User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

April 2016

Name change

Thanks for completing the task in my case! Roy Howard Mills (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

RE Vandalism

Hello, thank you for attending to this in a timely manner. I have been in a rather lengthy and heated exchange with a user, Bolter21, about Israeli and Palestinian 'issues'. I'm not surprised really. This user has since entered my personal talk page, so as it's not an Article Talk Page, I have expressed myself in a blunt manner. I'm not being abusive towards the person or even using foul language, but as a Military History buff, have pointed out some hard realities. I deal with the facts on the ground, not the stated Government agenda's or propaganda. I also realise that this is a sensitive subject. I even originally supported this editor, in their language barrier. But it is what it is.....I don't know if this attack was connected, but one could reasonably assume so, though proving that is another issue. I'm grateful for the assistance, and I have since finished my discourse with this person by expressing as such, that I'm done with it. I was going to contribute, possibly , to the articles on the Middle east, but for now I will not, considering...

Nürö G'däÿ 13:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I know how you feel - I keep well away from nationalist areas myself, as it's an impossible task to keep editors neutral when anyone can edit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: how do I archive my own talk page, out of curiosity..

Nürö G'däÿ 13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

For archiving, if you don't expect to have a lot to do then you could just create archive pages and cut and paste material manually. To do it automatically there are several ways, and I do it by putting the following at the top of my talk page...

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|counter = 23
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(15d)
|archive = User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive %(counter)d
}}

The "archive" and "counter" parameters mean it is currently archiving to User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 23, and the "algo" parameter makes it archive threads 15 days after their last comment. There are more options, including making it automatically increment the archive number when the current one gets above a certain size - it's explained at User:MiszaBot/config. To see how to create an archive box like the one I use, have a look at Template:Archive box. And if you want more options, Help:Archiving a talk page should be useful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Profile101

Hi Boing! Should I have put a different block notice at User talk:121.7.127.138? I just added {{IPsock}} to the userpage. For background: this is the Singaporean youth who was indeffed for CIR and socking and is now here every few days as an IP asking to unblock Profile101 in the third person. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That message seems fine to me - I tend not to bother with IPsock messages on userpages myself, but most people seem to do them. And yep, the Singaporean one - I've had a few visits from him here too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

moving pages

Thanks for the name change earlier - can you please advise how i go about moving the page i created under the previous name to the new name? Note the page is not published yet as it is being reviewed etc. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswright68 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. If you mean Draft:The Pubs Code Regulations 2016, then it's fine - if you look at the history, you'll see it's magically already created by your new username ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For kindly deleting a vandals userpage under G7 despite me obviously not being the author - It's nice to come across an admin who occasionally Ignores All Rules instead of one who follows every policy letter by letter!, I wish there was more admins like you to be honest!, Anyway thanks for all your contributions here aswell :) Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 21:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Davey2010: for your kind words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

article created

Thanks for restoring my account! May I restore my contribution to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V603_Aquilae without the risk to be blocked again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maropapa (talk • contribs) 08:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see the problem in that many would not consider your site to be a reliable source by the standards of WP:RS - meaning no offence to you, just that some sort of peer-reviewed source or scientific publication is usually needed for such things. Where did you get the information from? If you got it from the existence of the coin itself, then I think there would be similar doubts that the coin constitutes a reliable source (anyone could mint a coin making any unsubstantiated claim they wish - but maybe it would be sufficient evidence that he at least claimed to have seen it?) I can understand when you say there aren't any better sources - but the case then is usually that information is not included until such sources are found. Perhaps the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN might help? Perhaps we might be able to say that Laskowski made the claim to have seen it, but that official accreditation was given to Cook (although we could not speculate why)? I'm really not sure - but I don't think we can unequivocally say that Laskowski saw it first based solely on the existence of the coin. I'll also ping @JamesBWatson: who commented on your unblock, to see if he has any thoughts (as mine are starting to ramble a little). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• For reference, the contested addition...

Seen for the first time on the night of 7 June 1918 by Zygmunt Laskowski, a Polish amateur astronomer, who issued a commemorative medal celebrating his own discovery. His discovery might have been unknown or neglected to official authorities.

