User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 16

=Jan 2013=

D'oh!
D'oh! Thanks for fixing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * NP - it's easy to see diffs the wrong way round, I do it all the time! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin
I am taking a break from admin and have handed in the mop, and I'm going back to content work for a while. I'm not sure how long this will be for, or whether I will come back to admin at all. You are still welcome to ask me about any of my past admin actions and I will still try to help, but if further admin action is needed it will have to be done by someone else. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wish this was not so, but respect your decision. Hope that this is a gain for the community and releases you to enjoy the project more. I would not wish to be an admin due to the obligation and the distraction from content.....so I hope this brings you the peice of mind every editor deserves. Happy editing (and I really mean that!).--Amadscientist (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support your decision ;) - how about saying in red "not an admin"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you leaving the corps, you were always a sensible and even-handed tool user. However, I agree that the mop is a big distraction from content work (I do hardly any content stuff now, just block, delete, protect, recreate, DRAMAH, page move, block - rinse and repeat...) so I can see the rationale behind your decision. FWIW, I will always be happy to consider performing admin actions at your request; the absence of a handful of buttons doesn't make you any less competent. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very sorry to see this. As an admin, I saw you as the epitome of fairness when it appeared to be in short supply. RashersTierney (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind thoughts, folks. I'll think about it in a couple of months - might even make it a regular annual break. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that I have previously said to you that the notion of pretty much all admins taking a break for a couple of months now and again seems pretty sensible to me. It provides some time to recharge batteries, reduce stress, let regular "come to me's" see how other admins handle issues, allow you to get back to whatever it was that originally brought you here etc. In the long run, I reckon the entire project would benefit from some sort of guideline (not policy) concerning admin breaks. Provided that not all admins decide to go off simultaneously, and provided that RfA doesn't continue along the present discouraging path of making it unnecessarily traumatic just to get the bit, it is a win-win situation. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've talked to others about the same thing too, and it really does seem like a good idea. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

While I understand your reasons, and I hope you'll get some good content work done, I also hope you'll come back and pick up the mop again sometime. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the latest trend, I'm noticing. I know of several others trying to focus solely on content. Hopefully it's the for the best encyclopedia-wise. Wizardman 03:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * H, everywhere the Carnabecian army marches on ;) Sitush (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Trendsetter, me! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to give up the mop to focus on the mainspace, just avoid the Dwamah boards. I did comparatively few admin actions in 2012 and most of my edits were gnomish, but it does help having the mop when you come across a page that needs protection or an account that merits a block. Apart from a handful of requests for revision deletion scarcely anyone came to me for admin actions, so you really can just refocus without giving up the mop.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried that, but it wasn't working -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU!
subst.cookie THANKS FOR YOUR HELP! --SmartyPantsKid (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you very much for helping me out and editing the page Rebecca Masterton

Lubna Rizvi 23:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC) 
 * Aw, cute ;-) Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hex
Hi. Per your request for me to notify you, I've asked ArbCom to desysop Hex here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea

