Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

October 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 16:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

can you restore this article please as the player made his football league debut for Burton Albion this weekend. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 02:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue IV, October 2011 Front Cover • From the editor • General news Membership • August drive results To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 15:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Rcsprinter (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

That is, as in hide-and-seek, not approbation ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice to be noticed :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

I had been spending too much time here when there were more important things I needed to concentrate on, and had some higher priorities I was neglecting. I tried to just do an hour a day, but I kept getting sucked in and couldn't drag myself away. So I took a few days off, then a week, and then I felt I needed to keep completely away for a while - so I logged out and didn't even read my Talk page. Someone else put up the Wikibreak message for me.

Anyway, I'm back now, and will resume some of the things I'd been doing, once I've caught up with whatever changes have happened during my absence. But I am going to be restricting my time here - limited time during the day, and I won't be here every day. I dare say I'll drop a few people some messages shortly.

Apologies to anyone who left messages that didn't get answered, and thanks for your patience.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I wrote an article on my best friend and it was fully true and i had links and everything. It was my first article and i really wanted to write it for her. It wasn't too short and it was all true and legal. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY Ok im done... wait... WHY!!! ok im done... you have still broken my heart you know... Rangaily (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Notability, and you'll see why your article was inappropriate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just remembered you hadn't been around... great to have you back Worm^TT · (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 28bytes (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome back. :) 28bytes (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - on both counts :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Tovalu (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you chose to react that way. Typo work is great, but we really can't have people abusing Wikipedia features (like those edit summaries) for their own amusement rather than for their intended ends - one or two people apparently were amused by your "jokes", but I'd suspect most would just find them annoying. If you wish, you would be welcome to take this over to WP:ANI to discuss, and seek alternative opinions - if a consensus supports your jokes, then I'll take no further action -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Boing! said Zebedee!

Your userpage says I should warn you if you make a mistake, well, this is it. People like me are unable to do any productive work without a bit of sillyness (ask my boss, he can confirm this ). Threatening to block good-faith editors is almost always counterproductive. According to your userpage you would not block me and I am not sure if other admins would be that strict. Remember: performance isn't an issue, and its just a couple of bytes. Maybe my editsummaries will raise a few eyebrows and make some people giggle, which may lead to my edits getting a bit more attention (which is a good thing since I am human and do make mistakes once in a while), but I don't think it will be a major distraction from our common goal: writing an encyclopaedia. I have used more than one account and in total I have done well over 80k edits on Wikipedia, most of 'em are boring typofixes. I write those weird editsummaries to avoid dying from boredom. TBQH, I don't really understand the problem, especially if I use the suggestion I did on my talkpage of the vector.js script to autofill meaningful editsummaries and manually add my jokes. If the problem is that vandal-fighters don't understand it then I can solve that by putting a notice on top of my talkpage (warning: this editor is crazy, but not a vandal) and requesting IGLOO so I can help them. Tovalu (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. Do you mind if I call you Boing?

Update after editconflict: WP:ANI is a sad place, I prefer to discuss this at the village pump, is that OK with you?

I did not actually say *I* would block you - my comment was a warning that, in my opinion, someone would block you. If you are unable to work here without adding "silliness" in edit summaries, then in my opinion you should not be editing here at all. It is my opinion that your misusing edit summaries is disruptive, and if it continues then I think it would warrant admin action. I shall raise it at WP:ANI myself shortly, and will provide you with a link over on your Talk page - and as I said, if the consensus supports your "jokes" then I will abide by that. And yes, "Boing" is fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't, I do not want to be listed at WP:ANI for something as trivial as this. Why not use the village pump to discuss this and try to seek consensus and/or find alternative solutions? WP:ANI is not the right place for this discussion, the notice at the top says: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators.". Tovalu (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say this does require admin intervention - Wikipedia is not a joke, a game, or a toy. You're welcome to be humourous on your talkpage within reason, or in some of your interactions. Permanent edit-summaries are not the place for it. We need to know what the edit is - period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you failed to notice the fact I stated I am willing to use descriptive editsummaries so people can tell what the edit is, here and on my own talkpage. Tovalu (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And apparently you failed to notice that Bwilkins appended "- period", meaning that edit summaries should contain *only* a description of the edit, and no added jokes at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And apparently you failed to notice the fact that that is his personal opinion, not a policy. Tovalu (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we keep this in one place, at the ANI report - my reply there will cover this point -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The ANI report is at Wikipedia:Ani#User:Tovalu using silly edit summaries -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Puff puff :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hope so every thing fine your side Sir i just want add Information about "Sky Highers Trust" i want wrote articale about trust so what i do for this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyhighers (talk • contribs) 10:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you wish to write about an organisation by that name, the first thing you will really need to do is find some reliable and independent third-party sources (see WP:RS) which demonstrate its notability (see WP:N for general information, and WP:NCORP for the notability requirements for corporations and organisations). And then you should write a factual article about the organisation in your own words. I'd also caution you about your username, as it makes it look as if you are representing the organisation, which is not allowed - accounts must represent individuals, and must not be used for any promotional activity. If you wish to consider changing your username, you can find details at Wikipedia:Changing username. (Also, concerning your deleted article Why we lose Hope, Wikipedia does not carry "Essay" or "Personal musings" articles of that nature). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my comment: [1]! Sparthorse (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's generally not good to edit other people's comments, but I assumed you'd be OK with me just fixing a couple of links ;-) Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page called Blubershmaque! I don't understand why you would do such a thing! Do you have certain Health Problems or what(BTW I think WHAT)! What would make you do this ? it took me a lot of my time so >PLEASE CAN YOU RETURN IT TO HOW IT WAS<? PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE! PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE! PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE!PLEASE! PLEASE??

I don't help rude people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Because you're Spongebob! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.86.161 (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick message to say 'thanks' for your talk page collaboration on Talk:Scottie McClue and Talk:Colin Lamont. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. Hopefully it's settled down for now, but I'll keep those articles on my watchlist -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

your welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter0099 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry dude. I was about to change that image(Boddhidharma) to a proper location, but unfortunately since I was new at editing stuffs around the wiki, I got it all messed up. But I added the image in the pallava section, but I am still not really sure, how I could add a reference to it. If you get some time, please try adding a proper reference to it . Thanks and I apologize for the inconvenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivakumar13 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry for being a bit hasty there - I hadn't realised that you'd only just added it and were still working on it. If I have time, I'll see if I can help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why I was deleted. I word for UVACSE at the University of Virginia that provides the Genesis II software, so I am uncertain as to why this would be a copyright infringement.

If you prefer, I can direct them to a non-wikipedia wiki page that I have created page that I have created.

Please let me know what steps to take.

Regards,

Gina CorellGlc2z (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. One problem with people saying that have permission to reproduce material published elsewhere is that at Wikipedia, people edit under anonymous usernames and we have no way to know who they really are or whether they really have permission to reproduce such material. If material is intended to be freely available for reproduction in a Wikipedia article, then it needs to be published under a license at least as free as a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you personally own the copyright of the work you wish to reuse, or you represent the copyright owner, have a look at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to see how to make it available for Wikipedia use.

