User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 22

=January 2016=

Thanks
Thanks for speedy deleting my sandbox page. Happy New Year! SW3 5DL (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, and the same to you! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank u a lot for unblocking me. Munawer mesbah (talk) 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to help - welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Remaining edit summ
Hi Boing!, with this edit an IP introduced a likely offensive edit summary into his Userpage History, is there a place where this can be reported (is ANI not too "heavy" for this?, and, it is an IPs Userpage not an Article)? I rolled the Userpage back because of offensive language on the Userpage itself, but I cannot do anything about offensive / unappropriate edit summaries? Cheers, Poepkop (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
 * ANI would probably be fine, but there's no need when there's a friendly admin around ;-) I've hidden that revision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Poepkop (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Boing! would this one be "bad" enough to warrant being reported for removal? Next one - if any- I will put elsewhere ;-) Poepkop (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Nah, I don't think that one qualifies - it needs to be "Grossly insulting, degrading or offensive material" according to RevDel rules. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it! Poepkop (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!
Very kind, thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder
Please would you look at the blocked alleged world champion's talk page? I have just been told there that I am a racist. I think we have determined trolling. Fiddle  Faddle  15:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked by Floq and talk page nonsense removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Eventually they take the rope. Fiddle   Faddle  15:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With the level of aggression in that one, they were never going to be able to tone it down and listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If it had remained silent it would still be a philosopher, it seems Fiddle   Faddle  17:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel a song coming on... ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Here we are again,
 * happy as can be,
 * all good pals and
 * jolly good company!"
 * Fiddle  Faddle  19:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, "I should be so Ducky" by Kylie Fiddle   Faddle  19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I was thinking more of "Immanuel Kant was..." etc. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I had quite forgotten Hobbs being fond of his drachm! Fiddle   Faddle  16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Alexiulian25's user page
Hello. I noticed that Alex's user page still contains things which may require deletion. For starters, he says that users who edit for free have edits of low quality; given your administrator status I won't tell you why paid editing isn't allowed and when it is OK to do so. Secondly, the "people [he] would take in [his] team" contains a personal attack, saying that he would no longer take a certain editor on his team. Should I delete the page, or just the controversial sections? Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's debatable whether it's a personal attack, but I've removed it just to stress the point. And though paid editing is not allowed, I don't think we should prohibit editors from expressing an opinion that it should be. In general, I'd just leave the page alone and forget about him until he tries the standard offer, and then see how he goes from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, thank you for your reply. I suppose given that Alex is a disruptive editor, one could argue he is taking said stance on paid editing just to conflict with Wikipedia's policies. I'm all for freedom of speech and thought but when it goes against WP's policies then editors need to be aware of that. Thanks for removing them, I believe that was the appropriate thing to do. Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sock of Alexiulian25
Hello, and sorry to bother you. Seems pretty clear that is Alexiulian's latest. See e.g. User talk:Deryck Chan, where they rant about a new Wikipedia with the best football database in existence with advertising and chat to rival Facebook, as they "already have a team with some of the best knowledge people about football"; pestering random editors to help creating stats pages; frantic high-speed editing style; complaining about people deleting stuff. Can you deal with it, or shall I take it to SPI? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty convincing, but I think it might be better taken to SPI (and ask for a checkuser) as the record would be useful should be eventually try to take up the Standard Offer. And I think I'd prefer to see other admins taking action so he doesn't think it's just me who's got it in for him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Templates on your user page
Hi!

Just a quick one - I really like the '3 questions' template on your userpage - straight to the points but simple to understand. Just wondering if you'd be OK with me using it, adapted for a non-admin as follows:

"Here's a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory? Do you understand conflict of interest? Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be considered to be notable?

