Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

October 2020

Please do not turn off notifications

I rescind my comments about you being an administrator. I never actually recommended that you’d adminship be taken away, only that I questioned it, but I rescind it anyways. I was attempting to work this out with you but I didn’t appreciate your hostility towards me to begin with either. I do agree however that I did not handle the situation the best myself. Let’s start over and I will not attack you as long as you don’t attack me. Agree? I don’t want other editors to dislike me, especially the admins, but I sometimes over react when I’m being targeted. For that, I apologize. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I neither like nor dislike you - I don't even know you. I'm not starting anything over, and will not engage with you further. I leave any new unblock request entirely in the hands of other admins, who are free to act without needing to consult me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Policy request

I need to ask you one last time for a policy request. Policy says an admin should not override another admins opposition to a block. Therefore in order for my block to go through, I request that you remove your opposition. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added a comment freeing any reviewing admin from needing my approval. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Appreciated! I hope we can both move forward editing without hostility towards each other. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Need help

  • A user who was previously banned for vandalizm (JewishLefist) is back at vandalizing pages. On a reddit discussion about "two minutes hate", someone said that racists would vandalize the page as an attempt to troll. Right after that, the page was vandalized by this user. I'm contacting you because I see you were part of unbanning him in 2018 on his talk page. Please re-ban him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate JohnSmitty23 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Their single edit to Two Minutes Hate doesn't look like obvious vandalism to me, and I'm not really interested in what happens at Reddit or anywhere else. If you have any dispute with this editor, please use the usual channels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@JohnSmitty23: Also, you must not link to alleged off-wiki activity in edit summaries, or make accusations based on off-wiki material, as that is a violation of WP:OUTTING. Please do not do that again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussion on reddit was specifically about trolls removing the Sinophobia link on that specific page on wiki. The edit also occurred in the hour after. This is exactly what happened. It's not a coincidence. Anyway, what are the usual channels? JohnSmitty23 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't care. You *do not* post attacks like that or make allegations of off-wiki behaviour based on your own deductions of "Can't be a coincidence". If you believe you are witnessing disruptive editing that requires administrator action, you can report it at WP:ANI. But be objective, address the editor's actions (not the editor as a person), and do not make personal attacks (per WP:NPA). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

May I ?

Appeal against topic ban to me personally is declined. Next avenue of appeal is to the community at WP:AN. Any further attempts to discuss sources and propose article changes here will be a breach of topic ban. This discussion here is now closed. Any further comments will be removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 10% according to WHO monday. [1]
  • New graphs and maps at the CDC since oct 3rd. [2] (with new tests in new-york on July 7)
  • Hema Quebec was testing 2.23% by july 6 [3]

May I use the sources ? The seroprevalence tests from April are still not represented in due weight in our articles. thanks. Iluvalar (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You are not allowed to discuss Covid-19 anywhere on Wikipedia, including here, except for formally appealing your topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I formally appeal for my topic ban. Iluvalar (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
That appeal is not sufficient to convince me that you understand the problems that led to the ban and that they will not recur, and I decline it. If you wish to make a further appeal, please use WP:AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand the problem fully, it started in april when the first serology tests were done. It became evident that the confirmed cases only encapsulate a fraction of all the infections. However the studies were in preprint and contested (back in april), so rules of wikipedia (and wikipedia alone) prevented us to edit the articles. Although as time passed the experiement was successfully reproduced all accross the world. Germany, italy, portugal, spain, several states etc... The WHO, the CDC and ECDC all reajusted their IFR in may (I think you should remember that) to account for the serology test. They used the results, but did not mentioned the infection estimation used. In may, JMV2009 managed to add a preprint as source without actually modifying the text [4]. Proving that those tests had made a full circle around the sources and were acknowledged by science. Saddly, at that moment RexxS applied WP:MEDRS literally and bullied him out of the subject. (see:User_talk:Jmv2009#GS_alert). I vocally disagreed with RexxS on this one, and I don't regret. But it stayed in talk page and I did actually made improvements myself on the IFR chapter from that point on. I then stayed quiet for a while, but the WHO on july 6 DID used the source used by JMV. They specifically said in conference press that the serology tests were an important tool to estimate covid. From this point, I became smug a bit. And I understand, being moderator in other sites, that you are ready to topic ban me for this alone. However, I want to stress, that since June 21, the sources are sufficient. The one I provided here yesterday are even better. I'm offering my help to add sources to a deficient article. The main scenario from the CDC changed on September 10 [5], if you don't let me do it, can you please do it yourself ? Iluvalar (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I am *not* discussing sources here, or any specific changes you want to make (or want me to make). You need to make an appeal against your topic ban, at WP:AN, and it will be decided by community consensus. Do not post any more about it here. Post at WP:AN. I really don't think I can make that any clearer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You topic banned me for the poor quality of my sources. I don't think you realize that I only contributed to one single section regarding IFR since April. That's all I did. So when I come here showing you sources from both CDC and WHO regarding this specific subject, letting you know that the specific section is now outdated. You won't even look at them ? Have you looked the initial one ? Iluvalar (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Appeal your topic ban at WP:AN! There! Not here! Understand? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Investigate