But having said all that, I think the bigger problem here is going to be one of notability. Essentially, to warrant a Wikipedia article, a subject needs to have received non-trivial attention from multiple independent and reliable sources (see WP:N for information on notability, and WP:RS for reliable sources), and you would need to be able to show that in order to write an article on the software in question.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice to have you back. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (and signed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is back, again ! - 220 of ^Borg 10:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's gone again, and is now salted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I will now "assimilate" the re-creator. 220 of ^Borg 10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the article (although I have not started it). Could you please explain what is going on over there? First you deleted Naked Among Wolves (film), and then User:ShelfSkewed redirects Naked among Wolves (film) to it again. Are you coordinated, or is it just random? Sorry, I'm confused. Bahavd Gita (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The problem was one of correct capitalisation. Originally we had an article titled "Naked among Wolves (film)" and a redirect titled "Naked Among Wolves (film)". What we needed was for the article itself to be called "Naked Among Wolves (film)" (that is, with all words capitalised), and "Naked among Wolves (film)" being the redirect. Deleting the redirect, moving the article, and they creating a new redirect was the way we did it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that your break has not caused a rethink regarding overseeing activity on some caste articles! Just a heads-up that User:Vineet Nayar1 appears to have picked up on a certain story published elsewhere a few months ago and seems to be intent on a course of action. It may not develop further than it already has, of course, but past experience makes me pessimistic about that. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, how could I resist such an appealing topic area? ;-) I'll keep an eye on this situation too, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose applies. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I may pop over to The Vines next week, if I can get my hearing aids in the lugholes by then. It would be a brief visit but I'll buy you a beer and expect to have to interpret some basic language directed by Liverpudlians at me, the (probably sole) Mancunian. Fortunately, it was my foot that suffered with the angle grinder a few weeks ago, rather than my hands ... so I'll be able to respond in kind ;) Sitush (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, sounds great - really hope you can make it (and sorry to hear about the angle grinder!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Although it's a shame it's got to this, I obviously support it, but we'll need to keep our ears open for quacking. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just sent you an email -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Boing. Can you have a look at this. I just stumbled on it as a new article but there's something wrong. Behind the 'redirect' there is a huge article that looks as if it could have been a cut & paste move from somewhere. It's too late here for me to fathom it out, but I wouldn't want someone to make a mistake and simply delete the fake redirect. Cheers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look a bit later - got a few things I need to do this afternoon first -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Curiouser and curiouser - the creator also added a spam link to a related article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the original behind the redirect was a copy of Cannabis (drug), and then it was replaced by a double-redirect leading to Cannabis (drug). What I think is probably best is to delete it altogether to get rid of the unattributed C&P version in its history, and then recreate the redirect pointed to the final destination, so I've gone ahead and done that. As for the spam link - best keep an eye on that editor, I think -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bhagmati Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, thanks - but I don't think it makes it a "blatant and obvious" hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean "people called hackers"? i'm calling these people hackers right now. there's no reference for any of the other guys.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetrasho (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Their *name* must be "Hack", "Hacker" or similar. A disambiguation page is for listing articles with similar *titles* - see the bit at the bottom where it says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title". And have a read of Wikipedia:Disambiguation to understand what a disambiguation page is.
• The others don't need references, as it's a disambiguation page - the title is all that's needed to get an article listed on a disambiguation page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very welcome intervention. And thank goodness that "common sense" still exists, occasionally, in Wikipedia. My faith in the project has even been restored, well almost. I wonder could you possibly now advise how I close down those old accounts? Should the sock tag be removed from them first? The exact definition of what constitutes "abusing multiple accounts" still seems a bit unclear. But I don't wish to spoil any administrator's chances of wiki-promotion, if you know what I mean! I am posting a note here only because I don't expect you to have to watch my Talkpage. Many thanks again. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not quite sure the best way to deal with them - give me a little time and I'll seek advice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, there's no huge rush. I am happy to add this [2] template. Or should I request for an unblock/ removal of the sock tag first? Many thanks again. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably best not to make changes to any alternative accounts using your Martinevans123 account - people might see it as socking again (and that "User requests deletion" template is probably best used only by the same account). Leave it with me for now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have also asked for advice at User talk:Hersfold, not to undermine your efforts in any way, of course, but just to explore all avenues. Thanks again for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds cool - sorry I've been too tied up to deal with it these past few days -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a sign of someone losing the plot? - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you making something of an assumption there? :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Well, things are getting interesting here. Some forelock-tugging going on. I've been fighting POV on that article since it was created on Friday, and there are basically only three of us involved in the edits. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching that since I noticed its creation. I won't make any content contributions myself as I want to reserve the right to act in an admin capacity if necessary (eg to deal with personal attacks), but it does look like there's a consensus to reinstate the comment of Jimbo's that was removed by MW -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I have to confess it does make me smile to see the maps published again, as an outcome of this protest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving the reinstatement to MW. As for the maps, well, yours truly put them in. I doubt very much that it would have happened otherwise. There is an issue regarding the censorship category (now removed) - I think that it needs to be taken to a wider forum because of an inherent bias issue but WT:IN hardly seems the most suitable venue in the circumstances. I do not want to "create" a dispute - so DRN is also out - but nor do I want to just forget about the whole thing. I'll have to check up on the rules for WP:3O but from memory I think that it may not comply there either! I'll figure something out. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the PA finally happened: sweetness & light to Jimbo in one message there & unsubstantiated vitriol towards me (with whom Jimbo agrees) in the next one! I mentioned it to User:EdJohnston but, like he says, getting action for civility issues is not easy. I'll add it to TLDR list of RfC points. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. I think I'd just keep a record of it, as you suggest - those rants of his only make one person look bad -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The good news is that they have now reinstated the disputed quotation, even though the article is not going to survive as an entity. The bad news is this. It is becoming tedious. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that and replied - if replying does no more, it will at least provide evidence that we have tried to resolve the problems with his attitude, should such evidence be needed in future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Some things happened in your absence and there are quite a few people wanting to see a RfC/U in place, including other admins. They have already offered to act as the "second", and that is without seeing the content.

I'm just finding the entire situation difficult to handle and - which is worse - newbie contributors do see these accusations and then turn them on me. As they do also with the other silly accusation relating to that blog, but for some reason I find that easier to handle. I think that I need to spend a bit more time sorting out the RfC/U but it kinda distracts from what I want to be doing here. It is tricky to compile because of the way this stuff is scattered all over the place. The other option is just to say bollocks to it, walk away completely and take up knitting instead. Well, maybe not knitting but ... - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, your walking away is what he wants. I'd go for the RFC - you'll certainly get my support in it, and if you have the time to spend then I think it will be worth it. I'm also prepared to block if the personal accusations continue - and if it should come to that, I'll offer it to ANI for review -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to creat an article for Ian Kelly, businessman. I tried once and accidentaly posted my work in progress before I was finished and it got deleted, which I understand. I posted a second article and you deleted it because of unambiguous advertising. I am going to rewrite the article, but will it get deleted automatically? If so, how can I correct that? Thanks Trenwithinc7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trenwithinc7 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've just looked over the deleted Ian Kelly (businessman) article again, and I'm afraid it really was written in a wholly promotional style - things like "Ian N. Kelly, is no stranger to hard work. It was only after juggling three jobs...", "It was not long before the young entrepreneur...", "...it was only natural that Ian Kelly played a most vital role...", etc, really have no place in a Wikipedia biography article. An article would need to be written in an simple objective manner, and should not read like a glowing resumé. Also, it would need to be properly referenced to reliable sources which discuss Mr Kelly in some detail - we need some actual evidence of his notability. The websites of companies he is associated with can be included too, but they are not sufficient, and we'd also need those third party sources. I'd suggest you look over some other Wikipedia biography articles to see how they're written (and have a read of the pages at those words I've bluelinked). Anyway, if you want to try again, I suggest you first assemble some sources to see if you can establish the required level of notability. And then you would be better creating a draft in a subpage of your own userpage, something like User:Trenwithinc7/Ian Kelly (businessman), and get someone to review it before you actually submit it. If you'd like me to "userfy" a copy of the deleted article for you to start from, I can set that up for you - just let me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

	Speedy Deletion
	Thanks for deleting my subpage so quickly… you were awesomely fast! ;) - benzband (talk • feed) 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now stored a copy of my temporary user page offwiki. Feel free to delete as discussed. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Like the caribou, it's gorn (lovely woody word, that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I can remember being at school and all the kids talking about the Python episode broadcast on the previous night. Of course, back then there were no subtitles and I didn't half feel left out. In fact, I don't think that they ever did get sub'ed, although some sketches have been given the treatment as clips in anniversary documentaries etc. I'll be taking a closer look at the website.

BTW, there was a letter in The Grauniad recently, around the time that the world's population hit the 7 bn mark. One of several pointing out that this continued population growth was stretching resources beyond the limit, it was sent by Roger Plenty. That is what you call nominative determinism. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I do not intend looking at your ANI report for some hours at least. I want to avoid the temptation to make a comment. Let's see what the community say. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense - couple of responses so far are supportive. (Love "Roger Plenty" :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Marek.69 talk 17:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, nice, thanks :-) That was a good evening! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You can get access through quite a few public libraries, if that matters. At least here in California, the big-city libraries have it, and library cards for most (all?) CA public libraries are available to all residents of the state. I made a point of stopping by the Los Angeles library (lapl.org) to get a card last time I visited Los Angeles, even though I live quite a long way from there, because they have a number of other good databases besides JSTOR accessible for cardholders through their site. It's similar in other states AFAIK. Maybe there's something comparable where you are. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:RX usually does the job where access is limited. The people that help out there have been a godsend for me. My suspicion is that your locality is particularly privileged with regard to direct access to JSTOR, and perhaps you might consider helping out with the requests at RX ? It would be A Good Thing^TM if you have the time and inclination to do so. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise how busy that page was! Will chip in... --Errant ^(chat!) 00:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't hang out at RX but I sometimes help chase references on article talk pages. The British library (I don't know if Boing is near London) has JSTOR[3] but they seem to only allow access in their reading rooms rather than online, which surprises me a bit. I wonder if they could be persuaded to loosen up a bit, since JSTOR itself isn't very fussy. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm in Liverpool - I don't know if Liverpool University Library might have it, but I'm more one for working from home, with a glass of Scotch to hand (and often in bed with my laptop) ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool? Reading? Surely that is an oxymoron! I'll get me coat. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been to Reading too - I get around :-P -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ba-boom! Classy response ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong. Please re-read the instructions that were provided to you at orientation. Prime Seven (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you would care to explain what you think I'm actually doing wrong, and on which block reviews specifically I have made mistakes, then I'll be happy to pay attention - but I'm afraid your rather terse comment leaves me with no idea what you're talking about. Also, I see you have only just created your account - would you care to explain your own expertise in block reviews? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's another sock of MalikPeters, surely? - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my guess too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on here - could have sworn that I had posted a message but now cannot find it!