Your username appears directly related to a subject that you are trying to create an article about, contrary to the username policy, and you may be requested to change it, though note that changing the username will not allow you to break the 3 important questions above. "

Also, just noticed there's a small typo in 'encyclopedia' in the third question :o)

Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just copied it from someone else, who in turn copied it from someone else ;-) So yes, please feel free to help yourself. And thanks for spotting the typo - it's fixed now! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexidlayide
Hello, is a sock account of blocked account Alexiulian25 based on this diff. Could you please deal with it. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please block too. I must say, he is persistent. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked by, nothing for you to do. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, wasn't online, but I see it's sorted now. And yes, persistent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism in CBCNC article
Thank you for your note which I have taken note of. Meher Mansion (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and thank you for your hard work here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Allen750
The only reason why you got a chance to block Allen750 was that I was holding back from blocking while I considered how long a block to impose. I had just decided to be what I thought was very lenient, by blocking for only a few days, when I saw that you had already blocked for 24 hours; I hadn't even remotely considered that as a possibility. Well, I suppose, considering this is the editor's first block, what you did was reasonable, though why it is the editor's first block is beyond me: should have happened years ago. Oh well. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was indeed because it is their first block that I was so lenient (and yes, I was surprised to see an empty block log too). I expect it won't be their last block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

re: Iwillshowu
I took his unblock request as a threat toward Wikipedia, since he implied sending a ddos attack on the servers, showing he has no intention to contribute. PS. I'm on my mobile phone, so I may have messed up on replying last time. w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. No worries about the mobile thing; there's no rush if you want to wait until you get back to a desktop - the original block still had plenty of time to go. I took his unblock request as meaning he would report the perceived injustice to Wikipedia's bosses (servers?) - and by AGF I don't think we should infer a DDOS threat unless one is explicitly made. I don't think he is a native English speaker, and he's probably not someone with any great technical knowledge. I think we should revert the block status to the way it was, and only escalate on clearcut threats or on further trouble after it expires. What do you think? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Elphinstone Hotel - declined A1
There's plenty of content but no context. Is it in Manitoba, Queensland, Victoria, or Scotland? There's nothing in the article to help determine which Elphinstone. Bazj (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a citation to Elphinstone, Victoria (which was added after you tagged it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now changed the citation to a standard wikilink. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Still looks CSD-worthy to me but I'm not going to obsess over it. Bazj (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexiulian sock
The newest Alexiulian sock has been posting malformed unblock requests to his talk page. Do you mind shutting him down? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Sockpuppet, not one-time vandal
@Boing! said Zebedee - RE your several reverts + 31-hour block of BlueUndigo12 (BlueUndigo12), please refer to the following. In his BlueUndigo collection (a play on my user name), he has now reached 13 or 14, and had previously been disruptive under many other socks of Aubmn (talk): I have stopped counting, but it now must close to 30.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I guessed it was a play on your name, but I hadn't realised the extent of it. I've upped the block to indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if more pop up, feel free to let me know and I'll zap them if I'm around. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Coming back on your page because I just realised that, trying earlier to explain without being too long etc., I forgot to say what I had come for in the first place, which was to thank you for reverting on my talk page.
 * Saga with that guy began in 2014. I believe his aim is to wipe out Wikipedia... maybe even the Internet! Since he does not seem to have anything else to do, he might succeed! A consolation is to know that the ubiquitous eye of the NSA is watching him right where his main emitting post is.
 * Best to you, --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I'm sure the forces of law are watching him through binoculars as we speak ;-) Very best, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He himself gave himself away a couple of times, thus giving the forces, Wikipedia & NSA (although the last one needs no help!) his whereabouts on a silver platter. Have a nice day. --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Names
Hi Boing!, are user names containing the word "sexy" just acceptable or just not? E.g., (in this case, the 2nd was created by the 1st one, see log, maybe some vandal with plans but no edits yet). Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
 * I tend to be suspicious of usernames like that, but I don't think there's actually a username violation - I'd suggest wait and see what their edits are like. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Horseless Headman (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Xenia Deli
Hi Boing and thank you for your help in the article Xenia Deli. The article has been nominated yet again by Biruitorul for deletion at Articles for deletion/Xenia Deli (2nd nomination). Your comments in the discussion would be welcomed. --Odysses (○) 14:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. My decline of the speedy deletion request was really just a technicality as it was not applicable in that case. I don't know anything about this subject area so I can't really help, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you all the same. --Odysses (○) 19:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

