User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 26

=January 2017=

IP edit warring and harrassing user
IP 101.182.29.49 has targeted one single user seen in their history here and reverting every edit the user made across several articles and starting edit wars. IP is also editing disruptively, making mass reverts, edit warring and harassment at other user's talkpages. Also giving out bogus warnings like this. Reported to AIV was told it was wrong place. IP is also possibly a sock of this IP which is a confirmed sock of this user. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 01:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

IP is now filing false reports on the user they are harrassing as seen here Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 02:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Report stands as is. User is inserting unsourced information and that is against the rules. This shows that I'm not the only one reverting the vandal. Chris is supporting a vandal with this note on your page. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And the sock returns, still following me around huh? Report isnt legit as its a content dispute that you have with every editor who adds the same content with a source. You've disputed it with 4 different editors, you then edit war over it and then try to get the other users blocked. Same routine Everytime and it never works. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 08:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not going to have time to look into this, sorry. I suggest you make a report at WP:ANI - that's generally the place for things that can not be solved by discussion with the editor, but which aren't obvious vandalism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Dominic Ye
Sorry for this interruption Boing! said Zebedee but recently the user Dominic Ye (I'm his Father) had his user (and talk page which was blocked by you I believe) blocked. I would commit that his account is definitely hacked so could you delete his account if possible. Apart from that, he is currently not allowed to access this computer and use Wikipedia. I'm sorry for the changes and edits my son has made which vandalised articles and had to disturbingly have to be remove. Sorry for the recent event if it has affected you.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicYeet (talk • contribs) 09:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretending to be your father? Yeah, right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

National Microfinance Bank Changes
Hi Boing

I am working for an agency that works for NMB Tanzania and our client has asked us to change the details on Wikipedia. Kindly retain the changes.

Regards, Rockline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingu Jr (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As you are being paid by the article subject to update the article and therefore have a clear conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly but should request changes on its talk page. Please have a read of WP:COI before you do anything else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Continued editwarring from both IP after being warned and from registered user for the last 2 or 3 days. Both have provided sources neither have taken to talk page. Edit warring proof can be seen here Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 01:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Got them. I'm off to bed now and back at work tomorrow and will have a lot less time for Wikipedia, so it will probably better if you report any further edit warring at WP:EWN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol I go back tomorrow too so I'll probably miss them for a few days, thank for the EWN I couldn't remember it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 01:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

BLPVIOs?
Please advise. Two edits here and here- verging on the libellous possibly- particularly the second one- (going out with a 15 year old')- revdel territory I was thinking. On a lighter note, Happy New Year Zebedee. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi.  16:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "going out with a 15 year old" is that much of a problem, seeing as the BLP subjects are themselves 14. It's just fangirls making stuff up, and I think plain reverts are all that's needed. I'll give the editor a welcome and a warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * D'oh! -I misread it. Though the fella was 25! :D -cheers!  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a new article on January 2, 2017
Hi, Here is the message I received when trying to see the new article I created. 00:29, 3 January 2017 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) deleted page The Essence Identity (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)

I have been a member and editor of Wikipedia since 2008 but now had to use a new login from a different device where my password is not saved. The article I created was unbiased and contained factual information about a band. If you judge it marking "promotional", so can be everything listed on Wikipedia. As of G11 criteria: Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. As of A7 criteria: Music is the form of art and art is represented on Wikipedia widely. It is important to many people.