I am not reverting again but please could you take a look at what has been going on at Talk:Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya. User:Intothefire keeps reinserting content that I am pretty sure should not be there, despite warnings & my response to their query on my own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented over at that Talk page, and have given him a 24 hour block for the personal attack -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a fan of the band BADBADNOTGOOD whose entry you seem to have deleted. Could you please let us know what was wrong with the entry? I did not create the previous entry but would like to start the article again, or contribute to it. The band is a groundbreaking jazz trio, marrying hip hop with new jazz sounds in a way that only a few other bands on the planet are doing (e.g. Robert Glasper Trio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Glasper). They have shot up to fame, nearly overnight, due to remarkable talent and innovative combination of traditional instruments and contemporary urban sound. I would be happy to provide more info, as I'm sure thousands of other people around the world would, ideally in a wikipedia article itself. Thanks, looking forward to your response. Jeub (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Jeub

Hi. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not contain new material, but only reflects what other reliable sources have already said. And what that means is that few "up and coming" or "groundbreaking" new bands are eligible for their own articles. For this band to be eligible, what you would need to do is find sufficient reliable sources to satisfy the notability requirements of WP:NBAND.

What I'd suggest is that you do some searching and compile a list of sources that you think would support an article, and I'd be happy to review them for you. If it looks like there's good enough stuff, I could userfy the old version for you (though there was very little in it) - ie move it to somewhere in your userspace, eg at User:Jeub/BADBADNOTGOOD. You could work on it there, and then it can be moved back to mainspace when it's ready. So, dig up a few sources, list them on your user page (or talk page), and give me a shout -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Jeub (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Jeub

You deleted the article posted and definition of "Fairhillbillies"... this needs to be undone as this is a groiup rapidly growing across the nation. It started in Fairhill Maryland as a competitive Cycling group and is expanding across the country with chapters now forming in Colorado and Delaware and Pennsylvania, as well as a soon to be chartered chapters in California and Utah. They have become an organization that promotes enviromentalism as well as community. They define an attitude and personality that is rapidly gaining in popularity across the World Mountain Bike Community (the Fairhillbillie logo has been spotted at the Tour De France last year, as well as the MTB World Cup. They also have a line of clothing set to launch later in 2012, utilizing the "FHB" logo, it will be similar to the FOX or MONSTER sports wear, except it utilizes an "Outlaw Biker" style or theme in humorous manner... This is quickly becoming a phenomena within the cycling industry and the deletion of it's origins should not occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.101.1.5 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikpedia does not host articles about groups which are "quickly becoming a phenomena" or "rapidly gaining in popularity", only after they have become phenomena or gained popularity as demonstrated by multiple reliable sources. And claims about what they're going to do next year are not sufficient for qualification for an article either. In short, the article made no credible claims of importance that would justify this organization having its own Wikipedia article. But here's what I'll do - if you can compile a list of sources that satisfy WP:RS, and which demonstrate notability of the level required by WP:GROUP, I'll userfy the article for you (that is, I'll move it to your userspace) so that you can work on it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

why the hell did u did you get rid of the grand union canal river soar i had just started that WHY???????????????????????????

i was doing this for a project for my school work so you have now left me with no grade THANKS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infectedbean (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The article you created was a duplicate of content that was already at Grand Union Canal, as the message on your Talk page told you. Articles created for school projects must follow all of the standard Wikipedia rules and guidelines, which means they must genuinely be new and not duplicates of material we already have -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

i just want to make the grand union canal river soar page

totally different the grand union canal that is a canal which goes from London to Birmingham grand union canal is a navigation which made the river soar navigable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infectedbean (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the existing article - the River Soar is already covered by it and by the article River Soar -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

that is the river not the navigation the river just flows in and out but i not guna bother now if you have a canal that has not been put i please do tell me sorry for having a go had a bad day today

well i wasted allot of time on that then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infectedbean (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is anything missing about part of the Grand Union Canal network that needs to be added about a navigation involving the River Soar, it should be placed in that article where people are likely to look for it, and not split out into a new one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ok so can i put my info on why kings Langley lock is numbered 69a near london — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infectedbean (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea. If you can provide reliable sources to support anything you add, and nobody finds a good reason to remove it, then yes, otherwise no. You need to read the links in the Welcome message on your Talk page to learn about how to edit Wikipedia, what counts as notable, how to find sources and add references, etc. And you're much more likely to get help from people if you ask civilly rather than stomping angrily over to their Talk pages. And please, try to remember to sign your Talk page comments with "~~~~" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infectedbean (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please can you "userfy" this article so that I can work on the references. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoode75 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done - details over on your Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Good Morning! Thank you for consider my request. How can I show that Beach Golf is a notable sport? On the internet you can find lots of videos, but Wikipedia blocks them to publish. Can I publish some PDF articles? I ask your help, because anyone has still answered me. Thank you --Lucapremier88 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Have a look over WP:RS for an explanation of what constitutes a reliable source. What you need is multiple independent third-party sources covering the sport in a non-trivial way - eg national newspapers, news sites, magazines and their sites, established sports sites, etc. Sites where anyone can upload content (eg YouTube, Facebook, blogs), and advertising/promotional sites, are usually not considered reliable sources. Hope this helps -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

mabdul 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi Boing, I noticed Special:Contributions/122.109.237.114 and wondered whether I could (or should) just revert their edits without further comment, and add the {{ipsock}} tag to the ip user page? - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: I notice that James took action already. I still wonder, can I, as a regular editor with rollback, do the same (without the blocking of course), i.e. reverting the edits and tagging the ip user page? - DVdm (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any problem with that - I used to revert and tag socks before I got the admin bit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, txh. - DVdm (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work on the project. You're absolutely right on the SPI page in suspecting a recurrence of my idiotic trolling (I feel rather guilty this morning and I am actually rather over the relationship in question) but I'd just like to correct you on one small point regarding my MO. It's easy to see why you assumed the title was a reference to the girl who cheated on me with those men (it's unfair for me to stereotype their whole nationality based on that, and the xenophobic nature of some of my earlier attempts at vandalising Wikipedia is very upsetting to recall as I try not to be like that at all) but a more common origin of my usernames is (usually obscure) song titles.

Thank you for your patient work on the project. LoveHasComeAround (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confessing, but you know that one has to be blocked too - however apologetic you may be after the event, multiple socking and repeat vandalism is very destructive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks - I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll attend to it as soon as I can -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, you deleted an article called Fit (manufacturing) I was about to write it as a translation from the Spanish article, so I'm going to create it again. Thank you. --Mario Arbery (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Creating a proper article is fine - the deleted original just didn't actually contain anything other than a redlink to a non-existent template -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You can delete this too Theoretical calculation of the soul - it's the translation of it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it, ta -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts about Bryce C. Burt? It is a copy/paste of the blog, which does not itself have any copyright assertion. However, it seems possible that the blog is itself a copy/paste of the journal that it references. I cannot prove this point but the style is typical of potted biographies as found in Who's Who and similar publications. I didn't CSD it because the situation is potentially ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, tricky. If it looks worth keeping, I might be tempted to reword it, but then there would be a problem with sourcing if we can't see the journal to check - the article can't be sourced only to the blog. I might be tempted to go for AfD - I agree a CSD for copyvio is probably not appropriate, as the actual copyright holder is probably not the blog itself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the guy passes the notability guideline. I'll see if I can dig anything up that enables the existing content to be removed in its entirety, ie: a total rewrite. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be cool - meanwhile, I'll go shopping :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'll try to get hold of a full obituary at some point, but there is no way that article is going to be deleted now. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, you declined the speedy because the article is under construction, but the author was blocked for spam and username issues. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, missed that. Thanks for letting me know - it's deleted now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comment at my recent successful RFA. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Working with that user is incredibly frustrating. She is either an incredibly good troll, or is completely clueless. I had similar frustrations to your when she seemed to interpret the most simple instructions in the worst possible way, multiple times. I may be out of place, but I vote her ban should stay. Either she is pure vandal, or has too little understanding of how things work. Either way she will remain disruptive imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look over your previous interaction with this user, and I can see how hard it was. I think we either have perhaps the worst lack of WP:COMPETENCE I've seen, or a troll - either way, there is clearly little chance they can contribute constructively, so I'm close to revoking Talk page access -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe there may be a sock of this user Santre34. I have reported, but you may be interested. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence at the ANI that there is consensus for reopening it. Are you seriously suggesting that when an RM has been run only a month earlier that another should then be run because that is not normally acceptable? -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting merely that you do not have the right to shut the community up when they wish to discuss a page move, especially not when the last one was "no consensus", when there seems to be a clear consensus emerging now, and when there is no consensus at ANI that the new RM should be prevented. There are clearly a lot more people involved this time, and one big final discussion is surely in everyone's best interests, isn't it? Lawyering over how long people have to wait is only going to delay the inevitable, which will be another RM, whether you like it or not -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was closed again. Can I report the admin to ANI? What are the proper actions to take here? Maybe you would be more adept to doing so, but I would like to support you if you move forward with reporting PBS (otherwise I would like to do so myself, though I am not familiar with the proper avenue or method). -Kai445 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for edit-warring/wheel-warring. I need to pop out now, but I'll seek a review at ANI when I get back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You have blocked PBS for 24 hours - and edit-warred with him. You had a plausible case that he had misbehaved, until you behaved much worse; not least in that you prevented him from explaining himself. Please reverse yourself.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warred? Two other editors besides this admin, myself included, reverted his actions. Looks like a one-man war to me. -Kai445 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

PBS's action are a different aubject, and under discussion elsewhere. But none of the three of you ought to have blocked him; what part of uninvolved admin does Kai445 fail to understand? Neither the proponents of one side in the underlying discussion, nor the admin warring with PBS are uninvolved.

