbcom, and discouraging idle threats of doing so. I continue to stand behind my doing so.
Thanks for saying I'm not a bad admin; that I just respond poorly when under pressure. However, I assure you that I was under no pressure when I decided to block, and made the judgment call clear-headedly and free of any outside influences; and I have been replying according to that original status of not being "under pressure". Swarm ♠ 04:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, Boing!, I'm sorry but really, executing a unilateral unblock in contravention of commonly-understood norms as well as blocking policy, and then going AWOL for four six ten hours is really not good form. If you had simply consulted with me as you know you should have, I would have been completely reasonable with you. Instead you've issued an implication that a unilateral unblock was warranted, due to completely unexplained reasons. I'm not going to jump on the ongoing "admin abuse/run to Arbcom" hysteria train, but that was really not procedurally correct and you should know that. Swarm ♠ 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If I had cited WP:Tendentious editing#One who "bans" otherwise constructive editors from their talk page as a breach of the disruptive editing warning for the block rationale rather than an aggravating factor for a personal attack block, would you still have unblocked unilaterally? If so, why? (Not trying to spam you with messages, these are all genuine things I very humbly request that you address, so that I may adjust my statement accordingly.) Swarm ♠ 22:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just an FYI, I've reported the block itself at WP:RfArb. This is not an action against your unblock, but an attempt at resolving the accusations. Swarm ♠|
  • Apologies, I came down with a migraine shortly after making that unblock and wasn't even able to look at a screen - and I come back to 38 separate messages! There's a lot to go through here, and I'll respond when I can, but it won't be for a few more hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, a few comments. Why did I think it was a controversial block? As RexxS points out above, a block shortly after a warning when the blockee hasn't done anything further that's blockworthy (which I don't think Tarage did) is controversial - usually bad, in fact. But I think there's a bigger picture too, in that it was an emotive issue and passions were running high, and I think that's one of the worst times to be handing out blocks unless there's something ongoing and egregious that immediately needs to be stopped. In fact, I don't think I can recall a single instance when this kind of block in this kind of circumstance has been a good move, and I can think of plenty that were bad and only served to escalate. Finally, I think the events since have shown without doubt that my assessment of the block as controversial was correct.

    Why did I not consult you, User:Swarm? Sometimes it's best to just cut through the crap and do the right thing, and in my judgment what I did was the right thing. With little time left on the block, I wasn't going to have any wikilawyering over it, and in my opinion getting an unblock into User:Tarage's block log (at the very least) was needed. And no, my action was not in breach of WP:BLOCK policy. My comments about your apparent demeanour? You say you "made the judgment call clear-headedly", and I don't doubt your good faith when you say that. But in my view, I was not seeing the dispassionate and very careful stance that I think needs to be adopted by admins in cases like this. In short, and I'm not identifying anyone specifically, there were too many hot heads and not enough cool ones - and blocking was a clumsy tool to try to use to fix things.

    On the whole, I'm disappointed with the behaviour of the community over this issue, and once again we've seen aggravation and escalation over what should really have been a minor issue easily solvable by consensus discussion.

    As for the Arbcom requests, I shall ignore them unless I'm pinged with any specific points that require responses. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hey Boing thanks for your reply. As I told RexxS, I think I've argued over it more than enough by this point, I've made my case at Arbcom and I'm satisfied with whatever result/feedback comes from it. Thanks again, Swarm ♠ 16:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
    And thanks for your response too. I don't see any need for Arbcom to do anything here myself, as I don't think anything has strayed into their remit - it was a disagreement on how best to deal with a tricky dispute, and I think we're dealing with it just fine without their help! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Case request

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that you have been added as involved party in Misuse of Administrator Tools 2 case request. Kostas20142 (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

Dear Boing! said Zebedee,
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that the Misuse of Administrator Tools 2 case request has been declined. The Committee has concluded that a single mistake while using the administrator tools, without a similar pattern of behavior, does not require its intention. However you may wish to read through the arbitrators' discussion and take it into consideration while being involved in similar incidents in future.
Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Request

But sir.our team is working to launch sugar rocket and we'll lunch rocket very soon and be the first team in india to launch rocket only at 300.by the teams of kid. Sahebsheik011 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I will reply at your talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Easy

Hi.. You do delete much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modestusonyeke (talk • contribs) 10:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for an explanation of Wikipedia's minimum notability requirements for articles about individual persons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:12.233.43.2 was blocked [3] for block evasion (Same IP: User talk:96.9.247.171). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

discreetness

... and sometimes, we have to be discreet like this guy

lol now the user knows we are onto him. Sometimes we have to take out the infomation from them slowly, and politely; without their knowledge. Some other times we should ask them directly, like you did. Also his contrib history makes think he is a paid editor. Possibly a sleeper. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was asking him directly when I ec'd with you asking in your more subtle way. Maybe your less obvious approach might have been better ;-) And yes, I agree about the likely paid editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Going through the creations and editing activities of the account, this is a case of definite UPE sleeper. ~ Winged BladesGodric 12:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yep, having looked further, I've no doubt about it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, most of the times such subtle questions results in the replies that are extremely amusing.
Actually, I was here to ask you about File:Mia Malkova.JPG. Would you please provide me the link that it was copied from? I will appreciate it a lot if you would. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(watching)...Discreet...but hopefully not discrete...  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I can't find it now, and I don't see a version in the deletion history with it and can't think where else it might be. I don't think I'd want to post it here anyway (though if I found it I could email it to you) as it was a pornographic photoshoot - the image in question was the first one, where she had some clothes on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
can you see the photo? I can send you a wiki-email, and then you can reply as a standard email with the photo. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the photo itself, and I could do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, no need - I've done a Google reverse image search, and it was a much lower resolution copy of this, complete with the logo at bottom left. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:DavidYork71