 * Relating the article Rebecca Masterton

Away
I'm going to be offline for a few days, so I'm sorry I won't be able to respond to anything until I'm back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Move of Anilingus article to Boners(Erectionmasters)
I just saw this, and I can't make out what is going on with this user. I at first thought that this must be a vandalism account, but that's not the impression I've gotten from briefly looking over this user's edit history. Compromised account? Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I see that you'll be away from Wikipedia for a few days. I'll take this matter elsewhere. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, looks like it's been sorted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Quoting scripture
I thought was excellent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Psalms 37:11? Wikipedia's future is foretold, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I reckon that Greek will end up inheriting the whole thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ( X! ·  talk )  · @812  · 18:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Chiang Mai tourism
I agree with your change and accidentally embarked on an edit before seeing your comment—I have consequently deleted the Tourism section that I created.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was thinking of possibly creating a Tourism section! If you want to put your new one back and move the info there from the lede, I think that would be better - then there could be just a short sentence in the lede about Chiang Mia being a big tourist destination. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do this next.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Necroshine95's sockies still at it
Sockpuppet #4 of Necroshine95 is still doing the mass-edit thing (to the same articles, of course: 1, 2, etc.), all of them being unformatted links just dumped into statements which may or may not be true. Some of them are OK but, knowing his track record, there are bound to be some unreliable sources in there—he could've added anything, for all I know. I dunno about the rest of WP's so-called "chumps", but it certainly is hard to keep up with such youthful, single-minded persistence.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not an admin right now as I'm taking a break from it, so there's nothing I can actually do about it directly. What you need to do is file a report at WP:SPI, and that way we'll get to keep a record of what he's doing - in this case I'll report it myself. Oh, and you should just revert him when you see him - socks simply don't get to edit articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reported at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Necroshine95 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do, and thanks for the help. I know it's been mentioned to me before, but I'll definitely try to use that feature next time (of which there undoubtedly will be a next time..) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I find the easiest way to do it is to use Twinkle. Under the ARV reports there are "Sockpuppet" and "Sockpuppeteer" options - you just fill in the names and it does it all for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Has to be said, I've been reluctant to use any of the automated tools available on WP. I might give that Twinkle dealy a try sometime, but otherwise I'm one of those neurotic stick-in-the-mud type of editors who just has to do everything manually, heh. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see
Please see my talk page.:) --Computron (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Pratyeka
I think, unless he says something truly awesome at ANI or his talk page, ArbCom is inevitable, now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. And though I've come down quite hard against him, I really hoped he would respond positively and avoid further action - there's still time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Article History
Hi, I am again not able to view all edits of Hari7478. Am uploading the Iyengar history page as is visible to me right now. Why is this happening? --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Have uploaded the history page as is visible to me right now here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IyengarHistory(asOf25Jan2013).png Must say am having probs with wi-fi (goes offline without notice and i do not realize mozilla has been showing me cached version of articles previously accessed unless i click on some new link or go to a new page, then wi-fi tries to connect automatically. Additionally, browser having probs handling java (not sure if that is linked to the current prob though). Will be glad if someone can guide why pages are again showing the (older) cached version despite doing Tools -> Clear history; and being able to view all edits yesterday. Thanks --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   01:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolandhelper
He has generously let us know the subject of articles he will be editing, here. → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 21:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, how very considerate of him :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  03:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting info please
Hi, Hari7478 did not respond yet (on the ANI page on misquoting sources). How much time do admins generally give for a user to respond before making a decision? --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Hi. There's no real answer to that question, I'm afraid. Sometimes requests will just peter out if no admin feels sufficiently moved to do anything. In this case, the report has already been archived to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783, and that pretty much means nothing is going to happen to it now. I don't really have the time to investigate it myself, so I can't suggest any admin action - and I'm on a break from admin now anyway. All I can really suggest is that if you see the same issue happening again and you think some admin action is needed, you raise a new ANI report and link to the archive of the last one. Sorry I can't really be of more help right now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for guiding Boing. Alright will file an ANI report again. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra


 * Just curious, how many times does Hari7478 get to evade a response (on misquoting sources)? He did not accept the mediation process (which i had filed in 2012). He uses wiki machinery to protect his position of misquoting of sources -- by seeking page protection and reporting me for vandalism (i.e, for deleting his so-called 'referenced' crappy ethnic / racial theories). So would like to know how many times and how much time will admin give Hari7478 to evade a response to the issues? Thanks. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Without looking into the case in some detail (which I really don't have the time, or the desire, to do right now), I'm afraid I really can't answer that. Also, it sounds like it might be more of a content dispute than anything, in which case it may well be that ANI is not able to solve the issue. You might need to try the dispute resolution steps described at WP:DR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boing. Just a few min back removed stuff misquoted by Hari7478 in the Iyengar article. Will also be undoing stuff misquoted by Hari7478 in the Vadakalai and Sri Sampradaya articles. If he reinstates it, will ask for WP:DR next. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Hi Boing, Am filing for Arbitration. Page is asking me for previous attempts made. Please can you let me know (the URL) where the ANI round 2 of discussion between Mayasutra and Hari7478 is archived? Thanks. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Hi...
 * Wikilink is Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784
 * Full URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Hari7478_and_Mayasutra.2C_round_2
 * -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Boing. Hari7478 typically reverted the page, asked for page protection again, and claims admin reviewed and edited the current version. I remember Sitush saying too long did not read (way back around June 2012), and yet Sitush touched the disputed section (wonder why Sitush did so). Any idea when Sitush will be back? Left a message on his talk page. If you know Sitush personally, please do ask him to respond. Thanks. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * Sitush is currently on a break for medical reasons, and needs some quiet time away from Wikipedia. I don't know exactly when he will be back (and I don't want to ask, because I don't want him to feel pressed to come back before he's ready), so I think it's unlikely he'll be able to help at this moment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No probs Boing. Will go ahead with the arbitration anyways. Sitush already said all he wants to on the Iyengar talk page. I believe he was trying to make sense of the article, setting things right in the disputed section, without going thru the source pages which i had provided, to show how Hari7478 had misquoted them. Sitush's presence during arbitration wud have been helpful. But anyways, its still fine. Sitush has nothing to do with Hari7478's fabrications (on the 4 issues raised on ANI page) anyways. Thanks. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

=Feb 2013=

February 2013 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Hi, friend
I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Sorry I've had so little time in the past few days, but I'll try to add my thoughts (there, or at ArbCom, or wherever it happens to be) as soon as I can. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Term limits
Hi Boing. I'm not  si  sure there aren't  any  term limits at  OTRS. In fact  I  was recently  given the sack  for inactivity -  oddly  enough,m right  when I  was in  the middle of handling  a case! I fully  sympathise with  anyone who  loses interest  in  OTRS, it's a horribly  messy  interface, and the choice of lists is pretty  much  all  or nothing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting - I don't think OTRS is something I'd ever really be interested in. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you volunteered...
I've unblocked User:MarkHumphreyLtd per his rename request and your discussion with him. You might want to swing by and lend him a hand with the WP:CHU process. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Advice?
Hello, Boing! I need some advice, and Peridon suggested maybe you could help me. I am considering whether to report a user for a years-long pattern of tendentious editing. A year ago he was taken to AN and threatened with a topic ban; the topic ban proposal was suspended after he promised to change his editing style, but he hasn't. He was also warned at an unrelated ArbCom case (about a larger subject, not just about him) to change his editing pattern, but he hasn't. I was not involved in either of those cases and wasn't aware of them until recently. I and many other editors have asked him to tone down his aggressive, long-winded, argumentative style; however, he has dismissed all such comments, even after I reminded him of his promises made under threat of a topic ban.

Encouraged by another user, I am on the verge of taking him to the community for a possible topic ban or other solution. My question to you is, what is the appropriate forum? I don't frequent the "drama areas" so I'm not familiar with the right place for such things. Should it go to AN, AN/I, or RFC/U?

I have drafted (offline) a detailed summary of the situation over multiple discussions with plenty of diffs. I was planning to take it to AN/I since that is the only place I am familiar with for such things. However, it could be argued this is not about an "incident", it is about a pattern of problems. I note that his earlier topic ban threat came at AN rather than AN/I (the topic ban was actually proposed after an administrator posted at AN to say they were giving up their mop in frustration over the badgering from this user). One of the recommendations at that closure was that the user should be taken to RFC/U if problems persist. I was unfamiliar with RFC/U, so I had a look - and was appalled. It looks dauntingly complicated and formal, and despite all its formal trappings it can't enforce any result. They say it's the recommended place to take cases of chronic tendentious editing, but I really don't see the point - when the problem has persisted so long and has been addressed by so many people, and all previous efforts at negotiated change have been futile.