=February 2016=

Thank you for supporting my RfA

 * I'm only sorry it looks as if its not going to pass - but it's close, and hopefully you'll get through next time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate the speedy username change! MuseumKatie (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to help :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Congrats on your renamership
Hope you find good use for it on the unblock-un queue. Feel free to take requests at wp:CHUS too, if you want some practice. –xenotalk 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I intend to help with WP:CHUS too, yes. And I've already done some - that was easy enough! I've also renamed a user at WP:RFU now, and that's so much simpler than making them submit their own rename request after unblocking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing I've been meaning to do is adding a "for renamer use" link on the unblock-un template. Maybe you could take care of that? –xenotalk 12:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There was already one there on the one I did this morning, but I think there are a couple of versions of the template - I'll look out for whichever one doesn't have it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My memory fails me in this old age ;> –xenotalk  13:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comment at Brianhe RFA
Personally, I thought your comment here (as it was expressed) was unfair and should be revised, as it is contrary to the rest of the comments you made with your oppose. Given it is very apparent the candidate is strongly opining on a topic he strongly feels about, I can see why you might refer to it as even hyperbolic - but your suggestion that it "lacks a sense of perspective" can possibly described as the same (if not in fact worse). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's my honest opinion - I can offer no more or no less. I should add that I welcome replies to my comments at RfA, and I'd be quite happy if you wish to repeat your opinion over there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Help Needed Please
Hi there,

I recently created a page, and supplied a local news paper link as the source. But it was denied, due to not being a recognized part of the said industry. And i was advised to find a more reliable source.

I then found a source, that is recognized by Wiki as an industry directory. Which confirmed it was considered a direct reliable source to you.

But it was then denied, as the text was identical to the previously denied article. And was to be re-written, in a more encyclopedic manner.

So i have now had the editors of 'Resicent Advisor', re-write the article. And i have now re-written the Wiki article. As to follow your instruction.

But now i am being told Wiki has changed their minds, and the article can not be confirmed at all? As it is not worthy of being encyclopedic?

When the story is about a musical artist, that has achieved a number 1 position on a world record. Which is an iconical achievement. And has gained industry recognition from the BBC.

Can you advise what else i now need to do to have this sorted please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraionetwothree (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Who this is
We know who this is, don't we... - DVdm (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the assumption I made. I'll block if I see any more like it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And here we go: . - DVdm (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See also, slightly different IP. I know, these are way out of 24.42.191.195's range, but of course there are ways to use just about any IP. - DVdm (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like he's using proxies all over the place - Fiji, Greece. Just whack the moles is all we can do, I think, and hope he gets bored. Short semi-protection might help, but I really don't want to do that on talk pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that Huggle 2 doesn't work anymore (again). Huggle 3 is (still) as good as useless. Gnat. - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

LankaPay
Hi. I am currently working on creating the above article, and I noticed that you have recently deleted the above page. Would you be able to save the deleted content to my sandbox please? I'd like to see if there is anything worth resurrecting from that page. Cheers, Reh  man  13:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as a copyright infringement, and restoring it even to your sandbox would repeat the violation - so it can't be restored, sorry. It was pure marketing material anyway, with nothing really suitable for a Wikipedia article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand. Thanks! Reh  man  13:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, that's very kind - and thanks for your help too. I'm watching the article now, so I should catch any further vandalism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop now!
Look here, you really have to stop your disruptive editing. This business of edit-conflicting me with unblock request declines has happened just too often recently.

If it's of any interest to you, in your latest flagrant edit-conflict unblock decline (at User talk:Lukaslt13), you wrote "I suggest you stick to the Wikipedia in your native language", but he can't, because he's indef-blocked there, and talk page access has been removed because of abusive talk-page use while blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I often think there should be an "I'm dealing with this" button on unblock requests, as I've also often been edit-conflicted after spending time writing a reply - we'd save a lot of wasted words if we could see that someone else is already working on it. And yes, I now see that he's blocked on both of his lt.wiki accounts (one of which is still unblocked here, but if he's not using it I guess we can leave it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done for spotting Lukas GamingLT. I saw that Lukaslt13 was a "Lukas Gaming klonas", no doubt meaning a sockpuppet, but without the LT at the end I couldn't find the original account. I think that Lukas GamingLT could well have been blocked on en Wikipedia back in April, as clearly not being here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but I agree there's no point in doing anything as long as he isn't using the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick question
Did you mean to block User:Krimuk90 as a vandalism only account?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the "only" is the part that you're querying? They might have had some early good edits and I guess it's debatable - I didn't check too far back. But after WP:ANI they deliberately turned vandal-only in order to be blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just never seen reviewer/rollbacker with 17,000+ edits and 5 years under their belt blocked as a VOA. No big deal, the end result is the same, I just thought maybe it was a mis-click in the drop down.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, another reason might have been better. Perhaps I'll try to reach out to them after a day or two and see if they can be talked down from their anger. Maybe tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:Semitic studies
Hi, to answer, have a look at. Note that the entire page consists of a redlink, Template:WikiProject Academics: and since I could find nothing similar for which it could have been a typo (the closest was, which is not relevant since Semitic studies is not an academic journal), I presumed that had guessed at the template name, had not previewed before saving, and so created a pointless page, deletable under WP:CSD. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What says is true, it was my error in judgment. I however fixed the wikiporject on the talk page so it should be all right now. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation folks - it sounds like it's resolved now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Zebedee, Thank you so much for unblocking me :) Regards, Sandin2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandin2 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - let me know if you have any problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging.
Hello Boing!, I cannot remember anymore, can one ping an IP? Assuming pinger is a username, and that IP is still online? Horseless Headman (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC).
 * That's a very good question - I'll now have to try it and see. That's mine, so I'll log out and see if I get it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, it didn't work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, a pity, thank you for testing it. I asked because it happens sometimes that I revert in TW a GF edit of an IP, while accidentally pushing the "red" vandal option, which gives no edit summary. In today's case I left a message on his/her user talk page, but if they do not reply, I cannot know if they actually read it. IPs really should get a username. Horseless Headman (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC).