Hi, Can you please let me know what process was followed regarding the email request which led to this person's email and talk page access being restored? Given that they're among the most seriously disruptive editors I've seen (in terms of the content of their edits more than the vast number of sockpuppets - this included pretty extreme BLP violations), I think that this should have gone to WP:AN or similar first. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It was in response to UTRS appeal 21299, which I obviously was not able to grant. But at the same time, I did not think I could deny him the possibility of an appeal against his Community ban after 11 years (especially as there was a suggestion at the ban discussion that "Maybe in a year or so it can be revisited"). Any unblock consideration would need to be by community discussion at WP:AN, as you suggest, and the appropriate way for that to happen would be for him to make a request at his talk page (which, curiously, was protected rather than having TP access revoked - perhaps that wasn't technically possible at the time). I unprotected his talk page solely so he could make such an appeal (which would be copied to WP:AN) and any abuse of it will lead to TPA being revoked. On email access, I've rethought it and it's not needed for making an appeal, so I've revoked it again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added an extra comment at his talk page to make things clear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I think it's safe to say that there's zero chance this person would have their ban lifted given the nature of what they were using sockpuppets for at high volume over multiple years (confirmed by checkuser as recently as 2015). Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I suspect you are right, but I don't have the right to make that decision on behalf of the Community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
One of the main things this person was using their sockpuppets for was to post material containing serious violations of WP:BLP (from memory, this included accusing prominent people of serious crimes). Given this, it's a pretty significant risk allowing them back in any form, and admins do have the discretion to deny such requests. As there is no likelihood of this person being unbanned, and a high likelihood that this will lead to further serious BLP violations (directly or through renewed socking) I'd ask that you remove the talk page access. They were socking as recently as May 2016 BTW [4]. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of the problems (having read almost all of his talk page interaction since his arrival - I am not treating this lightly), and I still do not believe it would be correct for me to unilaterally deny him the chance of an appeal - "Banned with no right to ever appeal" was not in the terms of the ban. My suspicion is that he will not make a public appeal, and if that does not happen in a reasonable time then I fully intend to revoke TPA again. If there is the slightest hint of BLP violation at his talk page, it can be shut down again, and allowing TPA has no effect whatsoever on his ability for renewed socking. I remain of the firm opinion that only the community (at WP:AN) should have the ability to decide whether an appeal is credible (whatever my, or your, personal opinions). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, I disagree with that strongly. This person is clearly not suited to Wikipedia, and should not be given a look in. From my perspective, it's a bit like partly unblocking a libellous version of Grawp. If this person returns to socking, I hope that you have time to help the Australian and NZ admins out with the work involved with countering it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Then we disagree - it happens, and I respect that. But please leave off the red herring of socking - you know perfectly well that revoking TPA has no bearing on that whatsoever. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
My concern is that by giving this person a toe in the door, they'll return to socking, and such socking is likely to be highly problematic (WP:DENY and that). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
He's been socking as recently as 2016, as you point out yourself, a whole seven nine years after the ban - without me, or anyone else, giving him a toe in the door. If anything, I'd think that denying TPA would be more likely to result in socking - which is what I've seen in a number of high-profile cases. Anyway, as we both agree, we disagree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow - you folks can be beset by real chaos (dare I say about some items below) - I see where you are both coming from, and I have seen B s Z is really meeting some bizarre brick walls in the process area for dealing with the process of how to deal with a former... I would strongly suggest another conversation down the line if any further developments require it. Meanwhile, I would like to confirm, as a former combatant with DY - that I would say his even talking with, let alone even venturing out of a long standing and appropriate block - would require quite a rigorous process with no short cuts of any sort, and on that basis I am impressed with B s Z's concern about not taking on anything to do with the individual or the issues from the past waver a steady approach to the issues surrounding the potential return of such an issue ridden editorship. I am impressed, and remain quite convinced that despite the difference between the two admins above - that any possible venture beyond this point will be conducted on principles and method that will leave no ethical or procedural point unchecked. JarrahTree 10:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, JarrahTree. Either he will not make an unban request within a reasonable time, in which case I (or someone else) will revoke talk page access again. Or he will and it will go to WP:AN for a consensus decision. Either way, I think it will leave no room for any claims that he was not allowed a fair chance of appeal. And should he appeal and be denied, I think that would create a stronger statement than "banned 11 years ago". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of page Oramed

I am writing to you as per the instruction on my deleted page. I am brand new at this, so I apologize for the mistake I made in my created page, and for any future mistake I may make - even in this talk page. These wiki rules are very confusing.

I created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oramed I should not have published it, I tried to save it as a draft pending further reviews. Is there a way to have it re-instated in draft form (or sandbox) so that I can fix it accordingly?

I tried to use notable sources, as per the instructions. What I chose as notable was probably viewed by you as promotion? The sources were reputable, major, third party news sources. As per the instructions, these should be acceptable.

Also, I wanted to make a Paid-contribution disclosure - but I did not get to do that as the page was deleted so quickly. Please let me know if the page can be re-instated so I can fix all of the above.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumcheh (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've restored it to Draft:Oramed, where you can work on it. Please be sure to make the appropriate paid-contribution disclosure, and also please submit it when you think it is ready by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation rather than moving it directly to article space yourself. What did I see as promotional? It's not so much the sources but the style of writing. To me, the whole thing reads more like a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia article, and I think its chances of being accepted in its current form are very slim. I can't help you with how to write it, but I suggest you read some other company articles to see how they are written and structured. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ்.ஸும் விடுதலைப்போராட்டமும்

why you are deleting page again and again this is unfair on us. we are creating documents with authentic records of the publishers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmapatram (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, firstly, this is the English Wikipedia and only accepts articles written in English. Secondly, even after translating it with Google translate it didn't make any sense as an encyclopedia article. If you're trying to promote a book, please go somewhere else to do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We are creating this document from authentic source

We are creating this document from authentic source

Tamil text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ்.ஸும் விடுதலைப்போராட்டமும் Wikipedia இல் இருந்து முன்னுரை "ஒரு சங்கம் தன் கொள்கையை தொண்டர்கள் ஏற்கச் செய்து வாழவில் கடைப்பிடிக்கச் செய்து, பிறரையும் கடைப்பிடிக்கத் தூண்ட முடிகிறதா, அப்போதுதான் அந்த சங்கத்தில் கொள்கைப் பிடிப்பு உள்ளதாகக் கொள்ளலாம்."[1] மனிதரைப் பண்பாளராக உருவாக்கும் பணி ஒன்றை மட்டுமே செய்கிற ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ். இந்த உரைகல்லில் தேறியுள்ளது. ‘மனிதர்’ தான் ஸ்வயம்சேவகர்தான் ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ்.ஸின் ஆதாரம். ஸ்வயம்சேவகர்களை கருவியாகக் கொண்டுதான் தேசிய மறுமலர்ச்சியையே காணமுனைகிறது, ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ்.