I deliberately haven't given you any specifics here; I just want your advice about the proper forum for this kind of situation. I realize you're not an admin any more (Wikipedia's loss) but you have lots of experience. Please reply here on your talk page. Thanks for any advice! --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, WP:AN it typically my choice for discussions that are starting out as a topic ban/ban that isn't related to a specific incident but is part of a larger pattern. Generally, block reviews, ban proposals and the like originate there, per the notice at the top of the page. WP:AN is a bit slower and more deliberate than ANI, with less traffic and a higher percentage of admin. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 23:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. I haven't entirely decided whether to pursue this - still waiting on a couple of things - but that sounds like the approach I should take. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The short answer is that I agree with Dennis. To expand a little, I think RFC/U is often a waste of time. As you say, nothing binding can come from it - at least at AN, admins can choose to take action. And RFC/U can end up just being a repetition of what everyone has already said at AN, achieving nothing but a waste of everyone's time. However, in some cases, for example if an ArbCom report might need to be the eventual step, an RFC/U might have to be done purely because it's listed as one of the steps "in da roolz!" - and some of the Arbs can be pretty dogmatic rule followers. (But I do understand that to an extent - with high profile attention and so much potential animosity towards them, they can feel it necessary to be seen to be following the rules to the letter.) That's a bit rambling, but that's partly because I don't know the details of this case. So, if you feel there is enough for admins to take action, I really would try for AN (and you're welcome to link to this discussion here and blame me if anyone thinks you're going about it incorrectly :-) But as another thought, has there been any individual admin who has been close to previous steps in this case? If there is enough evidence/experience of disruption, an admin can be bold and take action unilaterally - it can often be more effective to act and then seek a review at AN rather than ask at AN first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate your advice and have followed it. The resulting discussion is here: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245. This did not seem to be a case for unilateral action by an admin, since so many people have been involved in the past, and since the user involved is firmly convinced that he is doing nothing wrong - and also since the solution to the problem is not obvious. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

ITF
We are going to run out of uninvolved admins if this carries on.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that - but I really do want some time away from admin myself right now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You couldn't do anything anyway, even if you had the bit. That's the issue: if he draws admins into things like that then they become involved, and we don't have a lot of admins floating around caste articles to act in an enforcement role in the first place. It is just a shame that someone who obviously has a lot of time to dig around a lot of contributions in search of alleged inconsistencies etc doesn't actually use that time more productively.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but we can still seek help from other admins in specific instances, as long as we explain our possible involvement. Anyway, aren't you supposed to be concentrating on getting yourself well right now? ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am much improved, thanks. Hope to be back home later this week, depending on some tests. The wound seems to be ok now but they're having some difficulties balancing the meds and they've got some specialist drugs/pharmacology guy looking into it. I'm wondering whether when I meet him I'll be greeted with "Far out, maan" or some such.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe :-) It's good to know you're getting better. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

An issue that needs your intervention
Hello,
 * An editor is constantly trying to remove important and vital information from Indian Engineering Services which is well sourced and unbiased. This article also serves as the redirect page for Engineering Services Examination hence, it is bound to contain info about the examination. This editor is putting irrelevant tags on articles, nominating notable articles for deletion and does not respond on his talk page, but reverts constructive edits by others and calls them vandalizers. Since you are an administrator, I thought of bringing the matter into your knowledge. Also, you may want to have a look at the Civil Services Examination and Indian Administrative Service. They are written on the same lines. Both ESE and CSE are conducted by UPSC and IAS is a general public administrative service and IES are technical administrative services. If you do not deal with matters related to content disputes, would you kindly refer this to another specialist administrator? I promise not to make any edits to this page until the issue is resolved, but the page has a daily traffic of 1000+ and most readers only visit articles once, so it would be great loss for them who came in for the information about the exam. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  117.219.224.30 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually an administrator now, but judging by Qwyrxian's comments below, there's no admin action needed here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The removals and tagging are completely correct. Wikipedia is not here to double as the exam/organization's website. Details like where the tests are held, what is done on what day, or the exact details of the interview style are not encyclopedic. Much of the information that remains should also be removed; for example, everything in the Age Limits section. Again, we're not a job recruitment site. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you have a concern with another user, the first thing you should do is to talk to that user and/or post on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE news: February 2013
= Mar 2013 =