References

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Maropapa: I have looked at your website, and it does not look to me as though it satisfies Wikipedia's standards as a source. However, I have found a reliable source for the claim that Zygmunt Laskowski was the first to see Nova Aquilae 1918, namely the Proceedings of Colloquium 98 of the International Astronomical Union, so I have put that statement back in. I don't see a better source for the statement that he issued a commemorative medal, but frankly, even if we had solid and unimpeachable sources, I am unconvinced that the fact that he chose to produce a vanity medal to commemorate his own discovery is significant enough information in relation to the nova to warrant being included in the article about it. It might or might not be significant enough in relation to Zygmunt Laskowski for inclusion in the article about him on Polish Wikipedia: that is a matter for Polish Wikipedia, not for us. (Incidentally, I don't see any source at all for the statement that Zygmunt Laskowski issued the medal himself: not even your site says that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, nice piece of work! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:Thanks guys for restoring my trust in Wikipedia. I really appreciate your work, as you helped to clarify this issue. I don't have access to the Proceedings you mentioned. If you don't mind I am going to reference it in my page also. To be honest it is hard to be a validated source of astronomical coins and medals if you are left alone with this work on the planet. If you want to be a validator, please don't hesitate to join to me. Do you think that the image of the medal, without a link to my pages, is also problematic? I ask it because for me it really a trouble that I don't fined medal images on Wikipedia. E.g. I have a medal depicting astronomer Janssen, but I cannot decide if it is a Janssen Prize, of a Janssen Medal. Both exist, both bears the same portrait but there are other information on the medal that makes it impossible for me to find the answer. An image would simly solve the problem.

Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge

Osman Gazi Bridge is the new name of Izmit Bay Bridge. Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge is the name of the Third Bosporus Bridge. Thank you for renaming.--Ex13 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Also one article: Turkey’s new mammoth bridge named after founder of Ottoman Empire--Ex13 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I understand, thanks for the explanation - that's an impressive bridge! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

WP:UAA

Hello and thank you for notifying me on my mistake.I will promise that it wont be repeated again.I think it was user created username in my life i had never known about that type of ip address.Sorry once again .Bivek bhattarai (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of IP talk page

Can you delete two IP talk pages User talk:123.136.106.97 and User talk:123.136.106.206? Thank you.Destiny Leo (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420

Can you please point out which diffs you're considering edit warring because I'm not seeing it. Especially the part where User:RexxS is making the same type of personal attacks they claim an exemption for in WP:TPG here. Calling Spacecowboy420 a vandal is no different than saying RexxS is hounding. The exemption doesn't apply if RexxS is reverting one personal attack for another.--v/r - TP 18:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Hi TP.

I saw this as editing warring in the wider context of animal cruelty (which is what I think we should be looking at) of Spacecowboy420's recent disputes. But, as always when it comes to my admin actions, if you think I am mistaken you are very welcome to revert my judgment as you see fit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'd make the same call, but that edit does add a bit of clarity to your thoughts. I think it brings me from "wtf is he doing" to "okay, I guess, maybe". I'm still uncomfortable with it, but not enough to make a stink.--v/r - TP 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and I appreciate your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TParis, I changed the talk page section title from "User:RexxS WP:HOUNDING" to "User:Spacecowboy420 WP:VANDAL" once to make a point and I've apologised for that. I then changed the title to "Removal of sourced material". User:Spacecowboy420 placed "User:RexxS WP:HOUNDING" into the title on three separate occasions [1], [2], [3], the last one even after I'd removed my pointy edit. Go on, take a look at it, and tell me that's not edit-warring to restore a personal attack. Now look at his edits at Rodeo and Eight Belles and tell me that edit-warring isn't his preferred means of imposing his POV on articles. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have since commented in a non-admin way and so I can take no further admin action, but I would think it hard for any disinterested observer to disagree with with RexxS's thoughts here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't count as a "disinterested observer" and unsurprisingly, I really have some issues with the whole way this editing block was dealt with. I will explain myself here, rather than ANI (unless requested) as I would prefer a discrete discussion, rather than the general mud slinging that ANI has the possibility of providing.