ஸ்வயம்சேவகர்களுக்கெல்லாம் முன்மாதிரி சங்க ஸ்தாபகர் டாக்டர் கேசவ பலிராம் ஹெட்கேவார் தான். தம் வாழ்வையே சங்கப்பணிக்குஇசைவாக செதுக்கிச் செதுக்கி உருவாக்கிக் கொண்டவர் அவர். சங்கம் என்ற வடிவில் தாம் துவக்கிய லட்சியப்பணிக்கு தாமே உருவகமாகத் திகழ்பவர்.

ராஷ்ட்ரீய ஸ்வயம்சேவக சங்கம் தான் சொல்வதை செய்கிறது. அதன் தத்துவம் அதன் நடைமுறை இரண்டும். இரு கண்கள் போல, ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ்.ஸின் தத்துவம் பலருக்குத் தெரிந்திருக்கிறது; நடைமுறை தெரிந்தவர்கள் சிலரே. எனவே இந்தத் தொகுப்பு அதை உறுதி செய்கிறது. நாடு முழுவதும் 47,000 ஊர்களில் கிளைகளைக் கொண்டது ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ். லட்சக்கணக்கான அதன் ஸ்வயம்சேவகர்கள் ஈடுபட்டுள்ள பணித்திட்டங்கள். இயக்கங்கள், சேவைகளை அளவிடவே முடியாது. இது தொகுப்பு, வகைக்கு ஒன்றிரண்டாக எடுத்துக்காட்டுகளின் கொத்து, அவ்வளவுதான்.

ஸ்வயம்சேவகர்கள் துவக்கிய அமைப்புகளில் பணிபுரியும் ஊழியர்கள் பெற்ற அனுபவங்கேள இதில் பேசப்படுகின்றன. இதே பரிசோதனைகளை எண்ணற்ற விதங்களில் ஸ்வயம்சேவகர்கள் தனிப்பட்ட முறையிலும் நடத்தி வருகிறார்கள். தங்கள் சூழலில் மாற்றமும் கண்டு வருகிறார்கள். அவை அத்தனையையும் அளாவியதாக எந்தத் தொகுப்புமே ஆகிட இயலாது. இன்று நாட்டில் ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ். என்ற பெயரைக் கேட்ட மாத்திரத்திலேயே அகமும் முகமும் மலர்வோர் லட்சோபலட்சம். சமுதாயத்தில் ஸ்வயம்சேவகர் பணிகள் எவ்வளவு விசால வீச்சில் ஆழ்ந்த தாக்கம் பெற்றுள்ள என்பதற்கு இதுவே துல்லியமான அளவுகோல்.

வரலாற்றில் இடம் பெற்றுவிட்ட, அகில பாரதப் புகழ்பெற்றுள்ள ஒரு சில ஊழியர்களின் பெயர்கள் இத் தொகுப்பில் வருகின்றன. மற்றபடி எத்தனையோ சம்பவங்களில் சம்பந்தப்பட்டவர்கள் பெயர்கள் வரவில்லையே என வாசகர்கள் வியப்படையலாம். பல்லாயிரக்கணக்கான பெயர்களிலிருந்து தேர்வு செய்வது எப்படி? அது இயலாத காரியம். மேலும் ஊழியர்களும் பெயர், புகழ் நாடாதவர்கள். பெயருடனோ, பெயரில்லாமலோ, தன்னலமற்ற பணிதான் முக்கியம் அல்லவா?

தொகுப்பாளர்களின் கவனத்திற்குத் தப்பிய அரிய சம்பவங்களும் தகவல்களும் இருப்பது உறுதி; அவை இடம் பெறவில்லையே என்பது தான் எனது வருத்தமும். நாலுபேர் அறியாமல் நல்லது செய்து கொண்டேயிருப்பது ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ். அன்பர்களின் பழக்கம். இதனால் பதிவாகாமல் போன பணிகள் ஏராளம், எனினும் இடம் பெற்றுள்ள செய்திகள். பற்றி ஒரு வார்த்தை: முற்றிலும் ஆதாரபூர்வமானவை என இவற்றில் சம்பந்தப்பட்டவர்களே நேரில் சோதித்து சரிபார்த்தவை இவை.

சங்க ஸ்தாபகர் டாக்டர் ஹெட்கேவாரின் நூற்றாண்டு விழாக்காலம் இது. அவரது வாழ்வே சங்கப் பணிதான்; சங்கப் பணியைப் புரிந்து கொண்டால் அவரை அறியலாம். அவரது பணியை, அணுவளவும் வழுவாமல் ஸ்வயம்சேவகர்கள் தொடர்கிறார்கள். அதன் வர்ணனையே இத்தொகுப்பு, இவ்வகையில் டாக்டர் ஹெட்கேவாரின் மகத்துவத்தை மக்கள் உண்மையிலேயே அறிந்து கொள்ள இத்தொகுப்பு கைகொடுக்கும்.

இந்த நூல் இத்துணை சிறப்பாக வெளிவர உதவிய அன்பர்கள் அனைவருக்கும் எனது மனமார்ந்த நன்றி

‘கேசவ க்ருபா’, சங்கரபுரம். ஹொ. வே. சேஷாத்ரி

பெங்களுரு - 560 004.

(ஆங்கில நூலின் இருபதிப்பு முகவுரைகளிலிருந்து)


விடுதலை வேட்கை டாக்டர் ஹெட்கேவார் விடுதலை வேட்கையின் வடிவமாக வாழ்ந்தார்; ஸ்வயம்சேவகர்களின் உள்ளங்களிலும் விடுதலைத் தீ கொழுந்து விட்டு எரியச் செய்தார். அந்தச் சுடர் தொடர்ந்து பிரகாசமாக ஒளிவீசி வரலாயிற்று. பிரிட்டிஷ்காரர்களின் ஆட்சிக் காலத்திலும் சரி, அவர்கள் வெளியேறிய பின்னும் சரி, பல்வேறு சந்தர்ப்பங்களில் இந்தப் பண்பு வெளிப்பட்டது.