IP/Havengore
Hello boing, I hope you are well. I have just come back from a Bloch which you administered on 27th feb. this was because of my IP being linked to the user Havengore. I require som help/ advice. I am not this person and have never heard of the pages which he was editing. How can I prove my innocence? I am obviously back now but being linked to this account is troubling me. How can we have the same IP address! Should I be concerned? Any advice would be great. (86.130.197.194 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * Allow me to assume the best of faith, and just assume you really are not this other person. Your IP is dynamic.  It will change every few days to several weeks.  You might even be able to cycle the modem off/on and make it change.  Secondly, if you have Wifi setup on your home system but don't have WEP2 or some kind of security, then anyone can use it.  Even if you do, they are fairly easy to hack, so if you live in a flat, it is easy for someone to leech off your connection via Wifi.  As to preventing someone from leeching, that is beyond the scope of what we do here, and I suggest Googling for information on securing your network.  If it wasn't leeching, it is possible (however improbable) that the person who had the IP address just a few days ago just so happened to be a Wikipedia editor as well, and not a particularly good one, hence the block. Finally, if you just register an account, you don't have to worry about the IP changing as you would just log in to that user name.  There are a great many advantages to this, as I outlined in the essay IP addresses are not people.  Of course, Boing may have a completely different take on this situation, so I don't pretend to speak for him. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply Dennis. I find this situation very strange and certainly in no way tech savy. I will, therefore, read your article with interest. It was actually yesterday that I realised I was blocked when trying to log in to the account I had set up on Saturday. My first and only account. I had forgotten the password. What I find uncomfortable is being linked with such an account like Havengore when they have been blocked. Hence why I am asking for assistance from boing. Thanks again for your assistance. (86.130.197.194 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
 * I was going to say something similar to Dennis. It's entirely possible you picked up a dynamic IP address that had previously been used by Havengore, and before too long you'll probably get a different one again - in fact, if you switch your modem off and on again, you may well get a new IP. People here know that IP addresses change, and in the future they won't assume the same person has always been using the address. I'd suggest you don't worry about it and just carry on editing - or register a named account and use that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately what may well be contributing to any confusion (assuming good faith) is that blocked user 'Havengore' made near-identical statements when they were first blocked - e.g. "I've only just arrived on Wikipedia" (not true), "only three days as an editor" (not true), "my only account" (not true). Editors are likely to be suspicious as this pattern of editing which Havengore was repeatedly blocked for has been occuring on-and-off for over five years. Bonusballs (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed - my recommendation for an innocent user would be to reset their modem and get a new IP address, and don't go anywhere near the articles that Havengore was blocked over. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both Boing adn Bonusballs. I will reset this to get a new IP address. However, If i was banned on Saturday would I have been able to create a new account like I did? This is when I created the Edinburgh Loon account. This really has baffled me but hand on heart can say that I have never had an account on wikipedia until saturday and I will ensure that I stay away from those pages. (Edinburgh loon (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC))


 * I think it was only anonymous contributions from your IP address which were blocked, as indeed your contribution history shows you editing without problem during the period that the IP block was in place. It may have just been that all you needed to do was sign in. In any case, best of luck with your future edits. :) Bonusballs (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ezhava / Thiyya difference
I have seen your comments on Ezhava wikipedia talk page. In the article, writer says Thiyya is a sub caste of Ezhava. None of the given citation links shows that. No books ever says that Thiyya is a sub caste of Ezhava. They both different castes. I request, please do not support the writer and please ask the writer to either remove all the thiyya references from the article. Ezhava article should explain only ezhava caste not Thiyya. Correct me if i am wrong. Irajeevwiki (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue needs to be discussed on the article talk page, and any actions taken must be in line with whatever consensus is reached there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism, as usual
Hi there BOING, AL from Portugal "here", how's it going?

think you can accommodate here man? This anon user (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/186.225.8.138) i'm 99,999999% sure is blocked user User:Bruno corinthiano (also the same anon IP that got three years suspension, this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/177.0.204.119). I have tried to reach this new "entity", he says "talk to the hand" and continues with his deeds.