I do, however, acknowledge BsZ's reduction to a three-hour block. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I appreciate there is an element of Involved here, but I thought that PBS's revert of the revert of his closure, after an admin had objected to it, was wheel-warring, and that his protection of the page against non-admin editing was an abuse of admin tools and showed contempt for the non-admins who have a right to contribute. As such, I felt it best to act quickly to try to stop the conflict escalating, and I fully expect to unblock PBS as soon as I have my ANI report posted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to take my actions to ANI for review - everyone will be welcome to air their opinions there. Just give me a few minutes, and when it's done I'll post a link here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer is asking to be unblocked. You may want to look at the request --Guerillero | My Talk 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Already done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You make nearly as many typos as I do. But then I have an excuse -- I can't type. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hehe ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• ANI review request is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#My block of admin PBS - review please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

For WP:DENY purposes, it's OK to delete the talk pages of socks of that guy. Other admins have deleted the talk pages of other socks too (see the deleted stuff on User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'd say just blanking a Talk page is sufficient for WP:DENY - I think it's almost always best to keep the Talk page history for future evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not for this guy. Maybe for Grawp, but not him. He's only here to mess with us, keep all the evidence off this site.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind if you put it up for delete again - I'll be happy to leave it to someone else to decide -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Boing. This RfC has been resolved, and needs closing before it continues as an after-debate.I've read the instructions, but I'm not sure if participants can close and archive it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Afraid I've not closed anything myself - RfC, AfD, nowt. So I'd rather leave it to someone else, really -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's spelled, "Raymond Luxury Yacht," but it's pronounced, "Throatwobbler Mangrove". I just had to stop by and acknowledge the brilliance of that. Credit where credit is due and all that, you know. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The album, J.U.I.C.E., may have been wrongly deleted under the A9 speedy criteria because an article does exist for the artist at Roscoe Dash. A PROD may be the more appropriate route by whomever requested the speedy deletion. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, you're right - I'm not sure how I made that mistake. I've rectified it now and reinstated the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I understand now - the artist's article did not exist at the time, as it had been deleted according to CSD:A7. It was reinstated two days later -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't read deeply into the history for the band and only noticed that it went back a while. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today I removed an IP posting here. I've done some digging around and it is possible that User:Victoria Ridout is indeed the person referred to in the removed news report and similar other reports. However, it does not sit right with me: I could imagine, for example, a situation where a family member might contact OTRS or something similar and thereby cause a notice to appear, but not an IP. I could also imagine a situation where there might be an entirely reasonable assumption of death if, for the sake of argument, I were to tell a couple of admins in private that I was terminally ill, had an expectation of not seeing the year out and subsequently my contributions ceased for a minimum duration of, say, six months.

But neither of these situations appear to apply. Do you think that I have done the right thing? - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes. I mean, she stopped editing in 2005 - so isn't an active contributor - and the incident happened 2 years back. The status quo is the best way forward. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker)I should point out that the user in question hasn't editted since 2005 and the text added wasn't exactly helpful. I think you did the right thing removing the text. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all. Quite a sad story, who ever it was. Apparently one of her dogs wandered on to the tracks and she went to retrieve it. Rather like the stories of dog owners who drown after diving into stormy seas to rescue a pet. I've retrieved one of my dogs from the not-so-tender attentions of a badger, so I kind of understand how those situations arise. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(ISP failure for a couple of hours) Yep, I agree you did the right thing - it's not something that should be publicised unless we can be sure it is the same person and comes from a reliable family source -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ISP failure? I've had that problem. Generally, I find that replacing the piece of string between the two tins does the trick. More seriously, I am one of those who can remember using 300 baud acoustic couplers: the kids of today do not realise just how lucky they are! - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I remember with great joy the day I bought the first modem that I could not read faster than. Made BBSs a different animal. And the days when pirating a game meant it was faster to drive over to your friends house across town. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I started with acoustic couplers - and a phone line with a terminal at one end and a mainframe at the other. Today BT broadband was down, but after the outage was fixed, a nice man in India tested and reset my line for me and got it going again. (And with me living in Liverpool, it was nice to hear someone speaking proper English for a change ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your previous edit summary about the IP messing around here, so I reverted the text they added. If it should be left, feel free to revert me. Calabe1992 01:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked him so I could finish my anti-vandalism work - it had to go back further, as there was vandalism before he started, but I suspect he doesn't mean to vandalise but just doesn't really know what he's doing. I need to get off shortly, so other people watching it would be welcomed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Calabe1992 02:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, my initial quick assessment was misjudged - he's just a vandal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good enough. I'll watch for him - Calabe1992 02:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am currently doing this page up and you are trying to delete it. 'Ryan Gleave' is currently a League of Legends in the team zymbro and gets paid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NisLox (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This person is clearly not notable, and your article was blatantly disruptive - if you create anything similar again, you are likely to be blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not template the regulars (WP:DTR), and please take the trouble to look at the talk page before leaving such messages. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you didn't like the warning, but I had to be even-handed. I did check the Talk page, but the fact remains that you have been edit-warring on that article and you must not do that - even if you are right. If other editors don't respond and you cannot get a Talk page consensus, you need to follow the steps in WP:DR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry about incorrectly tagging this page for CSD G11. I cannot for the life of me think how this occurred except for the fact that I have maintenance tagging "quick-links" at the top of every page on WP, so I must have accidentally clicked on one of these links - it doesn't even tell me if it's done something. Again, sorry and thanks for noticing and removing the template. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 15:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, it's easily done - I accidentally tagged an article as CSD:A1 last week, when it clearly wasn't ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately your website is posting false information of a government employe. Now that a federal employe of the US government has been "slandered" your website is now part of a investigation. So unless you can give us the name or location of where these "updates" are being made, or the name of the user who is putting these post up we will remain to erase and contact your company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.199.203 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Boing -- I've unblocked Folantin. He's defending an article against SPAs and sockpuppets, something he does frequently, particularly in the area of Persian studies. Technically you could call that edit-warring but I consider it excessively bureaucratic to block all parties when one "side" is an obvious pack of sockpuppets. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (ps -- the only reason I did not unblock PB is he didn't have an unblock request up, but it's probably appropriate -- I'll give you the option first.)

Hi. Edit-warring is not the correct way to deal with suspected sockpuppets, especially not when it is over a content dispute and not blatant vandalism, and PB has declined to file an SPI report. You might also note that I did get support from another (well respected) admin for my first block of PB. I will respect your unblock of Folantin, and I thank you for informing me, but I would ask you not to further overturn my judgement unilaterally, and instead seek a consensus first - I'm happy to refer my actions to ANI (though I'm off to bed now and it would have to be tomorrow), but I'm also happy for you to take it there first, and I'll respond in the morning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- I won't overturn your block without the party requesting an unblock -- that's a bit farther than I will go. My general advice for cases like this is (not sure you want my advice, but here it is): always err on the side of not blocking, and always try to look a little deeper. Protect a page before blocking an established contributor. Sometimes it is a genuine edit-war that a block can stop, but other times it may be long-established editors versus nationalist POV-pushing SPAs, or some such thing; Folantin, PB, Dbachmann, and some others spend a lot of their time defending parts of Wikipedia against this. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What I am actually asking is that you don't overturn my block without consensus even if PB does request unblock, as User:FisherQueen has already supported me. PB has refused to pursue the sockpuppet line, even clearly saying "sockpuppeting is not the issue" - so I don't see how you can justify his edit-warring as being about a socking issue when he clearly states himself that it is not. It did look like a content dispute to me, with one side claiming censorship and the other claiming undue weight given to a large quote, and the way to solve such things is *never* edit-warring. So I would appreciate your getting a consensus before you take any further action to revert mine - as I say, I will request review in the morning (and I will make appropriate amends if the consensus is that I was wrong) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that your behavior and equanimity in this matter has been exemplary. I am almost positive that I wouldn't have been able to keep cool when subjected to the behavior you acted serenely through. My compliments and deepest respect. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind and much appreciated, thank you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am downright disgusted by your removal of the Kris Neild wikipedia page. It warmed my heart to see the lovely folklore of the Virginia mountains, specifically the tale of Kris Neild, reflected on Wikipedia. I believe that it added an invaluable reflection upon the culture of an important region within the United States that has very limited access to the internet. Therefore, this may be the only chance for their very important and unique culture to be reflected on the world wide web. Please allow them to represent their society without judging them first. Thank you for your considering. Brendon Kenerly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbkbbkbbkbbk (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Any further trolling is very likely to get you blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Psst. That didn't quite go as planned. I gather you forgot? :D Hopefully, I've done it correctly. I'm not really that comfortable with the autoblock thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I did it, and it told me it had unblocked - don't know what went wrong -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Must have been a technical error. There's no record of your unblock in his block log. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! to both of us; I reinserted vandalism, and then you reverted me with the vandalism summary. (grin) Looks a little fishy to me. Horologium (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I hit the wrong button - I made a null edit to correct my summary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for being fair and even-handed. I regret the situation has caused you so much grief. I’m sure its apparent that Im new to Wikipedia, and I don’t know the rules. I seem to have walked into a Shakespearian lions den and met with the most ferocious of the lions. I am not an academic and no match for any experienced Editor, hence my reluctance to engage on the Talk page of the article.