1. Edit warring. The link you gave was to a revert that I made twice, within 48 hours. The other editor (Montanabw) made the same amount of reverts in a slightly shorter time period, but wasn't blocked. If my block was for edit warring, then don't the rules apply equally to all editors? And seriously, blocked for reverting twice in 48h and then taking it to the talk page, that's an extremely harsh response to two reverts.

2. Involving yourself in a non-admin way, and saying that you can't take further action. Intentionally or not, that's not a great way to deal with things. I appreciate the advice you gave on that particular content, but unless we are discussing that particular content, I see no reason for distancing yourself from this. I'm sure you're aware that admins are quite unlikely to overturn bans made by other admins unless there is something really really wrong.

3."Blocks should not be punitive" - I'd already stated that I just wanted to get away from those articles and wished to avoid those other editors, and I had taken it to the talk page, so I'm really not sure what point there was in blocking me, apart from appeasing a couple of long standing editors, which leads me to...

4. It's pretty obvious that all involved in the little drama last week, were making about as many reverts as each other to articles and talk pages, yet I'm the one hit with the block. I see no major difference between Montanabw's, RexxS' and my edits on the articles in question, the only difference in they have been here for years, while I have not.

5. There were other issues on ANI that were being discussed, it's hard to believe that the block for edit warring was not given, because a block regarding the alleged personal attack given in the talk page title, would have required a block to be given to the other editor, who did exactly the same. Again, new editor/old editor issues.

6. In short, while I'm sure the blocking admin acted in good faith, and does a great job here, blocking me for 2 reverts in 48 hours was really harsh, especially when other editors did exactly the same and their actions were ignored. I would like to request for the block to be removed from my block history, or a 10 second block with an edit summary explaining that the block was previous incorrect. (as has been done for editors in the past) either way, I will have no ill-feeling over this, and whatever the response to my above comments are, I have no intention of being involved in any further drama with the other involved editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thoughts - I appreciate them. My intention was to head off any possible escalation of what was looking a little heated, and it did look to me as if it was you who was not following the WP:BRD recommendations (only an essay, but it's pretty much used as standard practice), although I accept it might have been a little harsh. I'd have been happy to support an unblock on an indication that the issue would progress by discussion first. As for "Involving yourself in a non-admin way, and saying that you can't take further action. Intentionally or not, that's not a great way to deal with things", I did consider that and you may be right - but I honestly thought I could do better by looking at the actual content disagreement and offering my opinion, and I would have certainly have responded to an unblock request and could at least have recommended its acceptance. Anyway, the overall outcome seems reasonable now, and I thank you for your kind words in closing - please always feel free to contact me here if I can be of any help with anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for your response, having my points considered and responded to is more than enough for me. Besides, I know that a lot of this was caused by my tendency to be stubborn, so I can't complain too much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the correction to the ANI Close. It is much appreciated :)-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I do come over all pedantic from time to time ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for fast and kindly helping. If you need any help from me. Do not hesitate to contact. I glad to help if you need.

Best regards, Narong Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngernlarn (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

إليك وساما!

	وسام الاجتهاد
	tnx football 19:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't often get thanked for deleting pages, but thanks for the thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Mt St Patrick College Edit

Hi, I added the school mascot as Marc Lionnet and the headmaster as Paul Clohesy and the edit was removed. I did this while some other users were vandalizing the page, so i can see that it may have also been considered vandalism. However, my nephew goes to the school and i noticed that some information on the page was wrong so i changed it. Could i please change the mascot back to Marc Lionnet and the headmaster back to Mr. Paul Clohesy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbuHajaar (talk • contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not doubting your nephew's honesty, but so many school pupils have vandalized so many school articles with false claims (and "jokes") in the past that we really do need some sources of evidence - especially, as you can see, with this school article having attracted recent vandalism.

I see from the school's website that Paul Clohesy is indeed the headmaster, so I have added that back for you, with a reference (I've actually named him as "Principal" as that is the term the school uses).