In case you can't/won't do anything, what do you recommend? Happy editing and happiest of weekends --AL (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, the one who was always making incorrect or unneeded formatting changes, and changing personal info without sources, etc! And that IP does geolocate to very near 177.0.204.119 in Brazil. I've retired from admin now (and I'm not sure if I'll go back to it), so I can't actually take any action myself. WP:ANI, or even WP:SPI might be appropriate, but as a first step I'd suggest asking JamesBWatson, as he is the admin who blocked 177.0.204.119 - feel free to tell him it was my suggestion. (And thanks for your thoughts - hope you have a great weekend too) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Examples of convolution
I saw the wiki page, but I couldn't find any examples using actual numbers evaluating the formula. Could you give some examples of convolution, please? Mathijs Krijzer (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition
The convolution of f and g is written f∗g, using an asterisk or star. It is defined as the integral of the product of the two functions after one is reversed and shifted. As such, it is a particular kind of integral transform:




 * $$(f * g )(t)\ \ \,$$
 * $$\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(\tau)\, g(t - \tau)\, d\tau$$
 * $$= \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t-\tau)\, g(\tau)\, d\tau.$$      (commutativity)
 * }
 * $$= \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(t-\tau)\, g(\tau)\, d\tau.$$      (commutativity)
 * }

Domain of definition
The convolution of two complex-valued functions on Rd
 * $$(f*g)(x) = \int_{\mathbf{R}^d}f(y)g(x-y)\,dy$$

is well-defined only if f and g decay sufficiently rapidly at infinity in order for the integral to exist. Conditions for the existence of the convolution may be tricky, since a blow-up in g at infinity can be easily offset by sufficiently rapid decay in f. The question of existence thus may involve different conditions on f and g.

Circular discrete convolution
When a function gN is periodic, with period N, then for functions, f, such that f∗gN exists, the convolution is also periodic and identical to:


 * $$(f * g_N)[n] \equiv \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \left(\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty {f}[m+kN] \right) g_N[n-m].\,$$

Circular convolution
When a function gT is periodic, with period T, then for functions, f, such that f∗gT exists, the convolution is also periodic and identical to:


 * $$(f * g_T)(t) \equiv \int_{t_0}^{t_0+T} \left[\sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty f(\tau + kT)\right] g_T(t - \tau)\, d\tau,$$

where to is an arbitrary choice. The summation is called a periodic summation of the function f.

Discrete convolution
For complex-valued functions f, g defined on the set Z of integers, the discrete convolution of f and g is given by:


 * $$(f * g)[n]\ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty f[m]\, g[n - m]$$
 * $$= \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty f[n-m]\, g[m].$$      (commutativity)

When multiplying two polynomials, the coefficients of the product are given by the convolution of the original coefficient sequences, extended with zeros where necessary to avoid undefined terms; this is known as the Cauchy product of the coefficients of the two polynomials.