Nezi1111
There's an ANI report about him. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which I then went to look at and found he's been indefinitely blocked. Doug Weller  talk 16:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks
Many thanks for the message on my talk page. I did not know how to help Zxc 1000. I was concerned then Zxc 1000 brought up sockpuppets and I decided to do nothing with helping Zxc 1000. Again my thanks-RFD (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I thought I'd better let you know so you didn't waste time on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Chinese
Hi Boing!, I noted User:Red begonia created User:红海棠特种兵之遭遇美洲豹 shortly after its own creation today, but especially that former added an - apparently identical - text in Chinese on both User pages, latter has no edits. The lower part seems to include emails and (non-wiki) web sites, dunno what it is. Question: what to tag them with for CSD? There is no option "Text completely in foreign language" or so (which releases one from the difficulty of choosing any of the other options, as it is unknown what applies - in Chinese anyways). Is it "Pure vandalism" then? Will there ever be an option to include a short comment, as is the case with Twinkle for AIV an UAA reports? Horseless Headman (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Hmm, no idea what that's about. I'd be tempted to tag with WP:U5, as they don't appear to be related to the user's en.wiki work. (And I've no idea what Twinkle developments there might be, sorry) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Alexiulian
As the blocking administrator and since I explicitly mention you in the motion, I should let you know that I've filed a WP:CBAN motion at WP:AN against this editor. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

SPIs
Would really appreciate if you could look at the SPIs on and. Thank you very much. GABHello! 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't really do SPI response work and I'm not familiar with either of those. But I have had a quick look, and I suspect CheckUser will be needed so I wouldn't really be able to help anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
Hi I'm certain why you have added back the tags but I'm not sure why you have reverted 2 other edits which were proving notability.

I request you to undo the 2 data edits and also review the article for notability.

Let's arrive at a consensus here. Editninja16 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Editninja16 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I removed more than I should, I'll go back and re-add your other changes. But I see from elsewhere that the maintenance tag question is still not settled, so please seek consensus on the article talk page before you remove them. The other problem I see with that article is that it contains too much promotional WP:Peacock wording, which also needs to be fixed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Thanks for the edits. I am trying to fix the seemingly promotional language. Meanwhile, Can you tell me how to seek consensus on the article talk page? I mean what tags to use and whom to seek the approval from? 09:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editninja16 (talk • contribs)
 * It just needs a new section on the talk page and then leave people to comment. Tell you what - I'll start the section myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping me out. An admin had pointed out some sentences which seemed promotional - I've made changes. Could you please see what else should be removed? Editninja16 (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Talk:T. K. Chand, so please add your opinion on the maintenance tags there. I don't really have any time for the article now, but if I have enough time later I'll try to do some copy editing of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping out. Though I am not sure if anyone is going to drop in to discuss because I don't know if anyone is going to get notified about that section. Editninja16 (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some people commenting on the Requested Move section above it which has not been open very long so a few seem to be interested, but notifications at the projects it's included in might help - I'll do that later when I have a little time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Editninja16 (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi no response on talk page yet. Why don't you evaluate and take a decision? Editninja16 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry I didn't have time to get back to this, but it looks like it's been resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

=March 2016=

Bosnian pyramid claims
I wonder, what is it that makes one assertion 'factual' while others not? There are two 'establishments', not one. I am not a 'fan' of this particular person, he is unimportant. The fact remains that the motivations of the establishment you cite have been exposed in many places, as having nothing to do with whether this is authentic (and they have been demonstrated as authentic) but to do with controlling money related to tourism around the term 'pyramid'. Does that mean that the other establishment is right? No. Hence my changes to make the text balanced and unbiased.