I can see from here that Marc Lionnet is a member of staff, but I can find nothing to suggest he is the school "mascot". A school mascot is usually a fictional character and not a real person, so I'm really not sure I even understand the suggestion, and that's what made me think it was probably a schoolboy prank - are you sure your nephew understands what a mascot is? Also, a Google search for the word "mascot" on the school site finds no hits at all.

So, including Paul Clohesy as principal is fine (and, as I say, I have done it), but we can not include the unsupported claim that Marc Lionnet is the school mascot. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Nonbusiness and Non business

@BDD:

I realize that both of you have deference to delete Neelix redirects, and I realize that the nominator declared it "nonsense", but the term was definitely not nonsense. Had the nominator put literally any effort at all in a Google search, he would've found plenty of reliable sources. Here are just a few off of Google Books: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and more

The redirects were not nonsense at all. While I personally believed a re-targetting to State income tax#Nonbusiness income was more appropriate due believing that the the latter is the primary topic, but nonprofit organization was a perfectly valid target. I have created new redirects to State income tax#Nonbusiness income to replace the old ones, but that being said, I bring this to your attention because "Nonbusiness organization" also exists and I'm afraid it will be speedily deleted as well if I didn't clear up the validity of the term. Feedback 23:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I've been deleting a number of these redirects of late, and I'm happy to accept that a few of them might be mistakes. Anyone is always welcome to revert my actions (in this case either by undeleting or by recreating), so thank you for doing that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm blushing...

But thanks through my blushes. It's nice to be appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, 'tis but the truth, and a pleasure to point it out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Boaxy

Hello, I noticed that you had extended Boaxy's block to one week due to his personal attacking/harassment. While I do wish this user in question would learn the difference between his definition of what he calls "homophobia" and reverting unsourced material, however, you may need to keep an eye on him for awhile, as I have caught him ranting on his Reddit thread about this, where one user suggested that I should be reported for violating Wikipedia policy because they think that I was reverting everything Boaxy had added that was LGBT-related.

I apologize if I might sound like a long rant, but this whole drama started last year when Boaxy attempted to add several LGBT categories to some of the Sailor Moon articles. His reason for adding them was because he believed that the five primary characters in that series were LGBT, and that the entire series dealt with LGBT-related issues, which it did not have either. There were no greater than two characters in the series that were LGBT, and they do not appear 90% of the entire series (only for one season). Except for when two of the characters (Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune) appeared in either the original 1992 series or in the remake, the series never at any given point dealt with LGBT issues 90% of the time; only for a few episodes. As a result of these factors, many editors disagreed with Boaxy's interpretation of the categories and tried reverting them, but Boaxy kept edit warring to include the categories and attacked people - including myself - who disagreed with him, and was also insisting that Wikipedia should be "politically correct." The discussions on the main article's talk page all concluded that LGBT was not a main theme of the series, and Boaxy started throwing temper tantrums. His conduct later resulted in him being topic banned from editing any Sailor Moon-related articles.

For awhile, it seemed that Boaxy got the point until he tried doing this again on Unfinished Business (2015 film), adding an LGBT category to a film/TV/anime article all because one character is gay. Initially, I just simply reverted the edit because it was unsourced. Afterwards, I logged out of Wikipedia and I thought nothing of it. But during the time that I was away, Boaxy added the category again, claiming that it wasn't "original research," when it was. At that point, some unknown IP (whose IP address changed every day, that when I traced them, originated from near Chicago) stepped in and reverted Boaxy's addition, but Boaxy edit warred over the category's inclusion, in which I noticed that he had logged out and used an IP sock to mask himself (though he claimed once that it was just his mobile app logging him out, however, I digress). At one point, Boaxy finally added a source, but the IP reverted it when he found that it was not verifiable, as it had originated from an unreliable source. Boaxy decided to escalate it further. At that point, out of complete curiosity, I logged back into WP after not being on for a few days where I found that Boaxy had been edit warring over the inclusion of the category. All I did to put a stop to the war was report Boaxy to the admins' noticeboard. While it seemed that Boaxy had not violated any rules in that incident prior to this point, however, his topic ban had set a precedent; that any sort of genre/category he adds must be backed by a verifiable source, and that any reversion of his edits are not "homophobic," regardless if what he adds relates to LGBT-related topics or not.