1947ன் நெருக்கடியிலே டெல்லியைக் காப்பாற்ற... காஷ்மீரைக் காப்பாற்றும் பணியில்... தியாக வரலாறு போர்ச்சுக்கீசிய ஆதிக்கத்தை ஒடுக்குதல் அன்னிய ஆக்கிரமிப்பு பற்றிய எச்சரிக்கை 1962 சீனப் படையெடுப்பின் போது... கட்ச் முனையில் சரணாகதிக்கு எதிர்ப்பு: 1965ல் பாகிஸ்தான் ஆக்கிரமித்தபோது: மக்களின் மனோதிடத்தை வைரம் பாந்ததாக்குதல் தாஷ்கண்ட் குறித்து எச்சரிக்கை: நேபாளத்துடன் உறவுகளை பலப்படுத்துதல்: பங்களாதேஷ் விடுதலைப் போர், 1971 நினைவில் நிற்கும் சம்பவங்கள்: தீன்பிகாவை காப்பாற்றுதல் தொகுப்பாசிரியர், ஹொ.வே.சேஷாத்ரி (FEB 1989). RSS ஆற்றும் அரும் பணிகள். CHENNAI 600031: விஜயபாரதம் பதிப்பகம். p. 520. Check date values in: |date= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmapatram (talk • contribs) 10:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is published with reference to the book "RSS ஆற்றும் அரும்பணிகள்" published in the year 1989 February, In CHENNAI, INDIA, BY THE PUBLISHER : VIJAYABHARATHAM PATHIPAGAM, NO:12, M.V.NAIDU STREET, CHETPUT, CHENNAI - 600031, vijayabharatham@gmail.com

This article is published with reference to the book "RSS ஆற்றும் அரும்பணிகள்" published in the year 1989 February, In CHENNAI, INDIA, BY THE PUBLISHER : VIJAYABHARATHAM PATHIPAGAM, NO:12, M.V.NAIDU STREET, CHETPUT, CHENNAI - 600031, vijayabharatham@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmapatram (talk • contribs) 10:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

Why was the page Amanda Nicole Hamilton deleted i gave a description and it has credible sources all you have to do is google search — Preceding unsigned comment added by YRN1991Ruthless (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The article did not contain anything to show why she qualifies for a Wikipedia article, and was completely unsourced - her mere existence is not sufficient, nor is "all you have to do is google search". If you want to create an article, the onus is on you to make it clear that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's minimum inclusion requirements. In this case, an article about Amanda Nicole Hamilton would ultimately need to demonstrate that she satisfies Wikipedia's minimum notability requirements for musicians, as described at WP:NMUSIC, and be supported by multiple independent reliable sources (see WP:RS). If you believe Ms Hamilton satisfies those requirements and you can find suitable sources, I suggest you create the article as a draft at Draft:Amanda Nicole Hamilton and then submit it via the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process so that it can be reviewed by experienced editors. If you would like me to restore the deleted article to Draft:Amanda Nicole Hamilton, just let me know and I will be happy to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Aputure

Hi Zebedee, I'm the one who tryed creating the wikipedia page on Aputure. I have to create one for school as a project. Could you tel me what I did wrong and how I could fix it because I realy din't try to make an add for Aputure Thanks a lot, Nicolas Fabre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasfa (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The article was essentially saying how good the company is and extolling its virtues, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The other main problem is that there was nothing in the article which indicated why the company is of sufficient importance to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Ultimately, Wikipedia will not host an article about a company unless it satisfies the minimum notability requirements described at WP:NCORP. Usually I'd offer to restore the article to a Draft for you to work on, but I don't want to waste your school project time if it's ultimately going to be deleted again. So what I'll ask you to do first (which is an essential part of writing a Wikipedia article anyway), is find significant coverage of the company in reliable sources (see WP:RS) that are independent of the company, and show them to me here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Brody everything

May not be a bad idea to keep an eye on Indeb15, whose only purpose here appears to be all things Brody related. Just a heads up. GMGtalk 14:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Eyes peeled ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Company Page Robogarden removed

Hello,

I am writing to request information about exactly why the page Robogarden was removed. We followed the exact same layout as 'Tynker'. We listed sources to reputable sites who have covered us in press and also added information about our company that shows who we are and what we do - Just like Tynker. I would appreciate if are able to provide what we did wrong in this article that caused it to be rejected. Based on your feedback I am more than happy to rewrite it and submit it again.

Thanks, Hamza — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoboGarden (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a number of problems (including with your username), and it's probably better for me to comment over at your talk page - I'll be there shortly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
What you posted at the user's Talk page was really wonderful advice. Nicely done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jojhnjoy appealing their topic ban

Please see WP:AN#Topic ban appeal of User:Jojhnjoy since you issued the last block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

UK law firm and ANI

Hello, while looking for something else, I saw your post at ANI about a UK law firm. You noted that UK IP geolocation is not very accurate. Even with that in mind, I felt it worth mentioning that the law firm in question does not have any legal offices in Scotland, therefore it is very likely that no-one from Scotland would be editing Wikipedia on behalf of whoever the aggrieved person is. It's still possible that the law firm has a service location in Scotland, where enthusiasts of particular operating systems or their proponents might work and therefore be editing from -- or that edits from real lawyers in London might geolocate to a service location in Scotland. But all their job opportunities (even for "PowerPoint Design Specialist (Evenings)") are in London, not Edinburgh. So I think it very unlikely that any real lawyer is making legal threats from Scotland in this instance.

And finally, this is probably not a reliable source, but it turned up on the first page of results so I just mention it here. MPS1992 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, it did strike me afterwards that it would be unlikely for a top law firm to act like that. And that article made me smile :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

ACTRIAL → ACREQ: Please see T192455 • Tthe ticket. This risks becoming the same fiasco as Bugzilla 2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ach, don't you just love it when we all pull together? And a developer speaking of "my hate towards the English Wikipedia" - wow! I'm keeping out of the slanging match, but if they thwart this then I'll be reconsidering my involvement here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, and from a s/w dev background, volunteer s/w dev can often be a disaster - I've known of several freeware projects disintegrate into the kind of ego-based acrimony that would never be permitted in a properly managed professional project. I would never work on a volunteer s/w project myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Marvin Besther

Something still smells bad about this article. It looks suspiciously like an old userpage from the user Marvin Beyster on French Wikipedia [5]. That user was blocked there on February 22 for the reason of "Insertion d'informations fausses" (insertion of false information).