Your revertions render the text on the page biased. Is that the point of Wikipedia? I understood it was meant to be neutral. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not judge what is fact and what is not, and "neutrality" in this context does not mean giving each side equal weighting. Wikipedia weights its articles according to the balance of reliable sources (see WP:RS to learn about what constitutes a reliable source). Anyway, as I said, you need to discuss the changes you wish to make on the article talk page and gain a consensus for them. If a consensus supports you, you'll get no further complaint from me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock Profile101
Hi, I'm not creating anymore accounts which is enough and i want to unblock User:Profile101 again and i'll be promised not to do it again. And all those four socks: Eeditflyover, GTX1975, FJY2013 and WorldTrainSpotter were not from me, they were individual accounts. And i'm promised not to do it disruptively on my Userpage again which i'm violated. Please unblock Profile101 and other four socks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.229.67 (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Editing here logged out is block evasion and is not allowed. You need to log in to your account and use WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to point out these less than collegiate edit summaries, here and here, and this this threatening TP message. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  13:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've blocked, and I've reverted all user talk edits that had not already been done or answered - thanks for getting all the article ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Chorale cantata (Bach)
Seeing you active: Chorale cantata (Bach), an article with a history and a good common name, and many links, was just made (without a discussion) a redirect to List of chorale cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. Moved to Bach's second cantata cycle (not a common name). I would like to see this version restored, instead of the redirect, willing to work on it. The other articles can stay as they are. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've done what was needed and have reverted to the state of play before the moves were made without consensus, including reversing a second move made immediately after I reversed the first move. Let me know if anything is still wrong. (Disclaimer: I offer no opinion on the content of any of the articles, and this action was purely in an admin capacity to reverse a non-consensus move which needed admin tools). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . User:Francis Schonken has reinstated his preferred version at Chorale cantata (Bach), but I have not reverted him again as I wish to keep out of the content dispute. I have, however, left him an edit warring warning, and as per WP:BRD I think you would be within your rights to revert his undiscussed no-consensus changes - I'll leave the content business to you and him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Thanks for trying! Yes, I know I would be within my rights, but would prefer an uninvolved person to do it, on top of being often told when I try to move that it needs an admin. You don't have to get deep into content, - it's simply that Francis expanded the article (good), then split part of it to the list (not so good), a very complicated list with far too many numbers for my taste (not so good), then made the article a redirect to that list. I talked on the talk, he responded only by edits, and some show a lack of understanding. Therefore: rather than revert, to leave "his" articles as they are, but have an earlier version back as Chorale cantata (Bach) might be a compromise. I am willing to work on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, at least the article is back where it was before the no-consensus move - I'll leave it to you folks to sort out the content and versions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Will do so until tomorrow when it will be linked from the Main page. Francis, you are free to create an article on the cycle, using the material you added, but we need a simple link to Chorale cantata (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Francis' way to link to his preferred version (this is only one example of several)? Easter egg, if you ask me. I reverted two, but don't have time for games. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, can you give me some diffs? (I'd search for myself, but there are a lot of recent edits). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I reverted a second time, claiming WP:BRD. Related open discussion about bold or not bold BWV 1 (in that case BWV 7) is here: Village pump (policy). (You may need some time, sorry.) Also here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, because Francis had changed a guideline without waiting for aconsensus. (Sorry again.) - Better listen to the music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but in my admin capacity I need to avoid offering any opinion on content disagreements (except for, perhaps, things like blatant MOS violations). But what I see there is a bold change, validly reverted by you, and if I see edit warring without a consensus for a change then I can act. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I added now a table with the article names and hymn names (not numbers, who knows them by number?), as it was inthe article before, with a link to the larger table for the experts, - please watch, I need to go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Will see what I can do,- one idea was on the talk. Music is better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)