I do not understand what is happening, but maybe I am accused of doing more than one account, right? So what do I have to do and can I not edit while i'm monitoring. Sumit banaphar (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sumit banaphar: If you are not related to any of those other accounts, you're welcome to make a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultimate survi to say so. As I say, at the moment it's really just a formality to request clarifcation of who is in breach of WP:SOCK policy. You are welcome to carry on editing while the request is open. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for unblocking me, I saw your notification in my talk page, then I would like to say that neither I had broken any rules before nor will I break now.My only thing is to ask that how should I make the changes with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Eroberar (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eroberar: The most important things are to be sure you have reliable sources for any changes you want to make (see WP:RS), and if anything is contentious or contested to seek consensus on the article talk page (see WP:Consensus). If you stick to those two key things, you should avoid most of the problems that affect most new editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reliable sources for changes I want to make, so do i still need to seek consensus on the talk page. Eroberar (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

For caste changes, what's reliable and what is not reliable can be controversial. There's an enormous amount of dispute over who belongs to which caste and about their relative statuses. And many caste-based organisations are constantly trying to paint their own castes in the most favourable possible light. So I'd say yes, you really should get a consensus first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sock block

I saw that you unblocked Eroberar, but only after I blocked. I'm sufficiently convinced it's a sock, started editing again after I blocked another sock and has now referenced that sock in a TP discussion with Bonadea. Anyway, I'm open to wheel war sanctions, that may be the only way out! :) —SpacemanSpiff 10:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: LOL. Got to say I was thinking about discretionary sanctions, but I'm happy with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt the sanctifications, but is there any reason why Sumit banaphar should not be included in the group? I think it is very clear that the same person is sitting behind that keyboard. --bonadea contributions talk 19:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
No objections from me, I'm just trying to keep away from making blocks myself because I'm likely to be too busy to follow up. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Check the links

If I am giving you the right source, then why should I wait? I put same words as Alf Hiltebeitel in his books you can see here [6] You can see for yourself when what I was saying in the article was written when a registered user made a change without any proof, then nobody noticed. You can see, check the changes on 29 july 2020 here is the link of article's history page [7] So I am just reverting it. Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I will make same changes in Alha and Banaphar but after I get approval in Udal of mahoba Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I am not arguing about the content and whether your source is acceptable, and I have no idea what the correct content should be. But you must not edit war to force through your contested changes without gaining a consensus. If you continue like this once your block expires, you will face further sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You tell me what should I do, I have already given the links that reference is saying something else and article saying something else. I have given the links of government published books (which are published after independence not in raj era) and government is not going to publish something that is not sure. Government published books:-

1. Census of India, 1961: Madhya Pradesh:- [8]

2.Madhya Pradesh: Narsimhapur. Supplement:- [9]

3.Haryana:- [10]

Sumit banaphar (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sumit banaphar: I'm not interested in you giving me the links, because my admin status does not allow me to judge. And just providing links to Google books snippets that just match a search term is not sufficient anyway. You, and other participants, need to be able examine the sources properly (actually read the books rather than just search for a term). You then need to explain how the sources support the changes you wish to make, and convince a consensus of editors to support you. The place to do that is the article talk page, where I see another editor has explained their objections to your sources. So continue the discussion there. Read, understand and respond to their objections, and see if you can reach a consensus. And if you can not gain a consensus, you simply can not make your changes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Upset

I am quite disappointed and upset to read your implication that I am "stirring unneeded drama" simply by not understanding something :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not "not understanding something" that's the issue, and you surely know that, don't you? You know I like you and get on with you, and I have great respect for you as a contributor here. But come on, Ritchie, if you want to volunteer for something, find out what the requirements for the role are and decide whether you agree to them *first*. Volunteering and then effectively saying "I'll decide whether to actually do the job later" is just wasting the time of a lot of people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping for a sympathetic reply but now I feel like I can't do anything right around here. Ho hum. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Ritchie, old friend, you do *a lot* right around here, and I'll be at the head of the crowds proclaiming that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Dona nobis pacem
Have some apples, you two. Darwinbish tried to steal them all but some were left. I certainly know how it feels to be misunderstood. The good news: the infobox wars are over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
... and yes, Ritchie, I'd be in the crowd proclaiming. Just please no more DS for me, for seeing something sooner than others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

16 October memories - admitting that I was upset then, - the good thing being that nothing later really hurt --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

moar Bach music, promised 8 years ago, for peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Messing with few pages.