I hope that helps to restore the page. Feel free to contact me should you have any questions,

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpairpa (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The G11 was possibly questionable, yes, but I just left the reasons added by the reporting editor. But it was undoubtedly a valid A7 deletion. A two-sentence article about a band with no assertions of importance and only a link to their own Youtube channel to support it? If you've been around as long as you say, you surely know that's nowhere near enough for an article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank
Thank you Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 02:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yw. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

editing
How the Eff do you know if a page has false information. ? Liverpool20091985 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are trolling and lucky not to be blocked immediately after that edit. There is a place for your inimatble brand of humour; wikipedia articles are not it. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Asilah1981
Please see my suggestion at ANI that a thread about Asilah1981 can be closed. Since you issued the last block I guess you are the 'owner' of the issue at least temporarily. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I've commented there with a recommendation to close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you've now unblocked, do you think something ought to be done about the concerns expressed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942? For example, restrictions that might be agreed to from the topic areas he has been in conflict, such as the Basque Country, Gibraltar and Spanish history? EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering about that. But I'm hoping that just keeping an eye on his edits should be good enough. I think he understands that he'll be closely watched from here on, and we should be able take action more decisively than via another ANI discussion should anything go wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add that Irondome is going to be watching too, and this seems like a good sign. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Promoting lies
Hi, I don't want to "promote lies", but likewise I feel the Pizzagate article is slanted too hard in promoting that it's false rather than just presenting the evidence, plus the talk page is locked so the concerns can't be discussed there.

That and just because some lunatic on the internet thinks "alien lizardmen" or the "Illumanti Satanists" are involved doesn't IMO mean it's equivalent to the Flat Earth conspiracy. Ignoring all of the tin foil hat type stuff, it's merely allegations of politicans involved in a sex scandal, and politicans or famous people being involved in sex scandals isn't completely uncommon, Bill Cosby, Jared Fogle, Jeffrey Epstein, Jerry Sandusky, the Catholic sex abuse cases just to name a few.

Basically the article shouldn't say that this is "true", but should not try to push a "it didn't happen" narrative and prevent any talk page discussion in compliance with WP:NPOV.--206.255.40.218 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been lengthy, often acrimonious, discussion, and the current content was decided by consensus - and the consensus was that, backed by multiple reliable sources, it did not happen, and that that's what Wikipedia should say. You need to drop this now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User: Vjmlhds
I read about what happened between you and Vjmlhds and I am so sorry about it. I had the same situation as well with this person with the Antenna TV program page. This person keeps changing it around thinking this person controls the entire editing section of the Wikipedia page; and we worked very hard in organizing the pages to reach Wikipedia standards as possible. Wikipedia pages are meant for everyone to contribute and make minor changes, but not controlling the entire Wikipedia page or start a riot between Wikipedia users. I wish there was a way to block this person after this person's negative comments on my talk page. Minor changes okay, but controlling a section on a Wikipedia page is unacceptable. We both do not deserved to be treated negatively from that user. You did the right thing and you were brave enough to stop this person from editing changes. I am not that type of a person who knows complicated things using Wikipedia to block other Wikipedia users from vandalism and editing changes. Cbears22 (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are engaged in a content dispute, and you need to address that by discussion on the article talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Since my name was brought up, I feel the need to explain, I haven't touched that article, in at least 10 days, and all I did was remove a ton of minutiae that only the hardcore TV nerds would care about. CBear's version was much more cluttered, much harder to read, and much less organized than my streamlined version, which is more in line with other articles like those for similar classic TV digital networks such as Cozi TV and Me-TV.  At the end of the day. these are reruns of reruns that have been shown a thousand times on a thousand different networks...no need for all of that extra stuff that really just bogs down the article.  And if you look at his talk page, you'll see I gave him a respectful explanation why I did what I did - no insults, no name calling, no acting like I'm a Wiki-boss.  This looks more to me like looking for revenge (noticing I was just blocked), and him trying to get some kind of proverbial pound of flesh. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did take a look at that article, and you did nothing wrong there. I can't see any admin taking any notice of his obvious bad faith appeals. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Boing earlier here Cbears22 has been canvassing Users and Admins trying to get Vjmlhds blocked and asking how they can block them. I myself issued a warning to Cbears22 for removing sourced content from another article. I fully support and see where they have done nothing wrong. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 02:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd
''Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I have removed the comment you added at User talk:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd.''