Prof. Khulusi is recognised as a respected and influential scholar, whose literary work spanned over 50 years. He is arguably one of the most respected and prolific Iraqi scholars of the last century (novels, textbooks and countless articles in both Arabic and English). His work on Shakespearian language accounted for less than one percent of that, yet almost a third of this biography on him is focused on this one topic with a subjective and as I see it, insulting extract from Ormsby as a large centrepiece.

There was a derogatory quote referring to Prof. Khulusi’s work as "demented" in the lead section of this article from the earliest draft on 18/10/2011, which an attempt to remove on 26/11 was rejected the same day, before being removed again on 1/12. Which other distinguished international scholar has had similar treatment in his lead section? The fact that it was present in the earliest draft, and there was resistance to its removal speaks volumes about the views of the originator of this article and the slant that he (and now the friend that has joined him on the Talk page) is determined it will take. They intend to have their pound of flesh. There is still a reference in the lead section that directs the reader to the Shakespeare issue.

Most of the material regarding Prof. Khulusi and his career in this article has been paraphrased from his Obituary published in The Independent 1995. The originator of this biography knows very little about Prof. Khulusi save one thing, that he put forward work showing similarities between Shakespearian English and Classical Arabic and a fanciful story about Arab origin to Shakespeare. This has clearly caused the greatest affront to him, even though he has not even read first hand the original book, and is going on other peoples accounts of it. This has been the sole catalyst for this article in Wikipedia and the intentional attempt to disparage and discredit.

I note the thoughtful and analytical contribution of Nishidani in the Talk page of the article and my comments do not relate him.

I really think that this biography is important, but at present is deeply flawed, and would be grateful for your advice on what the mechanism is for requesting to have the article reviewed and maybe rewritten in a fair minded and objective manner and then hopefully protected. Kindest regards.--Simon Salousy (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, thanks for responding. (And don't worry about any grief - it's part of what I expected when I took on the admin role :-)

Firstly, coming here is a good first step, and the next step is to discuss your disagreements on the article Talk page, at Talk:Safa Khulusi - there isn't any real alternative to that before seeking further assistance. The discussion will need to be about the content, and not about other editors or their motives.

I get the feeling that no parties to the current disagreement really knew how to deal with dispute resolution properly, so what I think I'll do is add a few comments on the Talk page suggesting ways forward, ways to seek consensus, and perhaps ways in which compromise might be achieved. And I'll outline ways in which third-party help can be later sought if necessary - I'll keep my comments neutral, and will address them to everyone involved.

One thing I can't really do is offer any opinions on the content of the article itself. I want to avoid getting involved in any actual content decisions, and I want to be able to offer neutral guidance.

But right now it's late where I am, and I need to get some sleep - goodnight for now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Very busy day today, sorry - I'll try to get onto it tomorrow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm really sorry I haven't had time to get back to this. But I see there has been some discussion going on at the Talk page, which is a big improvement - I can really only suggest that all interested parties continue with that approach -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for this block, but please reconsider its length.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Longer or shorter? I went for 1 week as it seemed like a reasonable compromise between extending his previous 1 week block, and acknowledging that this one was for a different block reason - but I'm happy to adjust it if you think that would be best. He has never responded to a warning or block, which is what we would ideally like to see - but it would be good to be able to get some sort of dialog going and hopefully encourage better interaction, as he does seem to have the enthusiasm -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

...apparently you're fat. Ouch! (Or am I?) I guess school is out somewhere on the planet. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am fat, as it happens, and happy with it :-) Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed TPA already, before you did this. Feel free to restore it. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all offended, and I thought it would be better to leave it there for all to see :-) Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But I do appreciate your concern, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

hello, could you please restore the page of mine you deleted? this website has become very popular recently and although you may not have heard of it there are many car enthusiasts who use it frequently.

you put a G8 as the reason for page deletion but I had written in a few reasons why it is important. i also included those reasons within the page's listing.

please reconsider. thank you. Bmwm3guy (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The G8 was on the Talk page - the article was deleted as A7, as there were not sufficient indications of importance, and your stated reasons (being popular, it is the only one doing whatever it does, nobody else puts in so much effort, etc) are not sufficient. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to get some idea of the notability requirements for a company or organisation to have its own Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia:Notability (web) for the criteria for web sites or other web content -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I did some more research and I would like to add that it is notable because it received the notice from autoblog.com (an article I posted as reference). Autoblog is the biggest automotive news site (owned by huffington post) in the US and it receives over 2 million unique visitors per month. Having a company that large take note of gearheaddeals is what is notable. There are also a few more independent news sources available and listed in my article. The information is there, relevant, and matches with the definitions described in the links you have sent me to so I feel strongly that it meets the criteria. I would like to emphasize in the article that gearheaddeals was the "First daily deals site for the automotive market" which adds to their notability.

Bmwm3guy (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Look, it seems clear that you are trying to promote this organisation, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. The version of the article that you wrote was clearly written in promotional tones as well as not establishing notability - things like "other competitors popped up but have not lasted", "Even Dealnews, which is a large daily discount website, created an automotive section because of Gearheaddeals but its selection of products is limited", and "In comparison, Gearheaddeals posts 5-6 discounts per day. Unlike others, it does not require the user to place the order through its site" are absolutely not acceptable for an encyclopedia article. If an article about Gearheaddeals is to be acceptable, it would have to be a very different one to the one you created, and if you have any commercial connections with the site yourself, then it really should not be you who writes it.

And looking at your sources, this is just an interview and so is effectively a primary source - we need independent secondary sources, this looks to be essentially just a news release/promo (and as it's a blog, it's uncertain who wrote it or whether it is properly independent). And the others are similar - they basically just look like promos.

So no, I am not going to restore the article that you wrote. If you believe the subject really is notable and that you really can find sufficient reliable sources to cover a properly-written encyclopedia article, rather than your promotional first attempt, you can build it as a draft in your own user space - eg at User:Bmwm3guy/Gearheaddeals, and only submit it as an article when you're sure it can meet Wikipedia's requirements. But it will have to be very different to your first attempt, and there is no promise it will not be deleted too. Your alternative, should you wish to appeal my decision, is to take it to deletion review, at WP:DRV -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I forgot to say, if you want to go ahead and try for a better version of the article, I can provide you with the contents of the deleted version as a starting point -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for it sounding that way. I've never written a wiki article so I tried my best. I am not affiliated with the company, but I do use their service. That is why I want to write this because I feel it is a novel idea and very helpful to many people. I will write another one now and put it in my drafts. The main credible article is from Autoblog.com, and although it has blog in the name, it is a serious news source that is owned and run by the huffington post and written by all credible authors.Bmwm3guy (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I just clicked the link you provided to add a draft and rewrote it. Made it more objective sounding and changed some of the references out. Please give me some tips and help me get this article acceptable.Bmwm3guy (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you please check out the new page in my drafts and help me refine it? Thank youBmwm3guy (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, been very busy - I'll get back to you tomorrow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I can't suggest anything that would make the article more acceptable, for the simple reason that I just don't think the site is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. All of the sources look like they are effectively just promos/press releases to me - even the Autoblog one, which actually says their source is the Gearheaddeals site itself. However if you still disagree and you'd like a second opinion, you could ask for my deletion of it to be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review, and mention your new user space draft there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering why The Looters was deleted? I am a freelance journalist and use wikipedia to research artists in Georgia. The reason I wrote the article is because there are so many hyperlinks to it throughout Wikipedia and I know the significance of the band on Georgia music as a whole. This band began as a backing band for Georgia Music Hall of Famer Rosa King, launched the career of Kristina Train (BMI recording artist and member of Herbie Hancock's Imagine Band]], played the world's biggest jazz festivals with Saskia Laroo, and are now backing Dr. Dan Matrazzo, a founder of jam music who has been called one of the best 10 keyboardists in the world by various publications. They are number 1 on various internet music charts for their original music in Georgia, and are currently recording an album that will be released in the Spring with either Landslide or Blue Canoe Records, according to their interview on Georgia Southern "Buzz" radio last month. I have extensive knowledge of the Georgia music scene and would like to continue editing things associated with this musical family, having a deep knowledge of artists such as The Allman Brothers, Col. Bruce Hampton, derek Trucks, Widespread Panic, Drivin' and Cryin', and many others....but now I am afraid to do so since I worked quite a long time writing and annotating this article, even going to the length of having it reviewed by administrators in the chat page before making it live. I wonder why those "editors" did not have an issue with the article when you did. Thanks and I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruffbanejoe (talk • contribs) 04:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been very busy - I'll need to re-examine the deleted article and will get back to you as soon as I can -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You think my article is nonsense, but it chronicles the life of King Hamlet I.