If you're wondering why Boaxy (also known as "JazzyFusion" on Reddit) resorted to attacking me on Reddit, it happened because someone there started a thread discussing the time that I had reported Boaxy for edit warring on Unfinished Business. Boaxy saw it, and went on a viral rampage. Initially, I ignored his initial rant on Reddit because there was no point in reading it...until I noticed that he called me out in the thread, claiming that I'm "on some homophobic agenda" when this has nothing to do with homophobia at all. When I saw that, I placed a big warning on his profile warning him about personally attacking me and his conduct, and that he would be reported if he attacked me again.

Which leads us to the current situation that unfolded several days ago.

I am not being homophobic and I'm not hounding this user; I'm just simply enforcing the rules (despite that I'm not an admin), which applies to everybody and every user on Wikipedia regardless of his/her sexuality. Personally, if you ask me, I was in the same boat as Boaxy was, myself; I used to add things that were unsourced while I was on my old account, but I learned a few years back that articles that were too fan-oriented would not last because it took reliable sources to keep an article on Wikipedia. It was very sobering, but I'm glad I learned my lesson there.

Sorry, once again, if I was ranting this to you. I was just explaining to you what happened, and to ask you to keep an eye out if Boaxy tries to report me when I hadn't done anything wrong, myself. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

--Loyalmoonie (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Chris

Sorry Loyalmoonie, I thought I'd replied here. I'll keep out of any content disagreement myself, but will keep my eye open for any further personal attacks. And no, of course, I've seen no sign of homophobia at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Loyalmoonie: The personal attacks continued after the block expired, so I have now indef-blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblocking

Then please guide me what should I do.

Thanks and Regards Ahmad Siddiquekhurram (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you mean User:Wikipediaibs, please respond at User talk:Wikipediaibs and answer my question there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant comments

Since your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revisit_of_User:SwisterTwister.27s_reviewing_issues is both incorrect and irrelevant to the discussion, I wonder if you might remove it (and the responses to it), or grant me permission to do the same. —swpb^T 15:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And you're an admin? —swpb^T 15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Rather a syntactic and semantic response  ;) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and for taking an interest in my situation!

Thank you for your help and for taking an interest in my situation (which was not nearly as dire as I thought)!

There are a few more details (and a lot more thanks) on my talk page. Thanks again! Gaussgauss (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/188.223.187.130

Would you change block settings to the IP? Because the IP blanked User talk:188.223.187.130 seven times. 123.136.107.222 (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Users, even IPs, are allowed to blank their own talk pages - it's taken as confirmation that they've read them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

most welcome feast of joy

pictured (not the bird, the music below), - more fun than being called to ANI, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The bird is quite pretty too ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I praised the authors. Would love to hear that organ some day. What do you think about the ANI thread? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to confess I haven't read it, sorry - I only occasionally drop into ANI these days, and I tend to avoid threads that already have lots of words in them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Understand fully, - "lots of words" is a rather precise summary of the problem. I never look at ANI, but my name was mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

concerns about a user/user talk page...

I noticed you posted a warning on XXEpicnessKingxX's talk page. I am concerned that this particular editor is probably a minor/in Middle School and has posted personally-identifiable information on their user page (emails, social media accounts, etc - see user talk page edits. Do these edits need to be rev-del'ed/whatever or are they left alone? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I've rev-deleted the appropriate revisions and I've left them a note. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Heading

May 2016[edit] Information icon Hello, I'm Boing! said Zebedee. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Orange County Public Schools has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal information[edit] Hi. Just a note that, if you are still of school age, it is inadvisable to disclose any personal information on Wikipedia that could identify you in real life. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, how may I go to the sandbox?

1. bestadminever :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXEpicnessKingxX (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@XXEpicnessKingxX: The sandbox is at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you look at the message that Boing! said Zebedee left on your talk page, the blue text that says "sandbox" is a link to the sandbox. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the general Wikipedia sandbox. You can also use your own personal sandbox - at the very top of any page, in the line that shows your username and the log in/out link, you should find a "Sandbox" link which takes you to it (The first time it will probably be a red link but you can still click it and then create the page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

What did Zebedee say?