Yes, I do mind: they need to know that their statement is false, especially since they asked that someone else proxy-edit on their behalf.

They are not allowed to reply, or to discuss the matter at all, so your engaging in it on their talk page is not helpful and might even serve to inflame.

Which I noted in my original message. I even explicitly stated that a reply was neither expected nor required. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that can be seen as poking them unnecessarily. They don't *need* to know anything, they simply need to be helped to stay away from the topic. So please stay away from their talk page and do not discuss a subject with them that they are banned from. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

for the recreation of wikipedia page
I want to recreate Deepsheel Bharat titled wikipedia page. because Deepsheel Bharat is a popular daily Hindi newspaper in Uttar pradesh, Rajsthan in india. so please give me permission for recreation of Deepsheel Bharat Titled wikipedia page. and also help for recreation of Deepsheel Bharat Titled wikipedia page. (Brhama rajput (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)).
 * There was a consensus for deletion at Articles for deletion/Deepsheel Bharat, so you would need to make a request at WP:DRV if you want a review of the deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Hannibal Smith  ❯❯❯  19:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello
So I just noticed that User:Cbears22, has been canvassing editors and Admins after they contacted you trying to gain support to have something done to User:Vjmlhds because they have a content dispute and Vj issued them a warning for edit warring. They have messaged you, DantODB and Admin Yamla asking them how they can block Vj from editting. I wanted to make you aware of this after I saw the message they placed to you on your talk. Chris "WarMachineWildThing"  Talk to me 00:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've replied to Vjmlhds above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi
I sincerely apologized to you and to everyone else about my behavior concerning about the edit-war issue. I felt that the edit-war conversation went too far for me and I should have never written my frustration and anger at everyone's talk page or involved in the edit-war conversation. I do not want to get in trouble with the admins or get banned from editing Wikipedia pages over the conversation that brought my attention from Vjmlhds. Cbears22 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Please remember that content disagreements are settled by talk page discussion and consensus, not by admins. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Donald Trump &
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Donald Trump &. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...
for your help today. Sorry about that one redirect; I hadn't been paying attention and thought the editor was being silly. Still, thanks. Patient Zerotalk 13:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, it did look silly to me too until I took a closer look. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible shared account
Hi. I wonder if you'd take a look at User:MLclass. The name itself doesn't seem like a big deal or I'd have posted at UAA, but the first line on the user page suggests there might be more than one person editing under the username. Except for one self-reverted test edit and mistaking their user page for a sandbox, they appear to be making constructive edits. I don't want to scare them off. Rivertorch  <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   21:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's enough to indicate shared use, but it's not a valid use of a user page and so I've tagged it as WP:U5. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

AcceleDent
this is not promo editing. your facts are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pczeno (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

your information regarding acceledent is not factual. why is that ok to post?
 * The current article content carries citations to what appears to be a reliable source. If you believe the content is incorrect, you need to provide independent reliable sources to support any changes you make. This version is blatant company PR completely unsupported by sources. Do you have any connection to the company or its products? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sock above removed the Cochrane review from 2015 that was supporting the content. Have restored it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I read that source, and I did not see any mention of the AcceleDent device at all, so I don't see how it can be used to support statements that are specifically about this device. As an aside, you also reverted my removal of content and my PROD - did you intend to do that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you're working on it and that the source covers it under another name - I'll leave you to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes agree it is confusing. This article had been moved around and deleted a couple of times. Appears the company has changed the name of their product as well.
 * The company paid for a Wikipedia article and they have gotten something they did not want as when you look at the best avaliable evidence it says it does not work :-)
 * This could turn into a nice warning for companies that hire undisclosed paid editors. I will also keep all the articles and redirects watched as I am sure the socks will be back.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - yes, quite a nice boomerang result :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As that account is very likely a sock have blocked it indefinitely aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's Earflaps! Nice catch. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jb666999
Thanks for blocking his sock. Can you please close Sockpuppet investigations/Jb666? It's not needed now that you blocked him. JDDJS (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll comment that I've blocked, and then leave it for a clerk to close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Jb666999
Hi Boing! I'm seeing you blocked User talk:Jb666999, it looks like he is continuing vandalizing through their talk page. I think talk page access needs to be revoked. --   LuK3      (Talk)   02:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And back again
Hi Boing! said Zebedee and happy new year, hope you are doing well. The latest ANI with Asilah1981 comes from the article Basque conflict. It was very sad to see you accepted his insistent appeal to unblock him, just after you wisely blocked User:ItaloCelt84, User:Veritas2016, and User:DifensorFidelis. You spotted them and you saw how they insisted to unblock them, did not they strike a chord with Asilah1981 whatsoever??? No? Maybe I am a fool? I do not know, but I am not blind.

