User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 34

=January 2019=

Happy New Year, Boing!


Happy New Year! Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best, Boing,

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Boing! said Zebedee!


Happy New Year! '''Boing! said Zebedee''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Just Chilling (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Just Chilling (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Name
Thank you ! Cherry Jennifer (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Siddiqsazzad001
You blocked the wrong guy. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 12:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He did this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I see it could have been an accidental revert. I'll unblock and apologize. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for apologize. Siddiqsazzad001       12:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Create page
Dear sir I want to write my biography here gave me permission to create page name : pankaj subedi Pankajsubedi2 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can not give you permission to create a biography article if you do not meet the notability requirements of WP:NPERSON. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I already meet a criteria and have all kinds of legal proved but how can I send you my legal evidence here. Pankajsubedi2 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just create the name : pankaj subedi I edited that details and add photo and share my legal evidence proved there dear sir. Pankajsubedi2 (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will come on over to your talk page and try to offer some guidance there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Smile and sharing
If you have a moment, check out User:Gerda Arendt/Images 2019 (formerly Christmas), for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Gyorgy Kamaras
Hi there,

so I'm gonna just jump into it, the situation is this: Gyorgy Kamaras is currently trying to earn a spot on a U.S college team. For this he has to go through an eligibility process. Unfortunately having a wikipedia page severely diminishes his chances. Is there any way you could delete his page, or at least disable it for a couple of weeks, months? We are talking about the future of a kid here, if the eligibility committee sees his wiki page, it is basically game over.

Is there anything you can do?

Zoltan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zol1982 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. Regarding György Kamarás, I do not have the power to delete articles arbitrarily, but only if they meet the criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD) or if one of the other deletion processes (WP:PROD or WP:AFD) has been followed. And there is no such thing as "disabling" articles. Even if I could do as you ask, I would not, as it would be unethical for me to play any part in what sounds like an attempted deception. You speak of "the future of a kid", but what about the future of the other kid who would get the team slot honestly? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Page editing
Why are user pages not editable? 110.175.251.234 —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. As an IP address can be used by multiple people, an IP user page (which is dedicated to one person) is not appropriate. If you want to create a user page, you'll have to set up an account with a username and password. You should see a "Create account" link at the top right of this page, or if for some reason you can't use that you can request an account at WP:ACC. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Boing! said Zebedee As of 2005, account are required to create new pages, why is that? 110.175.251.234
 * It was to reduce the very large amount of vandalism coming from unregistered people. The restriction was extended in 2018 so that only Autoconfirmed accounts can create new pages, for a similar reason - see WP:ACPERM. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How long will accounts be required to create pages? 110.175.251.234
 * You should be able to create a user page straight away, but to create articles you will need to satisfy the Autoconfirmed conditions. Click on that link for the details. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Heading
My recent attempt to correct the article was reversed.

I see you are maintain the pages Carolyn_Bessette-Kennedy and assume you're also maintaining John_F._Kennedy_Jr page.

Please be aware they are both alive and well, and I'm helping where possible to assist in them returning into "the land of the living".

If you require supporting evidence let me know a contact email or telephone number to pass to Carolyn and she will contact you directly.

I'm sure all will make perfect sense once you are aware of the bigger picture.

Also, if like me, you're a fan of truth and justice, you'll be delighted when you here what they're been planning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.74.8 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for a week per WP:NOTHERE, appears to be User:Paulreillyseo logged out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

=February 2019=

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

As discussed. GoldenRing (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

UTRS 23913
Hi!

User:Jezzy-lam has issued an unblock appeal on UTRS under the above ticket number. I can see from their talk page that you told them to lodge an appeal to get their talk page access reinstated via UTRS 6 months ago, therefore I would appreciate your input on their unblock appeal.-- 5 albert square (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have a look a bit later - got a busy morning right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. It doesn't fill me with a lot of hope though that the blocked user has not responded to my questions *sigh*.-- 5 albert square (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, and I second the *sigh*. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Motion
Hi Boing! said Zebedee, a motion has been proposed at the Arbitration Request you filed. For The Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih
For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Please stop trolling
I know all of Binksternet's posse is enjoying watching my tarring and feathering, but this is excessive. Instaurare (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What, I just fixed the formatting of your page by correcting a duplicated tag! Or do you want the rest of your page to be incorrectly formatted? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to User surevey 1
Hello! There is an ongoing survey going on at User:ImmortalWizard/User survey 1. As a fellow Wikipedian ImmortalWizard would like you to answer some questions. It wouldn't take too long, and your participation will be appreciated. Thanks, THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 16:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you awhile back!
Hey Boing! I wanted to personally tell you thank you for supporting my unblock back in August. As you may or may not remember, a long time ago i was User:Pixiemasters (which is now renamed to obscurity) and back in 2012 you said this:

To be quite honest, all of this "i would be back to unblocked, i would get a plate of cookies, and then i would work my way to reviewer, then to an administrator" stuff just sounds to me like a kid who really isn't mature enough to work here - and I no signs of understanding anything that the various unblock reviewers have been saying. I would oppose any unblock unless one of the following two things happens... Pixiemasters/Drew Harris follows Beeblebrox's 2nd chance suggestion, above, and demonstrates the ability to make a useful edit here on this Talk page. Pixiemasters/Drew Harris is accepted by a mentor, and agrees to follow that mentor's guidance strictly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 3:09 pm, 27 May 2012, Sunday (6 years, 9 months, 2 days ago) (UTC−7)"

Later, I abandoned that account and evaded that block and created this account. At some point I became tired of editing dishonestly and came clean, got blocked for it, and managed to gain support and earn an unblock. You were of of the few people who was involved with the situation back in the day that came back and voiced support for the unblock with this message:

"Support unblock (per WP:NOTBURO if you like). Yes, technically this was block evasion. But Drewiestewie could simply have kept quiet and never been noticed, and I think honesty should be rewarded rather than punished - and I see no complaints about their actual edits, and so nothing that needs to be prevented. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 2:42 am, 21 August 2018, Tuesday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−7)"

You then suggested that if I had to create a new account and start fresh, you'd gladly grant me the Extended autoconfirmed status that I posses on this account. While that ultimately wasn't necessary and I kept this account, I'd like to thank you for voicing your support and being able to see and be convinced at how much I matured after all of those years. You're an amazing Wikipedian and you'll always have my support. Have an amazing day :) DrewieStewie (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very kind message, and for updating me with how things are going for you. It really pleases me to learn we have another young person on board, and it reinforces my conviction that we should be generous with second chances. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

=March 2019=

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day! Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Open proxy
Here. I advised the user, but they started edit warring instead. Can you advise were to report such cases? Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lets not blatantly lie now. There's a discussion on the talk page between multiple users regarding the material in question and you have refused to solve the content dispute on the talk page. Gain a consensus for your changes and stop edit warring. I have already warned you on your talk page now please use the article talk page like everybody else is. You have to follow WP:BRD like everybody else.52.124.6.146 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I found it. Reported. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked it on my own for three months as an anonymous open proxy. It was blocked before last October by the bot, and it's still an open proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi, Boing! You might want to consider reverting this edit. It could be taken as a legal threat. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That the next reviewing admin will judge whether the block reason has been addressed could be taken as a legal threat? I don't get it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, do you think it sounds like I'm suggesting a legal judge would review the unblock request? ;-) I've added two words to make it clearer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or even that if he doesn't shape up, his next stop would be a courtroom! You never know how people are going to interpret things, but judges and courtrooms have been in the news so much lately... Anyhow that fixed it, thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Abusive IP more
Hi there! The abusive IP seems to have reappeared at the Gua Sha article with a completely different address. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, editing from just across the border in Malaysia too. There might still be a range block possible on the Singapore IPs, but for now let's go for protection - I've semi-protected the three articles they've been attacking for a month. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Trolling
''Posting further gibes at him is disruptive. The dispute had been dealt with and is over, and you need to move on too. So stop it and leave him alone''

Remind me again: WHO left the pointless trolling? And who's shown utter incompetence at (literally) everything he's done on Wikipedia?

Let me know if you figure it out. --Calton &#124; Talk 11:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was settled and closed *two days ago* and he hasn't edited since. Now, if you don't want your already lengthy block log to get even longer, drop it *now*. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Too eager
You are too eager to contest well referenced cited 2nd source information, that leads to low quality. Let the world participate, the later things can be overturned, consensus can be achieved, its not set in stone but a living document. But without information, without willingness to listen, you are just being an overbearing overlord. In other words, admins should not be too lazy, all too many wikipedia articles will remain low quality and even more people will flee. I know thats what some want the final say, truth or falsehood be damned, but its no good for wikipedia.Doseiai2 (talk)
 * So, admins can be overbearing overlords and they should not be lazy? Thank you for straightening that out, Doseiai2. It's what an editor always wants to read about themselves. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not acting in an admin capacity here (and can not now do so seeing as I have expressed an opinion regarding article content), so my failings as an admin are not relevant. All you need to do, the same as anyone seeking to make contested changes, is gain a consensus at the article talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should add that sources used to support any medical benefits of Gua Sha must comply with the strict standards of WP:MEDRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I appreciate things you are pointing out, and I do read those specific articles, but in the grand scheme the average joe such as myself doesn't have time to monitor every detail of wikipedia's policies and read every page of the manual, it becomes a major unpaid job. Contributors are often in the dark when policies change, and just who is involved in determining consensus and/or even if consensus is even discussed at all.  To me, it seems like discussions are not happening for a vast number of articles that have simply been gutted where a wealth of information previously existed, particularly in areas of biochemistry and health.  Where are these wikipedia discussions being held?  Who is invited?  Endless questions.  I am hardly new to wikipedia and if all this daunting for someone who has contributed as much as me, imagine for everyone else, the casual contributor.  There is a HUGE problem with social inclusion.  Is it all a bunch of people who look act and think alike making these consensus decisions?  Are they all white old men?  I simply do not know.  But inclusion is a major issue in tech circles and this country, that has been far from addressed.  I hope you understand what the implications are, and I'm appealing to your good side, because frankly I do not you personally.  That is what I meant by lazy, I am not witnessing improvement in analytic quality nor quantity nor inclusion of ideas to long gutted articles that are simply languishing in limbo despite a vast wealth of information in regards to the subjects.  Wikipedia is venerable but still a oft cited source.  It may not remain that way if trends persist as they have been going, but why reinvent the wheel when there is one already? Doseiai2 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I understand that you can not possibly know all of Wikipedia's policies, and that is why I gave you links to the most relevant ones - and I get accused of being lazy for doing so! To expand on what you need to do - start a discussion on the article talk page to seek consensus for your desired changes, and in that discussion explain what those change are, provide your justification for them, and explain the sources which support them. Then let the community discuss and decide. The rules are the same for everyone, regardless of social or demographic status - and as an aside, you refer to "in tech circles and this country", but I don't know which country you mean, as the English Wikipedia is not country-specific. Anyway, it's bedtime where I am (very possibly in a different country to you), and I will be happy to join in the discussion you start at Talk:Gua Sha some time tomorrow evening after I've had a night's sleep and done another day's work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)