He said "Boing!", didn't he? Linuxmintbeak (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Linuxmintbeak: Yes; yes he did. And what do you say? Quack? 😉 _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 05:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Duck flying around), like Donald Duck LOL. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Agljones&diff=690584916&oldid=690191327 142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) No, that is personal information requiring oversight. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did he leave the message for himself? In any case, it was last November!_Muffled ^Pocketed 15:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is also more than six months old. ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What they said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Kerry Blue Terrier - History Submission

Zebedee, Father of Apostles James & John, husband of Salome! Wow!

My namesake was an Apostle and I don't like him or his legacy either. I looked up Boing! in the Urban Dictionary. Surprise! It has sexual connotations.

Regarding my submission, it happens to be factual. You deleted the wrong History section which I left untouched! The History section already on the KBT web page is pure fiction that has been repeated so many times by so many copyists that it is more-or-less accepted as fact. It is garbage and should have been removed long ago! A Gadhar is a Kerry Beagle and everyone knows what a Beagle looks like. A Beagles does NOT look like Kerry Blue Terrier no matter how much you squint!

You must keep in mind that writers of dog books and articles get the actual breeders/exhibitors to send the information that they reformat and print. The breeders are like hawkers at a carnival and will write anything to sell one more puppy or dog. Modern dog breeding and exhibiting is Vaudeville revisited - and if you don't believe that I have another lottery ticket for you to buy! The dog writers haven't a clue beyond the particular breed(s) that interests them. The AKC currently recognizes 140 breeds! How may breed standards do you tin can be easily remembered?

It will take me some time to respond to your complaint because I am very much the authority on the subject of the origins of this breed. And obviously, I can't site me! The questions of who bred and who owned Irish Blue/Kerry Blue dogs and bitches during the first decade of the twentieth century I can only answer in so far as the stud books from the Irish, English and American Kennel Clubs provide - which is very little. The early breeders didn't keep good records and the Irish were busy having a Civil War which didn't help.

The first Kerry breed books were published in 1922, 1923, 1927, 1930. They are interesting but not very factual.

Enough said. UW

Uneasy Writer (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message (my username, by the way, comes from The Magic Roundabout). I'm not doubting your word, but Wikipedia cannot accept unsupported assertions that added material is correct - we would need it to be cited to reliable sources which support it (see WP:RS). If there is currently material in the article which is not supported by reliable sources and which you believe to be incorrect, please feel free to remove it (and explain why in the edit summary), but please do not add any unsourced replacement. Oh, and if you have your work published in reliable sources, you could indeed cite yourself. But as Wikipedia, as a tertiary information source, only reflects what's already published in secondary sources, it does not carry primary writings by experts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: Also, please don't explain all the actual doggy details to me, as what I know about dogs could be written on a chihuahua. All I'm doing is trying to help with Wikipedia processes - the article talk page is the place to discuss the actual content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind hearing more about the leprechauns though _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I had a toy version of Zebedee with an actual spring which could fire vertically. He was my favourite character also. :) --PatientZero ^talk 17:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, I'd love one of them! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Zebedee had attitude _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I think it came with a tub of sweets! --PatientZero ^talk 17:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI

The IP was having a discussion on my talk page here. I think he's personally against the movement to the point that it's "fake" to him, and he's confused with the English definition of a "hoax". I'm telling you this because I believe that the article might be under ArbCom remedies. Hopefully I didn't violate any. What are your thoughts regarding all of this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw what looked like disruptive warring on their part, with inappropriate accusations of "vandalism" and "hoax", and no apparent attempt to discuss it - I hadn't realised the discussion was at your talk page. I really don't know about the ArbCom remedies, but hopefully you can resolve this by discussion with them - I have unblocked the IP so that can continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Do keep an eye on him though; I think he should make no further edits to the article while the dispute takes place. If he does so, I'd be okay with blocking after he's been told to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oliver & Jenny