Anyway, I wanted to tell you that some days ago a username of new creation came back out of the blue again with an exact claim made by Asilah1981 weeks ago in the above article (see history) to mess it up over a very sensitive and painful topic, torture (see Talk:Basque conflict to get a taste).

Sorry, as someone put it in the ANI, this is taking the piss, or as WCM put it right now in Irondome's talk, poking the bear, making a fool of me, and the whole WP community. I am really fed up, more so if the WP does not tackle this issue decisively. (In your favour, at least I was glad anyway to see how you addressed ItaloCelt84 and the whole crew, which gives a glimmer of hope) I only see one way out for me now, another incident, for which I have enough evidence to start with. Of course the editor in question and the whole cast will come back to his claims that I am recurrently attacking him with new sockpupetting allegations. Very sad, but leaves me little leeway. However, I would like to hear from you first. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I blocked Asilah1981 for one specific issue and not for any larger underlying problems, and once that specific issued was settled, I had no valid reason not to unblock. As for ItaloCelt84, Veritas2016, and DifensorFidelis, I did not block them - I only modified the blocks on two of them to revoke talk page access. I have no idea whether there are any connections between them and Asilah1981, or whether there are any new socks, but if you think there are then please feel free to make a new sockpuppet report (or a new report at ANI or wherever you think is appropriate). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for striking chords, the ItaloCelt84, Veritas2016, and DifensorFidelis thing was back in June 2016, and I have made around 5,000 edits since then, many of them admin actions in all sorts of different areas - I can't be expected to remember the characteristics of every problematic editor I have ever come across. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry...
...for leaving you to that. My brain melted after explaining categories once. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no worry. I noticed somewhere that he said he has Asperger's, and I think that probably explains a lot. I doubt he understands A7 any better now (and I see from his history that this has been going on for a long time) but at least he seems to have come down off his current soapbox. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking of Kurzon
You recently unblocked Kurzon, and said in your comment "...After more than a year away...". Kurzon was editing under the sock BaronBifford and was blocked for similar troubles four months ago.

Kurzon/Bifford has quality information to contribute, and I'm not disputing the unblock. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't an oversight. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was indeed an oversight, thanks for letting me know. I'll have a think about what to do - I don't think I'd like to revert the unblock now, but I might offer a gentle warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please reblock. Kurzon was blatantly deceptive in that unblock request. It hadn't been more than a year, they had been socking literally within a few days of requesting unblock. The user has immediately returned to disruption of Superman-related articles. Sro23 (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, that's a shame. I've reinstated the indefinite block. Thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Lucaisautistic
You might want to revoke talk page access. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  12:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it! Racist comments by here Thanks 12:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I got dragged away by a phone call and only just got back. Those comments (which I have now rev-deleted) suggest it's a returning regular troll - can't remember their previous name. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As an aside, for all the insults I've had recently to be true, I'd have to be a gay, black, Trump supporter... and I don't expect there are many of those around ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry/Thanks
Hi,

Sorry for the fuss -- Quite new to the community. Thanks for accepting my request for a name change.