There was no real King Hamlet. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

can u tell me after editing an article should v put sign or not.(Muks (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC))

Hi - no, you should not sign article edits, only Talk page comments -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I posted a page about a rapper named Def X,and you deleted it. I'm not mad,but I would like to ask your permission to recreate the page if it is okay with you? If you need any information then feel free to ask me. I have backround information on this individual and I want to make a Wikipeadia page to identify him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyrendice (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia only carries articles about musicians after they have achieved fame - multiple albums released, hit singles, etc. Have a look at WP:NMUSIC to see the kind of notability required -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey you, yeah your right, my edit was a bit hasty, sorry for that. Just that guy was such an asshole to me lol! But im actually here to ask you why i cant edit semi-protected pages even though ive reached an edit count of over 10? It says that if you make 10 or more edits then your account is autoconfirmed and you can edit semi-protected articles, but i cant? Only asking you because i dont exactly know anyone else here except you because you posted on my talk page. Thanks.--UpaNotch36 (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. To achieve the autoconfirmed status needed to edit semi-protected articles, an account needs to be at least 4 days old as well as having made 10 edits -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DUDE PLEASE PURIFIED DEMON WANT THEIR PAGE BACK WE ARE KNOWN AMOUNST 10'S, POSSIBLY 100'S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purifieddemon (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave you a link to WP:NBAND - I suggest you have a read of it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

they have one of those criteria - they won the largest contribution to music award in the Hornby area amoungst youths, the trophy is being engraved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purifieddemon (talk • contribs) 11:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award", a local Hornby area youth award doesn't count -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hornby area, eh? Do they perform Chattanooga Choo-Choo? - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a redlinked category at Kaithi but I am blowed if I can find where it lies in the code so as to remove the thing. Can you spot it? - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, weird - my only suspicion was via one of the included templates, like {{Unicode chart Kaithi}}, but I can see no problems with them, and nothing weird about the included images either -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll do some more digging. Meanwhile, is there any chance that you might look at User_talk:Kayastha_Shiromani - they have just inserted a load of nonsense at Kayastha for the third time in 30 minutes or so ... and they have a history of doing this. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found it. In the {{Infobox writing system}} template, there's the following code...

{{<#if:{{ISO 15924 code|{{{iso15924|}}}|default=}}|

<tt>{{ISO 15924 code|{{{iso15924|}}} }}<br>

{{ISO 15924 number|{{{iso15924|}}} }}</tt>

[[Category:{{ISO 15924/wp-category|{{{iso15924|}}}}}]]

}}

I don't understand quite how it generates the category, but if I temporarily take it out the category disappears -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I just took a small piece of code out of {{Unicode chart Kaithi}} and the problem went away. I moved that code to the template talk page, along with an explanatory note re: why I had done it. I know nowt! - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see how that should make any difference, as it's wrapped in <noinclude> and should only put the template in the category, not the article. Perhaps it's a combination of the two bits of code, one bit in each template? Maybe an expert will be able to understand it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I've blocked the serial edit-warrior for a week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The category is determined from the ISO code Kthi, through {{ISO 15924/wp-category}}. Over there, I have edited Kthi = Brahmic scripts, so the red category is now gone.

Background: since last August all 190 or so ISO script codes are recognised through the base {{ISO 15924}} template, but not all code-to-categoryname have been entered correctly. Some category names are still red (see the overview on the template /document page). -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I just spotted the explanation at Template:ISO_15924/wp-category, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this automated-category-nameing is tricky business. Hope it did not disturb you all too much. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I learned something new - can't be bad ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. I cannot claim fully to understand what has been going on - perhaps that is proof that I am not as geeky as some of my mates believe me to be! The Campaign for Real Geeks starts here. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, an editor entered in the infobox: iso15924=Kthi. The template shows this Kthi-code, and also uses it to give the ISO script number (317), using {{ISO 15924 number|Kthi}} and its directionality (L-to-R) using {{ISO 15924 direction|Kthi}}.

As a fourth usage of that same input Kthi, the template composes a [[Category:...]]. The category name is produced by {{ISO_15924/wp-category|Kthi}}. Since that list had a nonexistent Category name for Kthi (Kthi=Kaithi), it showed up as that red link on the page. After I edited the name into "Kthi=Brahmic scripts", it show the blue link correctly (actually, that category name was already on the page, so the two collapsed into one blue Catlink). -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, noticed that you did a test edit of the Writing Systems infobox. I would appreciate you taking the time to use a sandbox for any similar edits in the future, as infoboxes are routinely transcluded into hundreds of articles - the Writing Systems infobox has 281, and is a fairly small wikiproject. You can transclude pages in your user space using the {{User:XXX/subpage}} syntax. Much thanks, VanIsaac_WS^contribs 14:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, it was during an investigation into the apparent problem outlined in the section above - I knew it would only take a few seconds and at worst would temporarily remove a category, but yes, I should indeed have copied it and tested using the copy, sorry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do that one time, and my internet connection went down. Never again for me. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, excellent point! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,Admin.Sir I respect you and appreciate your work and sincerity but its my humble request and it will be a big favor from you if you can reopst my article Sureela Phateechar its my friend's band.I wrote about it on Wikipedia so that everyone can search it easily.It is very important for the musicians,specially in our country Pakistan.I know you must be thinking I am one of those terrorists too but believe me its a very big misunderstanding and some issues with poilitcs our country our youth has nothing to do with terrorists,this is is very important for that band so that they might get searched online and someone ask them to go for concerts and all,and it will be helpful for them if more people can hear and read about them.I totally understand your concern,but it is an urge if you can re post it.please do it if you can please thanks :) Rehan Ali here take care,may God give you long life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wishalsahb (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with terrorists or politics - and you really should read WP:AGF before you start throwing such unpleasant allegations around. The article was deleted because it did not make it clear why the band is sufficiently important for a Wikipedia article, and that is all. Have a read of WP:NBAND to find out the notability needed for a band to have a Wikipedia article - if you can find sources that satisfy the conditions there, you can have the article restored. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

This page was deleted citing the article being promotional. If i resubmit the article with links to non-commercial sites, will it still be considered as promotional.

Please suggest.

Regards Esignature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esignature (talk • contribs) 10:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. There's are several problems here, I think. Firstly, it was not actually an article, it was your user page, and article-type material held on your main user page is discouraged - you can use, say, a user subpage for developing an article, but it must ultimately be destined for a proper article. Secondly, it did look like it was promoting https://rightsignature.com/, though I can accept you might just have chosen that one as an example. Also, the last two paragraphs ("...be sure to select a reliable provider" etc) really did sound promotional (or at least advisory, and Wikipedia articles should not contain subjective advice). And finally, we already have an article at Electronic signature, so we can't really accept another one in any case - but you would be welcome to work on that one if you believe it needs improving (and judging by the templates at the top of the article, it could indeed benefit from some work) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bitstips Has Over 900,000 Members i see no Reason it is not Notable See For yourself bitstrips.com Rancalred (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Your article made no plausible claims of importance - 900,000 members might perhaps be one, but you never mentioned that and made no other claims of importance, and so it really wasn't relevant to the deletion decision. please see WP:NWEB and feel free to try again if you believe the site can satisfy it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

why the page was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerfreak10 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Junaid Masoodi, it was deleted because it made no claims as to why the person is of sufficient importance for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not Facebook, it is an encyclopedia, and only carries articles about people who have achieved sufficient notability to attract attention from reliable third party sources. Have a look over WP:GNG for the general notability guidelines, and see WP:RS to learn about sourcing. Please do not recreate the article unless you are sure it can satisfy those requirements - and certainly do not create with just with the content "Why was it deleted" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it on its way? Not here yet. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, hey, sorry - I'll be heading to the post office today or tomorrow (and I also need to tackle my large email backlog ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

hello, sorry to bother you, but it appears that your account is officialy compromised and your password details have been taken. But, alas, do not panic. To regain safe, secure access to your current account message me your current password. We need this for security reasons otherwise your account may never be recovered. Thank you.--UpaNotch36 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpaNotch36 (talk • contribs)