Hello,I saw you deleted this page. I'm a bit concerned that the creator Cartoons Universe may have added other hoaxes but its hard to tell as a number are about bus types and cartoon company's. I also think Cartoons Universe has a sock puppet called Esteban in Hemet who contested the Oliver & Jenny deletion as its first edit then deleted information from a bus page.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look over their contributions when I have a little time to spare. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Terry Bean

Hello. I noticed that you blocked IP 67.5.251.135 for disruptive editing on Terry Bean, so I thought I'd tell you that it's not just DE but blockevasion by indefinitely blocked user Lurie2, who as both a named account and multiple IPs has been trying to get BLP-violations into the Terry Bean article for almost a year now. The article has been semi-protected for quite some time now, but the protection expired on 27 May, and they're obviously at it again. Cheers. Thomas.W ^talk 10:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info. I've protected the article for another six months, and as it's a static IP I've upped the block to 3 months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

And it looks like User:Lurie2 is most likely a sock of User:Frysay. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes I've noticed that Lurie2 and Frysay made the same edits with similar edit summaries and the same "abrasive" style, I didn't get involved in the article until I ran into Lurie2, though. Truthspeaker33 might also be connected to Lurie2, so there are quite a few edits further back that you might want to hide, including a number of edits made by Patriot 721... Thomas.W ^talk 11:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There's WP:BEANS evidence that links Frysay to the IP that seems conclusive. I'll check the rest that you suggest too, and I might raise an SPI for the record (a lot of it will be stale, but if it's been going on for a couple of years it should probably be documented somewhere). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've raised an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frysay. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Beyonders again

It seems like BeyonderGod has returned to his usual antics after the 1-month ban. Help would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonders&type=revision&diff=723422415&oldid=722782051 — Preceding unsigned comment added by David A (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Seems like its already inactive, I'll watch him. :) Remember to sign your posts with ~4x KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the help. David A (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are interested, he has continued here, here, and here. David A (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I've blocked for three months this time, though I think that was probably lenient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. David A (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

83.52.84.186 ‎ is still blocked...

...but is using 95.120.198.134 to edit. Same geolocation. Edit to the same article (The Iconography of Manhattan Island), making the same change that was part of 83's edit to the article. I'm not sure why they just didn't wait until their block was up, unless this is the new IP they plan to use. BMK (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that seems pretty obvious - 31 hour block on that one too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There was mention that this may be the LTA "Best known for IP", but that person was in Chile, so unless they've relocated (or are on vacation) there's no geolocation evidence to support it (although the behavior is quite similar). BMK (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, two Spanish-speaking countries... bit tenuous, I guess. I'll watch those latest articles too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Could you help me in adding the information about the breakthrough in the case - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/man-arrested-over-historical-child-abduction-and-murder/news-story/1c59dc4508b341474473ce6042a2be37 - to Murder of Kylie Maybury ? Also, should the article be at Kylie Maybury murder case as someone has now been charged and only a court can convict someone of murder? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can't work out how to update it yourself, I suggest you ask for help on the talk page of the article or at one of the projects listed on the talk page. And in case you hadn't realized, that link you gave is for subscribers only. Oh, and I see nothing wrong with the current title. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Whoopsie daisy

Agreed that it is a redirect, but its history shows that is was once a one-line article. The term is not Baby talk, which is where it is now redirecting to. Those that set it up are no longer active on Wikipedia. It sits there wasting Wikipedia disk space, however its your call. William Harris • talk • 12:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't really my call at all, as I'm not allowed to speedy-delete pages for inapplicable reasons (and the fact that there used to be an article where there is now a redirect does not make article-only CSD reasons applicable to the current redirect). As for wasting disk space, it isn't, as nothing is ever really deleted - "deleting" it would actually take up more disk space. (And this discussion here is probably taking up more disk space than that redirect ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

VarunFEB2003.

Hi BsZ, see what you think of his user page- was earlier pending to be an administrator, to have had 30K+ edits, to have been here ten years etc; we've got rid of that, but now he's still claiming to have a right to that 'Awesome Wikipedian' badge and to have a day named after him, as well as loads of barnstars from made up accounts (very dodgy!), as well as claiming to have been here six months. He opened his account three weeks ago, with ~500 edits. I suggest cleansing that page- but please advise. There's a chat at the bottom of my TP for further info. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Normally I'd just remove any misleading claims from a user page if the user won't, but as they've added "Everything Below Is False And For Humour Only" then I'm not so sure. My personal feel is that it's not worth bothering about. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they did that 'on advice' too. The editing pattern is odd: less than 10% in article space. But no worries, thanks for the opinion _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically...