Wikifrenchman's account was created on March 31. His last activities on French Wikipedia were to delete content from an administrator's discussion page:

  • [6] - concerning Marvin Beyster's denied unblock request
  • [7] - concerning this user and other possible sockpuppet creating hoax articles, as well as inserted hoax content on the IMDb

Part of me wonders if this isn't another sockpuppet, or if he truly is a manager who is trying to cover up his client's past misdeeds on Wikipedia. Is it enough to take to SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikifrenchman also blanked all the notices on his talk page, including my {{uw-paid1}}, and just left his initial welcome message. No disclosure made yet either. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. That was a nice bit of cross-wiki cooperation, if I do say so myself. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

NextShark Page

Hello, I wanted to ask why NextShark's page was deleted and how we can improved? I think multiple credible sources were cited. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karaja8899 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

First tell me who is "we". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Red cats endangered

I love my red cats (categories) on my user page. They came under attack, but I found a way, - feel free to copy. - I put delicate and brutal as required on the Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, BrownHairedGirl removed one from your (Boing!'s) userpage. I thought we've been through this before and we were permitted to have non-existent cats on our userpages. I personally don't have them, but that's because I'm boring. I think you should undo the removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't care what Boing does or does not have on user pages, so long as they don't clutter up cleanup lists. If the cat is wanted then create the cat page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

If you like your cat red, creating it is no help. Category:Editors who miss FisherQueen could show as

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You go, Gerda! Without the red cat, Boing!'s userpage has no color at all. We need color. I may not have red cats, but I have a beautiful picture.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I've stopped by and looked at that a number of times. It's the kind of photo that makes me want to stick my head in and look round the edges to see what else is there - it's a great shot. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You are my guide to diplomacy ;) - The design wasn't by me but by another member of the [insert polite word], forgot the name and have no time to dig it up, - bright colours outside, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Boing, thanks for that edit[8] which allowed you to have the presentation you wanted without cluttering the cleanup list.
I'm sorry, but I am not going to start routinely opening a dialogue very time something like this needs fixing. There are usually about 20 user-space pages in every 3 day update among every 3-day update of Special:WantedCategories and when there a big backlog as now there are many more (90% of user-space issues are WP:USERNOCAT: userpages or sandboxes in redlined mainspace cats). I do the same thing in each case: fix the prob with an edit summary explaining why, and move on. About 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 such edits gets a thanks notification from the editor; a tiny proportion (maybe 1 in 50 or 100) objects as you did; and the rest make no response. So it's vastly less time-consuming to come back and explain to the v few who object. Sorry that's not as chatty as I'd like or as you want, but Special:WantedCategories grows on average by ~ 80–120 items a day and is currently backlogged by ~2500 entries ... so the only way to clear it faster than it grows is to work fast, using explanatory edit summaries rather than hundreds of dialogues. I'm glad there is win-win solution here.
Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I recall previous discussions about red cats on user pages, but I do not remember a policy or consensus forbidding them. As it happens, I don't think it's important enough to argue over (especially as we have a compromise that's seems to suit everyone). But for my education, could you please point me to the policy or consensus that forbids red cats on user pages? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:REDNOT: A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists. Long discussions never produced a consensus to change that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
That's good enough for me, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:REDNOT is a guideline, not policy. There are also guidelines about changing other users' userpages. I firmly believe that no editor has the right to remove a non-existent cat from a userpage. They are of course free to notify the editor of WP:REDNOT. If the editor chooses to remove the cat, that's up to them. If not, the only thing the wants-to-remove editor can do is bring the issue to ANI, which I predict would be a complete waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The guideline about changing other users' userpages is WP:NOBAN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Folks, personally I'm fine going along with the guideline. The removal was done in good faith and there's a workaround that I'm happy with, and I honestly don't think it's worth arguing about. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Happy to see that after a bike ride. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
How did you know I've just been on a bike ride? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Mkv22 Comment

Sorry for being not helpful. Was feeling overly snippy after reading through the various conversations. Zchrykng (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it's understandable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

I was wondering if you could offer a bit of oversight on my ANI

Apologies if this is not the ideal/correct medium of contacting you. The user Hijiri 88, has gotten himself involved in my ANI (viewable here) and has made a number of accusations and assertions that I feel are unhelpful, not in line with WP's principles and are generally obnoxious. While I accept being at fault for a number of edits I made and the manner in which they made; I feel bigoted assertions about my nationality, topics of previous talk page discussions, unsubstantiated assertions about my beliefs and conspiracy theories are irrelevant to the discussion and would damage the ability to have a fair judgement regarding my ANI. When you are available, would you be able to offer your opinions on this ANI as well as judge if Hijiri 88's comments are legitimate points for an ANI? Brough87 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Boing, note that the above editor appears to have contacted you based exclusively on your nationality, as they have never interacted with you and clearly don't know anything about my prior interactions with you (which were all positive -- why would he contact you if he were trying to get me in trouble?). I have no idea how he knew you were British -- I didn't, it doesn't apparently say so on your user page, and I had to search your talk archives to verify what I suspected to be the case based on your having received the above message. (User:Zzuuzz was contacted in a similar manner, but their user page is in Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom, and they have indirectly interacted with Brough on several occasions.) It's entirely possible that this is not about getting me in trouble but merely about canvassing editors who he feels might !vote a particular way. Admin-shopping based on the ethnicity/nationality of the admin is pretty slimey and was one of the reasons this guy got indeffed.
Anyway, I've had just about enough of this editor's deflection, IDHT and off-topic personal attacks, so I'd rather have nothing more to do with this whole affair. I may identify as both Irish and Celtic, and know more about the history here than the average Wikipedian, but I rarely edit Wikipedia articles on it and don't really care to get too involved. Editors whose user page include the "This user is a nationalist" userbox and whose edits seem to denigrate other nationalities their self-identified nationality has historically conflicted with just really need to be treated with care. (Edit-warring over one's assertion that the Irish are a "Germanic people" is clearly unacceptable, though.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Want to be unblocked

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. I'm User:MegaCyanide666 was blocked for abusing socks long ago. I'm only commenting because I've lost access to my accounts and don't remember the password. I hope this comment won't be taken against me because I don't know of any other choice.