Hi Boing!_said_Zebedee, Please take a look at this user's editorial history. Seems to be messing up some pages. Thanks. --HinduKshatrana (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not very active here right now and I don't have time to investigate. Perhaps talk to them, or make a request at WP:ANI if there are continuing problems and you can't solve them by discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Advice on pageant GS followup

Proxy IP edits
Suspicious IP edits


Hi, could you advise me where to list some pageant articles for review for protection under the new GS? I'm afraid that reopening the AN thread would be seen as unwelcome. Maybe over at COIN? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: One option is to just ask a friendly admin ;-) If you list them here, I'll take a look and see if I think GS protection is warranted. I probably won't have time until late tomorrow, as long as that's OK. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I've posted a list of most articles edited by my roster of IPs (most of whom are blocked) in 2H2020. They may not be equally strong candidates, but that was my mechanical criterion. My recommendation is start with the active international pageants: Miss International Queen 2020, Miss World, Miss World 2020, Miss World 2021, Miss International 2021, Miss Universe 2020. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I'm beginning to see the scale of the problem ;-) I'll go through those as soon as I have a bit of time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Have fun. I did a quick spot check of the list selected by IP edits, and found at each one recent editing by the RadyoUkay and DevilBlack socks KellyAvilla, Leila1990, LexiBeautyQueen, MythaWaltz, and Raha1999. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotection at Miss Earth 2020 has probably failed [11]. I have an open SPI on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DevilBlack69 to confirm. Bri.public (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bri and Bri.public: Sorry I haven't looked at this yet - I've had a couple of days of some sort of cold or flu, and not had much brainpower. I will get on it asap. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Miss USA socking

Miss [state] USA
Miss [state] Teen USA
Miss USA 1952 through 2020

This list is generated from edits by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GaritoSo. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Edit to prevent archive - I will look at this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC))
(Ditto. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC))

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November

enjoy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Very nice. Someone should write a poem about that ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. I was more factual for the birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Never remove speedy deletion tags from pages you created yourself. What, never? Well, hardly ever.

This was, I think, a situation where I would have been perfectly justified in applying IAR and removing a speedy deletion tag from a page I created. I was going to do so, but then I thought that, considering the huge number of times over the years I've told other editors that they may be blocked if they do that, and the much smaller but significant number of times I've actually blocked them for doing it, perhaps it would be better not to. Anyway, thanks for doing it for me. JBW (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's mainly for people creating inapproriate articles and such, not messages on user talk pages. Perfect IAR candidate, but still probably better to leave it to someone else and save getting the "But you did it..." finger wagged at you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg Merry Christmas Boing! said Zebedee

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness.
Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Poor grammar copyediting

Hello. I noticed you leaving some comments for KuroNekoNiyah, a new editor who'd been poorly copyediting an article that had been flagged as needing it. Do you have any sense of this being a recent trend on Wikipedia, or is that just me? I often feel that when I tag an article as needing copyediting, it gets a few low-quality edits from new users who don't seem to be fluent in English and are sometimes just introducing further mistakes.

I'd raised it at User_talk:RexxS#Attracting_incompetent_edits earlier today, after RexxS had (and I understand the frustration) removed the copyedit template from the drowning article, simply because of the amount of poor new-user copyediting it was attracting. If this is maybe a thing, it'd be good to work out where it's coming from, and whether some subset of new users are being directed to fix articles flagged as needing copyediting, on the assumption that this is a safe thing to ask and can't cause any harm. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, I spotted this thanks to seeing your comment at User_talk:RexxS and I decided to check the rest of their edits. It does happen from time to time, but I haven't really been watching enough to know if there's any recent trend. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Apology is in order

I think a formal apology is in order for quite a few editors, including yourself. There was some previous misunderstanding between us which led to me saying some harsh things towards you, which is inexcusable. I’ve pretty much been outcast as an editor so I thought it would be a good idea to formally apologize and make amends with the editors who I have behaved uncivilly towards, despite not intentionally trying to harm others. I hope you can accept my apology and I want to continue working on the project soon. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I have a very short memory for disagreements and disputes, and they're quickly forgotten. So, sure, I'm happy to accept your apology, thank you. I hope your future editing is less stressful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

★Trekker (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Boing! said Zebedee

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and healthy New Year,
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,
   –Davey2010Talk 19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
Heba Aisha (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Heba Aisha (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thank you, five years later.

Five years ago, you deleted my article Joshua's number, and I would like to thank you, as, if you did not do that, I would not be where I am today. Also, I love your username. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 22:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy to have helped :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Template on my talk

Hi Boing! said Zebedee! I noticed that you placed an incomplete WMD level template on my talk [12] and I was wondering whether this was a mistake or whether I have actually done something really really bad without realizing it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ach, completely the wrong message, sorry. I've fixed it up at your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee/Archive_41

Leave a Reply