...you should be scolding me for not immediately removing talk page access, same as with Opinion polling for the United Kingdom EU membership referendum Revision history. still convinced that one is a vandalbot Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd already done that ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Beyond FC

I was advised to 'contest the speedy deletion' however when I looked to the Beyond FC page such an option didn't exist. I'm new to this and didn't know if you could undo your decision. As you've read, Beyond F.C. is a new and up and coming semi-professional club in NYC. It's the largest within NYC. If various other smaller clubs have WIKI pages why is it that Beyond F.C. is the one that gets deleted? I plan on starting work on the new Beyond F.C. page later today. Any suggestions on how I can go about creating a non-delete worthy page? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niko Güey (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The article described it as an amateur soccer club*, not a semi-professional club, but that's a relatively minor issue - when it comes to sports teams (or other organizations), Wikipedia does not cover "new and up and coming" ones, only established notable ones. For an article to exist on Wikipedia, it must make it clear that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards (see WP:N) and that must be attested to by multiple reliable sources (see WP:RS). The article said nothing that indicated any notability, and cited no sources as references. There might be smaller clubs with Wikipedia pages, and that might be for a number of reasons (they might be smaller but notable and well-sourced, or they might be suitable candidates for deletion), but that says nothing about whether Beyond FC is suitable for a Wikipedia article. If you want to try again, I'd suggest you use the Articles for Creation process, where experienced editors will review your submission, but do be sure to establish notability and properly source your submission with citations to those reliable sources (sorry for yet another link, but see WP:CITE for information on how to actually do citations).

* The entire article content was "Beyond F.C. is an amateur soccer club based in NYC. The club was founded in 2015 by Frank Hauser and currently has nine teams participating in amateur leagues throughout NYC."

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Userna

Hi, "Boing!" I don't think you should have accepted this request for a change of username, because it was posted as an IP edit. Probably it was the editor just not logged in, but it's impossible to be certain: I have known it to happen that an IP editor claims to be a particular editor not logged in when actually it's a different person. If, as seems likely, you agree with that but just didn't notice it wasn't the account that posted it, then this is just pointing it out so you can be careful to avoid doing the same again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Aargh, I really didn't notice it was an IP posting it - I'm usually very careful over that, so thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you are around ...

Hi Boing! Since you are around, could you look in at Musunuri Nayaks‎ in a few minutes? I am anticipating a breach of 3RR. I have tried to explain at the anon's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to wait for 3RR, I've issued a 24-hour EW block to try to get their attention - many newbies don't notice their talk page messages. I'll keep the article watched too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yes, it is tricky with newbies. I sometimes wonder whether I should cross-post to the article talk page but tend to think that they're more likely to see the orange notification than that. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, they're even less likely to know about the talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

thank you very much

for your followup suggestions surrounding the Talk:Julia L. Jackson issue. I am afraid that I am not very good with taggings and rules and regulations and procedures and that sort of thing. I am what you might (or might not) call an intuitive editor, which is why I could never be an admin. I do have a lot of respect for those of you that can perform this complicated and not always pleasant task and I appreciate admins, even the one who once blocked me for a day. Keep up the good work. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - if you ever need any help, you know where my talk page is! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Trust issue

Hi Boing, I saw some recent talk page comments you made and I have some trust issues regarding a new-ish user that I thought might be of interest. Please see this when you get a few moments. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look when I get the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Robbie Brady

Please protect Robbie Brady from the persistent vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:745A:6477:A2BC:A7BF (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've given it a 24-hour protection, which will hopefully be enough - if it continues when the protection expires, let me know and I'll extend it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No User:Zebedee

Why didn't you create a redirect from User:Zebedee to User:Boing! said Zebedee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.219.175 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You should probably bother less about username redirects and more about not making these sort of edits _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1c2OfAzDTI Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30