I've shifted my internet connection since then so you might not recognize me. Since then, I did edit Wikipedia often and I honestly did create a few accounts whose passwords I forgot. But I haven't been editing for the past many months. I'll like to get back on Wikipedia however I don't remember any password of any account. I hope after so much time I can be forgiven. if you could help me in recovering the password or letting me create a new account if I can't access it any more. Thank you. 210.56.124.130 (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Also tagging Dennis Brown for transparency. 210.56.124.130 (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that was a long time ago - nearly six years. I don't think commenting here as an IP should be held against you in the circumstances, as you sound like you're being honest about it and not engaging in any deceptive block evasion. I'm very much a believer in giving people second chances, especially after such a long time. I'm probably going to be busy for the rest of the day, but I'll give some thought to this as soon as I can. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. But I can't access my account nor remember the password, so what should I do? 210.56.124.130 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure right now - leave it with me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. My new broadband, well comparatively new, stops working sometimes and I usually only access net once a day. So it might take a lot of time for me to respond. Please do let me know when you make a decision, and thanks again for helping. See you. 210.56.124.130 (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought of this. Can accounts be merged? If not, you can allow me to create an account and tag MC666 as my sock. Except the main one, I don't even remember any other account now. Besides my work schedule isn't regular, so the sooner I can plan the best time, the better. Hope I don't sound like I'm rushing you. 210.56.127.78 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Please be patient - I have a couple of other Wikipedia matters that need my attention first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing I was pinged because of my blocking of the sock User:ThePariahOne and my participation in the original case. I think the Standard Offer applies here, and my suggestion would be to log in to the original account and make a request that can be pasted to WP:AN or WP:ANI. (without prejudice to the fact that you are technically violating policy here: like Boing, I understand this limited engagement.) I recommend WP:AN, which is a slower, more deliberative board, but the choice is yours. If I'm giving advice, I would advice not asking to combine accounts (we can't do that), and I would advise to volunteer to restrict yourself to a single account for 12 months. Also, you need to fully address the reasons for the block, accept responsibility, and briefly explain how you will avoid future issues, as well as what you expect to edit if you are unblocked. I have no opinion on unblocking at this time, this is just advice on how to proceed and have a snowball's chance at success. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi Dennis, the problem is he hasn't got his original password any more. I was going to have a word with you and see if you'd support unblocking the original account per SO, and then he can create a new account which should be linked to the old one. I was thinking you and I can decide this, being the blocking admins (the only other one has retired) rather than having to drag it through AN? After all, it's been quite a long time and it was only a bit of silly vandalism rather than any longer-term problem. What do you think? (I agree with your other conditions.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I haven't had time to fully investigate to the degree I would like, and yes, that was some time ago. There were some CIR concerns but that might have been age or immaturity. Since socking is at play, I would prefer (but not require) that a CU take a peek. I would require linking the new account to the old if we aren't using the original master account. A 1 minute block with the proper summary is a pretty effective way to put it in the log, as is putting it on the user page for at least one year. Not trying to be hard, but I do think the first year needs a higher level of accountability, then if all goes well in a year, we can brush off the restrictions. Otherwise, I would defer to your judgement, particularly since you are really the blocking admin, I was just cleaning up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks Dennis. I'm not sure CU would help much as the old accounts are stale, and I am impressed that he's come back and asked here when he could have just started a new account with little chance of detection. I agree with a probationary 12-month period, with linking of accounts and with a 1-minute block for the log. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I would have made a request from my account had I been able top access it but I have lost the password and there's no email if I remember right. That's why I commented seeing as you are personally acquainted of the kinds of actions I did. When I asked for account mergers it was on the ground if there was any other way for you to open access to my account and people know some of the edits I made. Hope you didn't misunderstand why I asked it.

I did vandalize, edit-war sometimes and evaded blocks both for editing and abusing you in the past. I usually edited video games and related mass-medium in the past and would likely do so again. I will avoid any instances of my past bad behaviour. I won't create any accounts, so hopefully you trust me. 150.129.199.152 (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll lift the sock block on User:MegaCyanide666 and then re-block as password lost with a talk page comment, which should clear the record for a restart, if you'll accept these conditions:
  • Only 1 account for a minimum of 12 months.
  • You tell me the new account here, and you declare on its userpage that it's a fresh start from MegaCyanide666 - I'd be happy to add a comment confirming it.
  • For the record, I'd log a one-minute block on the new account to state the MegaCyanide666 connection.
  • You consider yourself under probation for 12 months from the start of the new account, and accept that any bad behaviour could lead to an indefinite block.
  • After 12 months, all these restrictions would expire and you'd be as free as any other editor.
Let me know if you're happy with this and I'll make it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I've done it. I wanted to edit when I got the time. When I remembered my accounts, I thought of taking the risk and coming out clean. I'm not going to repeat any of my old behaviour as that will be suicidal. I've created a new account and declared of being MC666 who was blocked for edit-warring and abusing and that I later socked, but have lost access. Thank you. DraculatheDragon (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
No need to restore the talk page, as I remembered people can see it from history page. I just have one question though: Why are you asking me to edit from one account for 12 months? I don't understand the condition as it is already illegal to use more than one, so of course I can't use it. DraculatheDragon (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, that's all done and you're ready to go. Wikipedia does actually allow the use of more than one account, provided they're linked and used for legitimate purposes. For example, User:Boing! on Tour is also mine and I've explained there and have linked the accounts. But when someone has had problems with multiple accounts, it's fairly standard to ask them to restrict themselves to just one for 12 months - though most editors never really find the need for more than one account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

Do you know why this edit that I thought I had revdeled is still visible? It seems impervious to deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you'd rev-deleted one revision, but you hadn't actually removed any of the content from it - so whatever was originally there was still there in subsequent revisions. I removed the email accusation and then rev-deleted several revisions, and it looks OK to me now with the deleted revisions appearing deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Ashley Holliday

better you than me.-- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Perceived_Legal_Threat_Daniel_Ashley_Holliday-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Place this

I was trying to place the following on my original account: "This account has been abandoned due to loss of password. I can now be found at User:DraculatheDragon." But an edit filter has prevented me because I'm not the same user. I wanted to place it so people know I've created a new one. Can you do it if it's permissible? DraculatheDragon (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your attention to my questions and for unblocking me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCVPYR (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Special:Longpages redirects