Have an indefinite block instead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okidoke:) DMacks (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

	You're most genius Admin so far I encountered!
	Keep it up... HassanQ (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind, Hassan, thank you very much -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

- Sitush (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of any guidance for the notability of surnames, ie: articles that relate entirely to the surname? - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I've actually looked before and I'm pretty sure there isn't anything specific. Whenever I've seen surname articles challenged for notability, it's been in the context of WP:GNG -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's hoping that your first year as an admin wasn't to frustrating. Have a great 2012 on Wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's actually been pretty rewarding so far, and hasn't driven me completely mad yet (but I'm working on it). Have a great, erm, whatever it is you celebrate, yourself :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I like celebrating them all as that gives me more parties to attend. :-) Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I need you to see if my committed identity is in the correct format. --Phenomer TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 17:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like you have shown the encrypted version fine, but I can't check it has been encrypted correctly. If you are sure it is the correct encryption using SHA-512, then all should be well - but if you want to send me the plain text version (using the email facility - obviously don't publish it anywhere), I'll be happy to check it for you (and I will, of course, keep it confidential) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do, Boing! said Zebedee! --Phenomer TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For reasons that I cannot quite fathom, over the last few days I have had obviously Indian contributors asking me for help/advice rather than taking the usual pot shots. I feel quite faint!

Anyway, bearing the requests etc in mind, I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on my talk page. Feel free to chime in as I think that some of them may overestimate my capabilities/knowledge of policy etc & I would not like to dole out the wrong info or advice. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gosh - don't let it go to your head, now ;-) Not sure why I didn't already have your Talk page stalked, but I have now and I'll try to help with policy where I can - but I'll still steer clear of actual content decisions, to try to maintain my uninvolved admin status. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, thanks. Exactly what I meant. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching one of these conversations on your page with interest. Cynical me thinks it's just a more subtle approach to the old "you are defaming my caste!" accusation. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a variety of forum shopping - the person just doesn't want to let this issue drop and seemingly cannot understand the cited policies etc despite numerous people giving numerous, somewhat repetitive explanations. I've no idea if the underlying issue is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or WP:COMPETENCE but if it goes on for much longer then I think they'll find that the community patience will begin to wear thin. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Boing. I just inadvertently clicked the wrong button when closing this. I have restored it, but we're left with a debate that shows the wrong closure and we're not supposed to re-edit it. What to do? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

[4] →Στc. 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have been resolved, although I would personally be cautious about re-editing a closed discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think editing closed discussions to correct a mistake would be acceptable under WP:IAR. →Στc. 08:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but under the current climate at Wikipedia with the wolf-pack hunting for admins, one can't be too careful ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - I think it's fine for the closing admin to edit it to make a correction to the closing reason -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thing was, it wasn't the closing admin - it was done before I could get some advice above. Never mind, it seems to have have been settled. Thank you both for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter (gossip) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I specifically wrote, twice, that such words might have to be used because they are the part of the subject matter of the case, but that they are unnecessary and distracting, because offensive to some, if used in direct discourse. Perhaps you missed that bit. You accept that they are offensive to some but support their use. Why would you wish to offend other editors? Oh, and my view of being "grown-up" includes having the ability to adjust my language to my situation and audience. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm only interested in discussing this in the actual case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the template here, I usually look at them before submitting. Thanks again, SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help - that's the kind of typo I'm always doing :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Bet you wish you were here!
	Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that warm here now - temperature has dropped to around 80°F!

Ha, I'm overcome with sympathy for you! :-) Have a great time yourself - hope to be there before too long -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

And to you too, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Good tidings to you and your kin! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

And to you too, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, dusted. I have itemised the lot and the last reverter claims to have withdrawn because they do not have the sources/interest to find such. The entire issue is one of sourcing and if anyone reverts again then they'll definitely be in clear breach of WP:BLP due to the comments on the talk page. My suspicion is that long term semi-pp might become necessary, though. - Sitush (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to 1 week semi, and we can see what happens after that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ta. I think that there will be real sourcing problems with this article, at least using the "Billava" name. I'll try to find something using the alternate names but if nothing turns up there then it will be reliant on offline stuff and that will mean asking for copies of things because I'm afraid that AGF simply does not work well when it comes to application of sources in this subject area. I hope that I am wrong! - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still rather new to the whole Wikipedia editing show, which might explain some of my ignorance. I added a speedy deletion template to GNOME Control Center which currently redirects to Gnome, however there is nothing on the GNOME page that refers to the GNOME Control Center nor did the original page ever feature any text. There is no reason for the redirect since a page didn't even exist there in the first place and it isn't a misspelling of GNOME or an easy way to write it. Do you know which template would be appropriate to use to apply for deletion or how I could go about that? I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to be asking such a question. --JayDez (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading through all the deletion templates again I've come to the conclusion that R3 best represents my point of view on the page and so have added that template to the page. Let me know what you think. --JayDez (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi - yes, if it's a implausible or unlikely search name, R3 is the right criterion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Sorry about the confusion at first. --JayDez (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Viva_Israel is a sock of Down with Arab occupiers and Sean-goyland. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

To SPI is the direction to go. I'm not familiar with this case, but Twinkle makes it easy (go to sock's userpage, go to ARV, then select the Sockpuppet option).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but the edits aren't really the same, and I don't think there's enough for WP:SPI. But the current situation does need an eye kept on it, so I'll ask for some watchers at WP:AN/I before I finish -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A whole little edit scuffle erupted and was remedied while I wasn't looking. Thank you for your vigilance. K8 fan (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hai Sir, Mr.Shivdeep Lande one of imporatant Police officer.Thats why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivdeep_lande i created..But some one deleted...Nearly 2000 girls rescued from ragging and molesters in Bihar because of Mr.Shivdeep lande.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahamed5zal (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. There was not sufficient claim of importance or reliable sources to keep the article - just being an "important" police officer is usually not sufficient. Please have a look at WP:N to learn about the required notability, and WP:RS for the kind of reliable sources we require -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You got nowt better to do than work on Wikipedia on Boxin' Day? I have an excuse. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, sitting up in bed with a laptop, still feeling a bit fragile from a few beers - it kinda makes me feel almost like I'm not just wasting the day ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I need you to see if my committed identity is in the correct format. --Phenomer TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 17:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like you have shown the encrypted version fine, but I can't check it has been encrypted correctly. If you are sure it is the correct encryption using SHA-512, then all should be well - but if you want to send me the plain text version (using the email facility - obviously don't publish it anywhere), I'll be happy to check it for you (and I will, of course, keep it confidential) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do, Boing! said Zebedee! --Phenomer TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sitush (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering given the fact they self IDed as editing under 69.171.160.187 (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help requested with AFD - BLP concerns, wikilawyering, article ownership, and many other fine features and the related AfD), sohuld the IP be blocked for a period as well?

- J Greb (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it may well be dynamic, and there hasn't been anything from it since the AfD. So I think there's probably no need to block it now - but I'll keep an eye on it, and if it's used in a similar manner we can block it then -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. - J Greb (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

	Nadolig llawen and best wishes for 2012!
	All the best for the New Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Surprised to see you have made no contributions to this article ?! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

:-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Boing!,

I just wanted to touch base and let you know I stole your section for links to policies, etc from your userpage. I'm always scrambling around looking for things at times (and ended up bookmarking most of those links) but the way you have it organized is incredibly useful. I was hoping to get your permission to copy paste what you put on your page (and then add/subtract to my liking). My page: User:Slazenger#Helpful_Links.2FInfo

Thank you. :] --Slazenger (Contact Me) 21:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, please feel free to take anything you find useful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Happy Holidays! --Slazenger (Contact Me) 21:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Do keep an eye on it, I just don't want to post... Prodego ^talk 02:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood - beans and all that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

—Commander _{(Ping me)} 05:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Can you please let me know if below paragraphs can be considered valid ? I'm not going to add it anywhere, just want you to go through it and just help me know.