Kind Regards, Street — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreetMath (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's no problem, Wikipedia's rules can be pretty intimidating to new editors :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Onion
In a previous review of vandalism editing at Onion, you issued a block to user Anonymousfreedomfighter (Jan 5). Similar persistent editing by named or IP users is happening again on information that is adequately covered in the article and sources. Would appreciate your assessment of probable WP:SOCK again. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm just off to bed and don't really have the time to look at this just now (and I'll be too busy tomorrow, sorry), but I've protected the article against unregistered editing for 24 hours and hopefully that will do as a stopgap until someone else can look more closely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The IP editor opened a Talk discussion and I found a new source for onion origins. I'll do some editing but ask that you check back and see we're all behaving! ;>) Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The template seems to be redundant now that there are automatic notifications, so...
Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User talk:WKFS
Do you know the username of the "original account"?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but I'm guessing it's one of these - he said "I've been treated like a felon for simply adding an article (several times)", but with this account he'd created Saverio Fabbri (actor) only once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how far back the master goes, and I've seen the various accounts that created the many pages about the same person with different names. And I assume that, who blocked WKFS as a sock, had that in mind when he blocked. He probably chose not to block those other accounts because they were old, but your instruction in your decline isn't possible as the sock can't make an unblock request from an account that isn't blocked. Not that any of this is any great loss. He's not going to be unblocked anyway. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything because of the SPI that was filed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I hadn't spotted that the others weren't blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's basically right: Just to add one thing, I probably should have investigated the older accounts more deeply and/or filed an SPI.  Time didn't permit, thanks for sorting this all out. --joe deckertalk 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock block templates
In cases such as Profile101, I don't think templates are a good idea, hence why I cited WP:DENY, but if you wish to keep it there, I have no objection given you are an admin. I can see why the talk page shouldn't be deleted though, so thanks for reverting that. Have a good day, Patient Zerotalk 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The blocking admin had already added it, so I wouldn't overrule their decision - and best just leave things be rather than adding more drama (per WP:DENY, as you say). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Boing - I wouldn't want to overrule any admin actions, and as I said, I have no objection to leaving it there. Thanks for your reply. Also, Yunshui is male - we edit conflicted and I saw you changed "his" to "their" - feel free to change that back if you wish. Patient Zerotalk 10:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * New account User:SpicemanSpiff has been created, needs blocking too. Thanks in advance. Patient Zerotalk 11:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC) taken care of. Patient Zerotalk 11:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the same note, Boing, did you have any special reason beyond being a sweet guy for protecting the SPI archive for just three hours? Profile101 won't leave it alone, so I've upped your protection time just a little. :-) I can't think of a good reason for any non-autoconfirmed user to edit it ever. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC).
 * He's usually here for a very short time and then disappears until his next visit, so I thought 3 hours would be enough to see this one out. But indefinite works too :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

=February 2017=

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Bullets of Justice
Hello! Can you hepl me to enhance the translation? Thanks!AkaBad (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll try to do some copy editing on it when I get some time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing - Election for coordinators
New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period. See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC) I've been wheel-warred by a 'crat.
 * Nomination period: Sunday 5 February to 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 February
 * Voting period: Monday 20 February to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March

Can you chime in at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details - I'll respect youropinion even if it means I'm wrong, but I damned if I'm going to kowtow to someone who have been trying to trip me up every inch of the way in my campaign to get NPP cleaned up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC), by preending to be helpful (diffs available). Chris (Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC))
 * I've got to go out for a bit today, but I'll have a look when I get back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't have spare brain power for this, but I'll try to look in later today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

REVDEL possibly needed on page Matthias
Hello,

Recent edits on the page Matthias by user User:Rhysbw1 may have included personal information. These revisions may need deletion to protect the privacy of those whose information was revealed.