Mind restoring Longest article? Long story short, I compiled a list some time ago, i.e. User:Godsy/R to special, so I notice when this subset of redirects turn red; Longest article went though Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 15#Longest article → Wikipedia:Longest Wikipedia Article and was deleted. At some point it was recreated or restored. More recently, Longest Wikipedia Article went through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 4#Longest Wikipedia Article and was kept. Might as well have one as the other; I am content with either both existing or having a joint rfd discussion on the matter. Best regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, curious. As there's been a keep consensus for a similar one, I reckon that overrides a speedy, so I've restored it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MegaCyanide666&oldid=841336005

The user that tagged also has a lot of revdels in their history. Not sure of the significance, I don't have time to research, as I'm literally out the door to go see the doctor. I do think you might want to review this before taking action above, as it looks fishy, and might be worth a CU review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Pinging Berean Hunter and/or DoRD as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • User:DraculatheDragon is his new account, which is the one I approved, and it's all linked up properly - the SPI looks like it was a mistake. Someone might want to check User:Nigos, but I can't see them as being related to the SPI subject. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • DraculatheDragon does not appear to be socking. Nigos is formerly known as Anchorvale and appears to have an undeclared alt account, Niggs09. It should be labeled as required by WP:VALIDALT.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks all. The SPI / CSD was an odd enough event (as well as the timing) I'm sure you can understand why that raised a red flag. Good to know all is clear. I've left a note on Nigos's talk page pointing him here, and reminding him that he needs to declare any alt accounts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I got reported for the same account that exists only because I don't have any access to any other? DraculatheDragon (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
          • It's nothing to worry about - someone just misunderstood your restart with your new account, that's all. And they've even apologized at your talk page for the mistake. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Not worrying. But upset. I declared it and thought it as a risk to come back and be honest. Didn't expect this to happen. DraculatheDragon (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
              • Honestly, it's really nothing to be upset about! It was a simple mistake, which people do make. Just forget about it, and carry on with your renewed enthusiasm :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
              • What Boing said. The request to delete popped up on my talk page because I started the SPI, so I had to go check it, and because of the timing, I had to ask someone to look. I wasn't accusing you, but had I not asked for a check, it could have arguably been negligence on my part. This won't affect you going forward, I have no reservations with you being unblocked. Anytime anyone tries to delete any SPI, we take a closer look, this was just an ironic set of circumstances. Again, you didn't do anything, you have nothing to worry about, go enjoy editing and do good things :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
                • Sure, like I will believe someone can get suspicious over an SPI of an account already declared to be created because of loss of access to the original one, but still reported as a sock of it. Not to mention the again uncalled for suspicion on the guy who reported me. I don't have time for your impolite and bad-faith behaviour. You didn't even want me here despite me requesting, it was only because Boing was magnanimous to forget the past.
                • You didn't even admit your mistake. Some admins need to be polite and admitting of their mistake. I am going away as I can't be among those who won't be truthful and don't let go of the past grudges, and also because I really don't have time to edit. If any admin wants to block my editing please do. I'll be mentioning I'm retiring on my user page nonetheless. I won't be responding. DraculatheDragon (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • DraculatheDragon, you are blowing this up out of all proportion and becoming disruptive, which does not look good for your return. You are on 12 months probation, remember, and it was fine for Dennis to suggest a quick check here seeing as I was the unblocking admin. Just drop it and move on now. I do not want to see any further replies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine Sunday

I liked to read that phrase, on ANI of all places, and thank you with the music we sang today, and which happens to be on the Main page by happy coincidence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I have to confess I don't know it - an omission I must rectify. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
That's what DYK is for ;) - Most people don't know it because most churches don't have 2 organs, but French larger ones obviously often have them. Our conductor said in his explanation that we don't have a choir organ yet, and a great musician played both parts on one. He also said that the choir organ in Saint-Sulpice is about the size of our great organ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted articles on hotel barges

Hi Zebedee I was discouraged for 5 months by the speedy deletions you performed (with Atlantic306) on my hotel barge articles. I would ask you please to reconsider these in the light of the following: 1. I have made many meaningful and in some cases extensive edits to many pages on the general subject of French and international waterways. There is much more that I could do, both on English and French pages, but doing so would be much more gratifying if I were given Autopatrolled status. That's what I would like to work towards. 2. Like most contributors (hopefully!) I am active within the subject sector, and that means that in some cases I get paid for editorial content. What I have been paid for includes being the author/editor of the most authoritative hardback book on the subject of French waterways, being an acknowledged waterways consultant and being president of Inland Waterways International. I am also a provider of maps and expertise to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 3. This professional activity, partly paid for, part voluntary (IWI) necessarily involves being very familiar with many aspects of river and canal navigation, including tourism aspects. It is a part of my professional role to act as a conduit to disseminate accurate information and opinion, but that in itself is not a paid role. 4. I am not writing solely 'on behalf of (i.e to promote) any organisation'. Acting personally and independently I have already created, corrected or edited some 70 Wikipedia pages detailing the rivers and canals of France. It's a matter of pride and enthusiasm that such pages should (a) be created and (b) be correct. 5. I am now similarly engaged in editing and correcting pre-existing Wikipedia pages about hotel barges in France and adding to that pre-existing number so as to provide a comprehensive non-selective view of this entire sector of French waterway tourism. It's a matter of personal as well as (marginal, incidental) professional interest. The more pages, the less any one barge stands out. I edited and completed the list on the Hotel Barge page, but the intention is to add barges only when the link to the individual barge page can be entered. Each barge is distinctive and notable by virtue of its history, its fitting out and the nature of the product offered to clients. I would underline that there is worldwide interest in this form of 'slow tourism', so the pages will be read. 6. My content focuses on the factual nature and technicalities of the vessel and also includes information about the barge from a current operational and tourism perspective. Hotel barging forms as small but measurable element in the French tourism sector, from an economic point of view. Links and references included are non-exclusive or discriminatory, moderately covering key sources and aspects. 7. In many respects, as commercial products, hotel barges differ little from bricks and mortar hotels, of which there are many subject Wikipedia pages, both for the hotels individually and the corporations behind hotel groups. [1] This is an entirely legitimate subject of public interest and should not be the object of 'financial gain' scrutiny, which I would respectfully suggest does not stand up in this instance. Thank you in advance for considering. This needs to be resolved so that we can move on, in the interests of many people and organisations active in this field. David-waterways (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi David-waterways, I confess I don't recall what this is about right now - I've been involved in a lot of deletions in the past five months. I'm also going to be busy for the next couple of days, but after that I'll check up on these articles and try to suggest a way forward. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hotels