 * Sheesh, my head hurts just looking at that. I think I'll go for a beer - my head will still hurt but I'll have had some pleasure from it! - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I haven't the faintest idea what any of that means. I think the place you need to ask is at the Mathematics Reference desk -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Boing!: Ok. @Sitush: You will never become a great mathematician that way! And drinking beer will only cost you IQ point (*according to some researchers) - Mathijs Krijzer (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have an inordinate (non-mathematical version) number of IQ points to give away ... and are those nay-sayers reliable sources?  More seriously, math(s) is a language all of its own. I admire those who can do that stuff but I am lost once we get beyond basic calculus. The symbols etc alone might as well be abstract art, which is something else that I just do not "get". But thanks for taking my comment in the spirit that was intended. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGray98 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Him again..
Caughtinmosh88, no doubt still acting "on behalf" of Necroshine95, still keeps adding sales figures to the Overkill album articles, as per usual. I know I was instructed to revert any and all edits which look like his, but the problem I'm faced with now is that 1. Some of the refs he's added are indeed OK and reliable; 2. Some of them, however, are most likely not: A, B, C, D (using a forum as a source); 3. If I do the socking report thingy on him again, he'll start whining to me endlessly about how he's doing "a favour for a friend", "What am I doing wrong this time?!", "Are you gonna ban everyone who edits these articles?!", yada yada yada. I guess it's the compassionate, diplomatic side of me kicking in. heh. As I said, some of his sources have been good and are worth keeping, but again it's reached a point where he could still be adding all sorts of unreliable stuff to other articles, whilst I only have a handful of the Overkill articles on my watchlist. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as an evil ex-admin, I don't have a "compassionate, diplomatic side"... hahahahahaaaaa! But seriously, I'd just report as a sock and ignore the whining. If he can move to using *only* good sources, he can explain that and request unblock at his original account. Socking while blocked is not acceptable, and wouldn't be even if he did only use good sources - he needs to convince a reviewing admin that he will follow the rules before he can be allowed to edit here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Boomage
Hey Boing!

You may recall one User:Boomage from my report at AN/I a while ago... well he decided to come back to me... please see my user page. Ugh - Rich (MTCD) T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 22:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. To be honest, I think I'd just ignore that and move on - I'll add a comment to your talk page to that effect, if you think it might help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI
You have been mentioned at ANI here. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll comment later. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment in that thread implies you're going to ask for the tools back. Is that an accurate reading? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bn ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's really sweet :). Welcome back (soon)!Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed — welcome back to the utility closet. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back from me too :o) Ged  UK  11:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ta -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

NeiiNine
Hi there, my edit on Rajputs was not false. Please refer to History book written on British Indian army and you will have a clear image. Editing without such knowledge and assuming an edit is based simply on personal opinion without proper knowledge is not right and I hope you will not refer to this again. Please contact me in case you have missing information I might not have, and give me the references so that I may check on them. Thank you-peace!
 * I will reply on your talk page, to keep the discussion all in one place. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I will remove the "brilliantly" and "redoubtable" but these are actual words from histroy books written by British historians. The wars they fought were indeed brilliantly won. Unfortunately it is the only adjective to describe the way they won the battles. And it is a known fact the British Indian army was acutally the most powerful in the world in the 1800's, thus the use of the word redoubtable. While it is unfair that I must have to remove the best suited words to describe their actions, I wish to inform that a significant amount of details, all of which were properly referenced, have been removed from this article over the last four years. So instead for looking for so called non-neutral words, why are these people who destroy properly referenced articles not stopped? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeiiNine (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion in one place - as I have told you, when your changes are contested and reverted, the article talk page is the correct place for discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have my references, I am not very sure how to put them. I have tried right now. If possible let me know how to refer or send me a teaching link on how to do it. Thankyou for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeiiNine (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discuss it on the article talk page, and STOP THE EDIT WAR until the discussion is complete or you will be blocked! (And please, do not start a new section here every time you want to reply) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Randomly selected
Well not totally randomly as I'm picking a couple of sensible sounding active admins from an unrelated ANI thread. I asked a question here Wikipedia talk:User pages, as a third party, this doesn't affect me, but I don't think the page gets much admin traffic. If not your area/too busy no worries, will leave this same message at 3 other Talk pages. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

RFPP
Hey, Boing!, we butted heads - see here. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, we were both unto the breach - I'm happy to go with your judgment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.


 * }