They may not actually need deletion, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Thank you, and have a great day! MereTechnicality (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely - edits that reveal someone else's real life name and address need to be suppressed. I've rev-deleted them and have requested WP:Oversight. Thanks for the vigilence, and yes, always better safe than sorry in things like this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Broccoli Pizza and Pasta Ltd
I'm pinging you in light of your role in fixing the recent hijacking of Ullaste to Broccoli pizza and pasta. I thought you'd like to know that Broccoli Pizza and Pasta Ltd was created just one day before. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Senor Freebie
I seriously don't know what to do with this editor. I have been dealing with him and this edit war (which is not entirely his fault) across three talk pages. Beyond the edit warring though is his persistent snark and outright insulting commentary directed at anyone he disagrees with. Frankly I am getting sick of it. If he can't moderate his manner of interacting with other editors this is going to end up at ANI. Do you have any suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say escalating blocks, simple as that. I'm busy most of the day, but I'll look in later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just popped over and seen his latest responses, and I've left a firm final warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the back up. With the exception of the odd vandalism only account, blocking people bothers me. I just don't understand the 'why?' behind 80-90% of the actions that require me to hit the "shut up now" button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, it's the admin task I dislike the most too, but this has been going on for months and his attacks are just too destructive. I'm happy to play the "bad cop" in this drama. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a troubling discussion to discover after having already been attacked so many times.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please apologise.

 * 1) "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page"