Thank you for considering. I look forward to feedback. I'm also referring this to Atlantic 306, as it was he who told me I'd need action by you as Delete Admin. David-waterways (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi again @David-waterways: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've now had a look at this, and the only two articles I can see were Grand Cru (barge) and Finesse (barge). But I restored them to User:David-waterways/Grand Cru (barge) and User:David-waterways/Finesse (barge) in November after you asked me on my talk page at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 29#Barge articles, and I made a few comments there which I hope should help you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk for an Article deletion

Dear sir

As i published the article on wikipedia about Anshul Sharma Can you please tell me the reason why you deleted that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It was for speedy deletion reason WP:A7, "No indication of importance". Wikipedia is not a social network where we can just write about ourselves, it is an encyclopedia (click that link if you're not sure what one of those is) and only carries articles about notable topics. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, you would need to satisfy the notability requirements described at WP:NPERSON. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

vanish

How do you choose the alphanumeric.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

By bashing the keyboard with my fist :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It sometimes seems that some people adopt that approach for supposedly meaningful edits, too. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there. I'm a newer user here who tries to rollback vandalism. I don't know how to handle a situation like this, but the user Serols reverted a warning I posted after he made a mistake rolling back my edit on List of environmental disasters. He then posted two false warnings about unconstructive edits on my talk page, and reverted a nice note I left on his talk page. I want to report that user, and I'm not sure if that's a fine idea. I would greatly appreciate any help. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Dolfinz1972: Making a new section titled "Watch out, bro" isn't particularly constructive. It is best to assume good faith. Also, it isn't the best idea to delete warnings from your page, even if you are 100% they are wrong, have a discussion with the editor who placed them there, and let them strike/remove them if they believe it is appropriate. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 18:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

JuanRiley, long-time stalker and block evader

I'm afraid that I'm being stalked by an editor that has been blocked since November 10, 2016 by the name of JuanRiley (you blocked him [9]). Even after being blocked this editor began creeping up on the talk page of his blocked account, then eventually mine twice one in May 15 and this one being recent as of today. And if you look at these IP's they all begin with "75.161." and they all come from New Mexico [10][11][12]. This is really worrisome because apart that he was a troublesome editor, more than anyone I or anyone had dealt with, the fact that this editor has always been stalking my edits and talk page to a personal level even after being blocked is really frightening. (N0n3up (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC))

Break

Folks, I need a break from Wikipedia again, so I'm going to be off for a while and not watching. Apologies to anyone who has contacted me above and not had an answer - please ask another admin if you really need help (and any watchers are welcome to comment.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

-. .. --. --. . .-.

I don't think -. .. --. --. . .-. was recent enough for R3... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I judged it as within admin discretion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Kbb2

If you read the comments, you'll see what has happened. I can block his main account and unblock the new account, but I'd rather find a way to keep the old account and its history. Unfortunately, the user cannot reset his password because he did not associate an e-mail address with it. Is there a way you could rename Mr KEBAB and provide the user with a temporary password that he can then use to log in and change. I realize he'd have to be willing to provide you with an e-mail address, but if he were, is it doable? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Based on Boing!'s post at the very bottom, would you mind taking a look at this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened

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/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Marplesmustgo

I suppose you have forgotten about me. At no stage have you answered the idea that (a) a Test series is a discrete event, not like an endless series of matches in a football championship, but an event in itself; (b) that there have only been about 800-or-so Test series in history, from the start of Test cricket in 1877; (c) that, once South Africa had swept aside apartheid in c.1992, Test cricket resumed in South Africa and in the next 10 years or so there were 11 Test series that, (d) are the only Test series in history that have no Wikipedia page but instead a redirect to History of cricket in South Africa from 1990–91 to 2000.

I can see no reason why creating the relevant pages is objected to. And you have given no legitimate reason not to create them.

Once you give a legitimate reason for this, I will yield. Until then - answer.Marplesmustgo (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Further to this, those who know cricket have created Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1993–94 - have not just created it but added every match, and given every Test match its details and due - without a single disparaging word from me - it is almost as if you know bugger all about it, tried to restrict knowledge from Wikipedia that was not in your grasp, but others cognisant of cricket added it instead. Perhaps you would not censor Wikipedia when it comes to a sport you know nothing about? Perhaps you might go away entirely? Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I just need to request you that please delete page User talk:Misser Boss as the reason of criteria G6. We don't need that page any more. Thank you. 182.77.106.183 (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have now seen this sort of request being made on three different occasions; on my talk page, on Neil's, and now here. Does anyone know what's going on? Vanamonde (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
If you look at the pages that link to the talk page 9 admins have been asked to delete this talk page. ~ GB fan 12:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
We do not need that page. 182.77.106.183 (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't delete usually user talk pages. This has been declined multiple times. Stop asking for it to be deleted. ~ GB fan 18:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

He didn’t stop but tried my patience too, so I blocked them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Kudpung/What do admins do?

Hi Boing. I would really appreciate if you could take a moment to participate in this. Your comments would be particularly valuable. It's not an RfC or anything like that. It would only take 5 minutes of your time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I've been away from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks and didn't see the invitation above - I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Ta!. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Saudahmed66/Karachi Cambridge School

User:Saudahmed66/Karachi Cambridge School, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Saudahmed66/Karachi Cambridge School and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Saudahmed66/Karachi Cambridge School during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MB 20:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Saudahmed66/Karachi Cambridge School

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Saudahmed66/Karachi Cambridge School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://web.archive.org/web/20110228161056/http://www.kcs.edu.pk:80/profile.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)There seem(s) to be certain revisions, prior to Boing's supposed-creation which are currently mis-attributed in violation of RUD.∯WBGconverse 02:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee/Archive_31&oldid=1142899808"