The staunch adherence to the Hindu faith among Nairs has resulted in a number of Nair – Muslim clashes, mostly in the Malabar region. Most notable among them are the Captivity of Nairs at Seringapatam,^[1]

The defeat of the Nairs in Seringapatam resulted in the destruction of Hinduism in Southern Mysore region. However the Nairs of Travancore, with the help of the British were able to defeat the Muslim forces in 1792 at the Third Anglo-Mysore War.^[2]

Tipu Sultan had lost his sword in a war with the Nairs of Travancore during the Battle of the Nedumkotta, in which he was defeated.^[3] The Nair army under the leadership of Nair Dewan of Travancore Lord Raja Kesavadas again defeated the Mysore army near Aluva. The Maharaja, Dharma Raja, gifted the famous sword to the Nawab of Arcot, from where the sword went to London. The sword was on display at the Wallace Collection, No. 1 Manchester Square, London. At an auction in London in 2004, the industrialist-politician Vijay Mallya purchased the sword of Tipu Sultan and some other historical artifacts, and brought them back to India for public display after nearly two centuries.^[4]

Greetings, Vineet Nayar

Hi. I'm afraid I can't really help with content reviews, sorry. If it is intended for an article, you would need to ask for review on that article's Talk page. And if it's not intended for a specific article, then it would be pretty much impossible to review anyway, as any review would need to be able to consider its intended location -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this IP who was caught on an edit filter, is an IP who has been range blocked, see here Pass a Method talk 16:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be no mention of that range at [5], and the address is currently not blocked - neither range blocked nor otherwise -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback here Pass a Method talk 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the link - it's late where I am now, but I'll be happy to talk about it tomorrow some time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to put the ball in your court, tt has been brought to my attention by Donner60 that Searcher 1990 (talk | contribs) is continuing to edit in the same fashion as previous to their blocking, only they are not logging in and editing through IP address 84.193.82.180 (talk | contribs). Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I haven't had time to examine it yet - I'll have a look as soon as I can -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, and sorry I haven't had time to look at this. Unfortunately, I'm extremely busy in real life at the moment and don't really have any time for Wikipedia right now - so if this continues to be a problem, I can only suggest you ask someone else for help or post at an appropriate noticeboard -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[6] bent bits of wood? I'm not getting the reference. (That's totally unimportant of course, I'm just curious). Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Boomerangs ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I feel really stupid. Do'h. Well, maybe not. A boomerang is a fair amount of wood ... bits made think of like wood shavings from an axe. Thanks. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I did think that it would be difficult to source but I am reasonable happy with how things are turning out at Billava. It seems to be yet another example of sources being available but people preferring to write what they think rather than what is verifiable. However, as per my talk page, some people are not happy & prefer their home-spun version. Qwryxian appears to be keeping an eye on things but the test comes in a couple of days' time! - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the event that springs to my mind happened yesterday ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I need a cartoon of a duck for my talk page, complete with water running off it. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

:-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am having some problems with User:Intothefire at Jatt Sikh regarding BLP vios, which is something that, IIRC, the user has done before. The last of my reverts is not a BLP issue but the ones prior to it were. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at what's been going on -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but they have just reinserted all the same crap again, still unsourced in both Jatt Sikh and the various target articles. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted and warned, and I'll block him if he does it again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I am struggling to recall the last worthwhile contribution from him but there must be at least one given the number of edits he has made. The Papadu rewrite is coming on, btw, but it is going to be very reliant on just two sources - I keep digging around for extra info pretty much after every block of edits, but little is turning up & most of that which does is either poor quality or snippet view. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Only two sources, eh? That's two more than most people seem to come up with round these parts ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note at Talk:Sardar Sarvayi Papanna Goud. While I could move that article to a more appropriate title (there are a few decent sources for "Papadu" as the correct name and an article of that title already exists), I feel that leaving the redirect there will perpetuate some of the caste-driven nonsense. Given that there are a very small number of links to this thing, could it not be deleted & I'll rewrite it from scratch + ensure that any valid links are reinstated? - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I can move it without a redirect, if that would do the trick, and then fix any Wikilinks - might be better that way, to preserve the history -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What ever you think is best. The entire content is going to be deleted, every word of it. There has been some really serious pov pushing going on by the Goud community, although most of it seems to relate to 12 months and more ago. I've been working on List of Gouds for a few days and the damn thing is now completely empty - that's how bad it is. - Sitush (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I suggest you rewrite it, and then I can move it over the existing redirect (or to whatever title is appropriate), and not leave a redirect behind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

fine. I've put a request in at WP:RX for the seminal article to which all the other reliable sources refer, but I can start a rewrite without that. - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, an indication of how bad it was is that people have been appending "Goud" to the names of people who have articles, eg: John Smith becomes John Smith Goud. This is despite having no verification that John Smith is/was a Goud & despite that not actually being their name! - Sitush (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that doesn't sound good -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article can be moved to Papadu now. There is more to come when the article turns up, but what we now have already far exceeds the earlier content. Unless you think otherwise, of course. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) That's done. There were no links from articles to it - they all went to the Papadu redirect. But there are three redirects, Sardar papanna, Sardar Sarvai Papanna, and Sardar Sarvay Papanna, and I'm not sure what to do with them - I've redirected them to Papadu for now. None are used in articles, and they get very few hits - up to around 10 or 11 hits per month on Sardar papanna, and 2 or 3 per month on the other two. I suspect that's because there's a Telugu film called "Sardar Papanna", though I can't find any real description of it other than it's a film about Sardar Papanna, and can't be sure it's about the same person. I think we probably either need to get rid of them, or make some mention of the name "Sardar Papanna" in the article. If there is any source anywhere that suggests he's popularly known as "Sardar Papanna", maybe we could mention that? Or if there's anything about the film to indicate it's about Papadu, perhaps a mention of that could be included? What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Papanna - that was where I began searching a few days ago. I could only find some snippet stuff at GBooks, eg: this appears to call him Sarvayi Papanna (NOT with "Goud" on the end!) and this calls him Siriyala Papanna. To be honest, the number of transliterations is probably considerable but these two books are the only mentions that I could find at GBooks that use other than Papadu ... and there are dozens using that version, again mostly in snippet view. "Sardar" is a title for a military leader, btw. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes it sound like the Papanna redirects are reasonable, but I think there would need to be some mention of that name in the article too (and yes, I agree there's no apparent justification for "Goud"). Maybe adding (or Papanna) would be enough? And/or what do you think about adding a brief "Popular culture" section and a mention of the film? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Added the alt. name of "Papanna". I have to beef up the article re: the social bandit/Indian Robin Hood side of things, so I'll see what I can find out about the film. My suspicion is that a folk-lore hero such as this probably has numerous mentions in popular culture - as per Hood - and so there might need to be a cut-off somewhere. I wonder if he had a "Little Yogesh" standing by his side? <g> As far as I am concerned, the two redirects we have been talking about are mis-titled. Neither should have the "Sardar" bit. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Technically you're probably right about the redirects, but if that's what people actually search for then I think it's reasonable to keep them. Maybe adding two without the "Sardar" might help, and perhaps even one for just "Papanna" - I'm happy to do that later. As for popular culture, yes, I expect there's a lot of stuff out there about his battles with the evil Sheriff Aurangzeb - I'd suggest a cut-off at major productions, like the film or any major TV series etc, but I do think there should be a mention of the film at least -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be good if I can clear the first hurdle that you referred to, ie: that the film relates to the article subject. This is not a good start - "Super Star Krishna said that this film has come very nicely and this is the first film to portray the Nizam's Era." I know that the quality of Indian movie sources is almost universally dreadful but either the movie is not about Papadu, the lead actor does not know his history or the source has screwed it up. The Nizams did not begin their rule until a few years after the death of all the main characters in Papadu, including Bahadur I and his successor. As is normal in the Indian media, basically the same story, with the same problem, appears elsewhere. I might be in for a long haul here, in which case I will palm it off to WT:INB and see what results. If that comes good, and bearing in mind that we only have two snippet view printed sources possibly using the alternate Papanna name for the guy, then I'll create the other redirects.

NB: the film hit DVD inside a year & forum chat seems to suggest that it was a flop from day one, despite the usual hype. It is not at IMDb but I have no idea whether or not that is normal for Telugu films. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WT:INB sounds worthwhile. I suspect it is about the same guy, even if it is no more historically accurate than Erroll Flynn's lincoln green escapade, but some evidence would indeed be nice ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <This is the biography of an young engineer who wants to be a great personality in world. So if you permit him to be in this article which may encourage him to achieve more. So please let me to proceed and i will assure you that it will not let yu any problems. Believe me please. thank you >.— Abdul Hai Sahib (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Hai Sahib (talk • contribs) 10:26, 31 December 2011‎

Assuming you are referring to Abdul Hai Sahib, being a "young engineer who wants to be a great personality in world" is not sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article - see WP:N for general notability requirements, and WP:BIO for the notability required of a person. If you keep recreating the article, you are likely to be blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yeah.. now i undersand the rules of wikipedia. Let me know more about wikipedia. But I challenginng you that one day i also will be placed in this same wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Hai Sahib (talk • contribs) 10:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish you success, and I hope you do indeed achieve the notability required to one day have a Wikipedia article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you... Happy New year :-) Abdul Hai Sahib (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Hai Sahib (talk • contribs) 10:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

my account name is Dnq1980

my page VABookings.com was just deleted by you. Please let me know what needs to be done to have the article back to being accessable. I can remove the things that you object upon, that is not the issue.

Please let me know at your earliest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnq1980 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it offered no indication of the importance of the company - and Wikipedia is not a business directory. To understand the notability required for a company to have its own Wikipedia article, please have a read of WP:NCORP, and please see WP:RS for the kind of sourcing that is needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15