You stated that I was making a personal attack by saying the above. You were incorrect. The edit summaries are clear. This was not something I said, and is quite obviously a personal attack against me.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right, I mis-read that one, so I have struck it and I do apologize for the error. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And this comment, which you allege was a personal attack; "Section was not re-added. IP user is lying. Section was discussed, and new content was added, per discussion, to more accurately reflect the source material." where I was merely seeking to defend myself against the language you accused me of using? Do you stand by the fact that this was not appropriate, given the context?--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Senor Freebie  Drop the stick now. Neither I nor Boing have time for your endless WP:DRAMA. If you are here to contribute to an encyclopedia then there are a lot of areas where you can apply yourself. But if you are simply here to attack and snipe and whine endlessly, that is not something that the project needs regardless of what positive contributions you may have made or are capable of in the future. See also WP:Tendentious editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop making personal attacks against me. All I have done is attempt to constructively edit an article, including providing sources where people have questioned the validity of information, and I have been hounded by you and the IP user, with constant attacks and allegations, without any demonstrative evidence. I have had hours of my time wasted, and have personally been insulted both by you and by the other user.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'd recommend you to stop now. I've been in a similar situation not with edit warring but with disruptive editing. I thought I did nothing wrong and complained about being blocked at first. When I finally acknowledged i was in the wrong, it was helpful. People called for an indef block against me and I got off with only two weeks. I feel that acknowledging my mistakes was partially why (there are other larger reasons I won't get into) I got off so luckily. I'd recommend you take a wikibreak for the duration of the ban and come back fresher. Then we can generate a calm and collected discussion that actually produces some results without getting you blocked again. I'd be more willing to take your side if you didn't lose your temper so quickly, and it would help your case to have a better relationship with the involved parties. Also, even though I'm kinda doing this now, don't go out of your way to comment on other people's talk pages. These administrators are just doing their jobs and they have no bad feelings against you yourself. Going out of your way to comment on their talk pages, demanding an apology just because they were involved, won't help your case. If you need assistance or have a question about dealing with conflicts relating to editing, please don't refrain from dropping a message on my talk page and I'll try to assist you as much as I can. Trust another editor who's been in this situation before, you should take a break rather than hold a grudge. You can definitely recover from this and continue to have a discussion if you stop having 'personal attacks' as your go-to rebuttal. Just take a break for a week, and drop me a message when you come back to enwiki. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Senor Freebie is currently unable to respond. While I appreciate the constructive note you posted, at the moment we are just trying to get everybody to calm down and move on. Perhaps this discussion should be closed. I will leave that to Boing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to copy and paste this on his user page so he can definitely see it when he returns. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Breach of agreement
Hi Boing! said Zebedee, I hope you are doing well despite all the hectic activity. With reference to the breach of agreement by Asilah1981 a conclusion to the incident is required. Customary blocking sanctions did not work, and this other imaginative option did not either. You happen to be the sysop with a closer insight into this case, for which I should require your executive action, which seems to be an indefinite block, per the editor's recurrent, erratic behaviour, basically POV oriented. I look forward to hearing from you, regards Iñaki LL (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. As I said over there, I'm too busy right now to spend any more time on this case, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the thing is I am not an administrator myself. It is action required by someone empowered to it. Wikipedia policies have been repeatedly breached, leading to further litigation. It is about executive action to a breach of sanction, I think that falls in your duties. However, if at the moment you are busy, I suggest you tell me who can do it. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a volunteer, so I don't have any duties. The usual place to request admin action for policy-breaching incidents is WP:ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is good to know, since we often do not know how this operates. As far as I know though you, like Drmies or others, are the ones in charge of making decisions according to evidence presented, and this urge I am bringing up here responds to the outcome of an Incident, concluding a type of sanction alternative to a block that has now been violated (the sanction). Automatic immediate action applies. Who should do that? I am not an administrator, I cannot do anything, I mean is this not looking like a Catch 22? Iñaki LL (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already told you, ask for admin help at WP:ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Iñaki LL. There are many admins (I'm one), unfortunately we are all volunteers and most of us are part-timers so we have a limited amount of items we can work on at a given time. I suggest you open a discussion at WP:ANI. Please be sure to follow the directions carefully. Include a succinct statement of the problem with any relevant diffs. Stick to the facts and avoid any histrionics. And be sure to notify all involved parties of the ANI discussion on their talk page. There is a template at the top of editing page for ANI. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see now you are volunteers, what I ask for is an automatic procedure to a breach of sanction though . Anyway, so be it. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no automatic procedure, you need to ask at WP:ANI! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeated unwanted messages on my talk page
Could you revert the most recent edit (string of edits?) to my talk page. I'm under 1RR and it didn't occur to me that it might apply to removal of unwanted messages from my own talk page until I was already considering a third revert. Block me if you need to, but at the moment I'm just not interested in talk about an "edit war" that happened two weeks ago, so I'd really like the messages to be removed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're allowed to remove message from your talk page once you have read them (as I see you have now done), and anyone who reinstates them is definitely doing wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Fish for you
(Darwinbish is interested to note that there's a resonating "Boing!" sound when she wallops the user.) Ha. Must do that again some time.  darwin bish  <sup style="color:lime;">BITE  <b style="color:black;"> ☠ </b> 14:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Ouch! But those fish look very tasty - I might have some when my head stops spinning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nestlé Bear Brand
The Nestlé Bear Brand has new variant, it is a yoghurt, called Bear Brand Yogu. You can see to [www.nestle.com.ph www.nestle.com.ph]]. -- cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! ( Talk  |  Contributions ) 03:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for review
Could you have a look at the recent history at Dung beetle? I may be right or I may be wrong. I know you'll be neutral. Peridon (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's nonsense, and not at all supported by the cited sources, so I've reverted again and warned. It actually looks like deliberate vandalism to me ("...thought of as "Divine Beings" and were often associated with victories of the axis powers..."? - I know the Nazis were mad, but...). I think a block is in order if it continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the way I thought, but I like to be sure... Thanks a lot. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He did it again, so I've given him a 48h block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice one! Peridon (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Elections for NPP/NPR coordinators
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. New Page Review and its Page Curation is a core MediaWiki extension. The process of expertly vetting all new articles is a critical issue needing a couple of 'go to' people. The coordinators will do their best for for the advancement of the improvement of NPP and generally keep tracks on the development of those things. Coordinators have no additional or special user benefits, but they will try to keep discussions in the right places and advance negotiations with the WMF. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Be sure
Be damn sure that this was an accident and that I don't know why it happened. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I misread your edit summary, I read; I'm not sure, instead of I'm sure. Sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * NP. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thank you very much for fixing it. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * YW :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been reported
Dear editor:

As the rules require (and as a courtesy), I am notifying you: You and 2 or 3 other editors have been reported:

Link 1: here and Link 2: here.

You seem to want resolution. Best luck. (PS: You do not seem to be an aggressor, here, but you did play a part, so I'm notifying you, like the rules require.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.192.18.128 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've played no part in any dispute at that article, so I have no idea what makes you think I'm involved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

adding lgbt
Hi! I just wanted to say i added the LGBT Black south africans before i read the warning. I wanted to add Caster specifically because it's important for lgbt black south africans, like me, to know that you can be lgbt and successful. I hope you don't mind. I'm posting here because it said you added a level of protection to the page and i didn't want to be disrespectful or for you to think i was vandalizing by not telling you first, so i hope you forgive me on that score.

Vicky Sutherland ps; I'M BLACK! THIS IS JUST MY PSEUDONYM, in case you're wondering why i'm so invested in making the edit LGBT Black South Africans.

Vicky SutherlandVicky Sutherland (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi No problem with that, it looks like a good addition. My warning was only about not changing her medals until there was a source to verify they had actually been upgraded, and we have a source for that now too, so all is well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sho. Also @Boing! said Zebedee, i'm terrible at the technicalities of editing; learning at a snail pace, i'd appreciate quick tips about stuff. PS; now that i think about it, is there a youtube tutorial on how to be a wikipedia editor? hmmmm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicky Sutherland (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any Youtube tutorials, sorry, but we do have some resources for helping newcomers.
 * The ADVENTURE ("Learn to edit Wikipedia in under an hour!") is something that a lot of new users find helpful.
 * The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions, and it's hosted by experienced editors who are friendly and very good at explaining things.
 * If you have any specific questions you are welcome to ask me here, though I'm not always around - and there's almost always someone available to help at the Teahouse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

=March 2017=

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news
 * A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
 * AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
 * Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
 * The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news
 * A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
 * Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
 * A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 6 years ago...

 * Interesting, you became an admin the day after my 10th birthday. Happy admin-versary! MereTechnicality   ⚙  13:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooh, you're making me feel old now :-) Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Mechengrasim
Hi, subject to the voluntary topic ban are you OK with an unblock? Just Chilling (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy with that, thanks for letting me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

thank you
thank you both of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechengrasim (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

UTRS
Howdy, do you have UTRS access, please? Just Chilling (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you rename User:Shitster67 to User:Akshtsaklani7, please?The applicant appealed at UTRS #17691 and has requested this change. I am not able to copy the appeal to a talk page because, as part of their justification, they have had to give their real name. The Block log is here. I will unblock after the name change. Just Chilling (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fantastic service! Thanks! :-) Just Chilling (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM
It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Time to remove talk page access?
Seriously? Half his edits to his talk page since being blocked have been to complain about what an asshole I am (which is ironic because I didn't open either of the ANI threads), and the other half are "Unblock me. I didn't do anything wrong. It was everyone else's fault." Before UTRS I would have said no, but now ... I guess removing TP access with the open unblock request would be wrong and I don't know if you as an "involved" admin are allowed accept or reject his request, but still.Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take his talk page off your watchlist and forget about him - nobody is likely to unblock him any time soon. (And no, I reviewed a previous request, so I can't do this one - ah, I see he's withdrawn it.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh. If no one is going to unblock him, then I don't think there's any policy-based reason not to watch his page. Especially when all but one of his post-block edits have been about me. He claimed I was following/harassing him, but since he's blocked the only way that could be true would be if I was extremely lonely and bored. But, yeah: you're probably right. Just for my own piece of mind I've unwatched the page. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Just for my own piece of mind I've unwatched the page" - yep, that's the reason I suggested it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)