User talk:Boing! said Zebedee

User Talk Photos Sandbox Templates Dashboard

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE Discussion. I think it it's best to keep discussions in one place. So my talk, your talk, or an article talk - I'll carry on wherever it started. Talk page stalkers are welcome here - just join in any time you feel like. Admin: I'm new to the admin business, so if I do any admin things that you disagree with, please don't feel you need my permission to revert or adjust them - just use your judgment. But please do let me know. Please click here to leave me a new message. May 2012 Banned User stho002 possibly attempting to influence Wikipedia. Hi, I recieved a rather long message on my talk page that I believe may be a result of stho002 emailing people on Wikipedia to give them his point of view on topics of interest to him. If I understand correectly this type of behavior may be in breach of his edit block. user:Dyanega is a specialist in insects and has never had any interest in turtles. He suddenly appears on this subject when stho002 has been banned. He has made many of the same unfounded accusations that stho002 made against me some 18 months ago, issues that were investigated at the time by admins and I was found to have done nothing wrong. At the time user:ZooPro gave me a precautionary warning to ensure I was careful about wp:NPOV. This was history though. I would appreciate it if this could be checked on. cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC) I'll take a closer look later (I have a busy day today), but for now I've blocked email access. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC) June 20120 The page I have created has been deleted! Hi there! I have created a page here on wikipedia about Sheikh Sayid Muhammed Sadiq. This man was one of the influential public figure in Ethiopia. His greatest contribution was through the translation of Holy Quran to Ethiopian local language. There is only one book available in the market about him. I have it only in hard copy and can't put a reference, but if anyone would like to buy the book here is the information: http://www.nejashi.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=72 I created this page to give young researchers a little information about him. What else I can do to improve this article? Certainly it is not unimportant. I sincerely ask you to consider the tag applied on this article. Thanks! Wosen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woseneshetu (talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Hi. The article was deleted as it did not make it clear why the person is of sufficient importance for an encyclopedia article. Ultimately, what you would need is to demonstrate that he satisfies Wikipedia's Notability requirements, especially the general notability guideline, and to do that you would need to provide multiple reliable sources talking *about* him - see WP:RS. You could use that book as one source - references for Wikipedia articles do not have to be online (but at least one online reference would be beneficial). A student's Masters thesis is not considered a suitable source. If you believe you can find such sources, I'd be willing to restore the article to your user space so you can continue to work on it. Let me know if you would like me to do that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) The Arrticle Jerash Hi, in violation to the agreement we reached earlier regarding the article Jerash. The user Historyfeelings has just ignored the discussion page and he/she returned to the edit war by modifying the article directly. Please see the recent changes made to the page. In addition, the type of protection you placed on the article is only allowing him to modify the article directly (Please see the message). This is completely unfair! Banimustafa (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I've finally got a few fairly quiet days, so I hope to look at this very shortly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your attention. I also found in my talk page some unappropriated messages which was made to look like official warnings see this. Banimustafa (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC) OK, I'll take a look at that too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) This was recently at WP:DRN where I am a volunteer mediator.[1]. Also, Historyfeelings has requested my help on this.[2]. DRN was unable to be of much help, primarily because Banimustafa chose not to participate, which of course he is free to do. I am NOT implying anything about who is or isn't right or wrong here I would note two things: [1] I invite Banimustafa to open up a discussion at WP:DRN on this topic. An uninvolved third-part mediator may able to help. (If it is me he doesn't like, I will be happy to recuse myself and let on of the other mediators take the case) [2] I have had some productive discussions with Historyfeelings, and if you or another admin tells him that he has to do things differently, I believe I can encourage and assist him in complying. Again, this does not imply that he did or did not do something wrong; my goal is not to fix blame, but rather to fix the problem. Please let me know if I can assist in any way. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I was not aware of your invitation. However, all the messages in my talk page were all sent by Historyfeelings click here. I was not aware of any other mechanisms for resolving the dispute other than the article discussion page. On 28/May I have sent my apology from participating in the discussion for a while as I was so busy because I was traveling. However, Historyfeelings returned to the edit war and edited article directly as shown her. In addition, the article was protected in such away that allowed him to edit the article, while preventing me from doing so!. The user then started sending me messages and acting as an administrator click here. Banimustafa (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Not a problem. Because the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard has zero authority (we can't make you do anything -- our goal is to help you to resolve your conflicts by agreement or, failing that, to direct you to the right noticeboard) we can re-open, refile, or whatever it takes to help solve the issue. I have a suggestion. I would like both of you to call a temporary cease fire on the article, the article talk page, and all other venues (including appeals to Boing! said Zebedee) and give WP:DRN a chance. I suggest that Banimustafa file the report, because Historyfeelings filed the last one. Hopefully we can resolve this to everybody's satisfaction. Helpful hints for discussing things a WP:DRN; calm, cool and evidence-based is the way to go. Discuss article content instead of user conduct (we like to solve the content problems first and then revisit conduct issues later if needed), and take your time - a single, well thought-out paragraph that gets to the point and provides links to the versions/edits it is talking about is far more effective than a wall of text. Reading the instructions at the top of the DRN page helps a lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I am happy to do so. Meanwhile, I request to revert all the changes made to the article by Historyfeelings as the article is still under discussion (to stop any further edit wars). I also request to remove any protection on the article that makes me unable to edit it while allowing Historyfeelings to do so, otherwise, I suggest that you prevent us both from editing the article until the dispute is finished. Banimustafa (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC) In such cases we like to revert the article to the last stable version before either user made or reverted any controversial changes. How about the Revision as of 05:21, 24 April 2012 as edited by ChrisGualtieri? diff is here. If we agree on that version, one of you can go back and re-add things that nobody disputes like typo fixes. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks very much for the help - I strongly support this suggestion. I've started going over the disputes a couple of times, but I keep getting dragged off to higher priority things before I've got my head round it and I have to keep starting again. I think a DRN case would be a much better solution, and judging by the discussion I've had so far, I think both parties would approach it positively - a concise summing up of the dispute should give is a nice clean restart. So please do start the DRN case, and I'll offer my thoughts there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC) There's been a request at RPP to protect Sakib, which seems to be an article that involves both these users in this issue. As it seems there's a lot of background to this, would you be able to have a look at the request? Thanks (let me know if not, and I'll deal with it). GedUK  11:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I've declined the protection request and have warned both of them to stop edit warring - I'll block them if they continue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks. GedUK  12:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Ok now, should we discuss this case forever? I wonder when it will be finished. Every time we got back to zero point. Anyway, I agree with Guy Macon. --HF► 12:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC) You have to realize that there are more than 3 million articles on the English language Wikipedia, there are only relatively few people volunteering to help with disputes, and there are far more things to occupy our time than just your personal issues - for example, I am currently dealing with an important WP:BLP problem, which has to take priority. The easy admin option would simply have been to indef block the two of you - you should be grateful that there are people willing to give up their personal time to help achieve a better solution than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Just to inform you, it's not a personal issue -at least for me-, while I am sure it's a personal issue for the other user who tries to distract our attention from important issues. I am a lecturer in humanities so I may care in all humanities fields including geographical articles and any other important issue. I would like to participate in such important articles -like one you mentioned- but It is unreasonable to keep us busy with a controversial issues clearly defined and have already discussed in a constructive discussion and we solved it. In any case, I would like to thank you & Guy Macon, and thank others for their time and efforts, and hope to resolve the issue. Now to go directly to the issue let's start by Guy Macon suggestion. Thanks--HF► 16:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The user Historyfeelings moved the conflict to the article Souf after giving up passing the changes he requested in the discussion of the article Jerash. The article Souf was changed by the user to be in-line with the changes he requested in Jerash article see click here and then he started hiring crowd and complaining about problems with language which appeared because of the changes he made to the article click here. In response, I checked the information mentioned in Sakib article and I found that the article is full with wrong, irrelevant, unverifiable, and inaccurate information in addition to several other issues e.g. the use of Ad dustour newspaper article, copying information regarding Jerash and pasting it in the context of Sakib, etc. I have explained all the changes I made to the article, and I am happy to defend them. For a while, I followed the advice of Boing! said Zebedee and tried to calm things down. However, Historyfeelings escalated the conflict and moved it to other articles and went shopping for administrators telling them the story from one side and this is unfair to me. I was so busy to respond because I was traveling. I would like request seeing the picture at whole, and make all the discussion in one place to be able to respond to any discussion (the discussion pages of the articles) as I do not have the time and resources to keep tracking the conflict in too many places, as I am also so busy in real life. Boing! said Zebedee witnessed where the things went, when the story was told by one side, and I think it is my write to tell the story from my side away from the distraction created by the user historyfeelings Banimustafa (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Please stop adding the details here - you will have a chance to explain your side of the dispute in the WP:DRN case that will shortly be opened. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC) CSD and the various sock-puppets of Altenmann. I would be grateful if you, Sir, would possibly "delete" the revived user-pages of the other sock-puppets of Altenmann (as one of the other on-duty administrators for the CSD either refused, or misunderstood me), done by the sock-puppet master in violation of the blocks of his sock-puppets, as in [3]. (I would rather not divulge and disclose as to how I come to know about this particular otherwise-unconnected user.) I thank you. Yours, — KC9TV 08:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Hi. If I understand you correctly, you have proposed these pages for speedy deletion but your requests have been declined. Once a speedy deletion request has been contested, it would be improper for me to speedy delete the pages, so I think you would need to take them to WP:AfD now. (But I think it is unlikely anyone will act on an unexplained allegation of socking). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Prabhatmishra1985 Got time to take another look at the contributions of User:Prabhatmishra1985, whom you warned a couple a months ago? - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I should be able to take a look a little later today. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Re I apologize for the recent series of wrong CSD tagging. And I also won't patroll new pages. HARSH TALK 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Hey, no problem - always feel free to ask me for any help if you're unsure of anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC) HARA-KIRI Hmmmm. Didn't know that, sorry. Any idea why non-notable musicians/bands/songs can be speedied but not films? wackywace 21:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Songs can't, but there's A9 for those. And it's actually not a "notability" thing, as any credible claim of importance is good enough to avoid A7 even if it falls short of notability. A7 only applies to "web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works" (see WP:CSD). I believe the reason is really just that that is what consensus has decided - there has been resistance to adding different categories to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I think it has a lot to do with the logic behind having CSD. Speedy deletions evolved after the AfD process, and they evolved as a set of very narrow exceptions to AfD. The exceptions were created to specifically target those types of articles that are routinely created, that have no hope of surviving a full AfD process, and that are obvious enough that 2 editors agreeing on the deletion (nominator and admin deleting) are sufficient to believe that the process was fair. Bands are one of the most commonly created article types, since everyone who forms a band, or who even talks to their friends about maybe forming a band some day, thinks that it's okay for them to have a Wikipedia page. And since the vast majority of bands in the world (99% or more) are not notable and will never be notable, WP made it easy to delete them. Its a lot rarer, though, for someone to post an article about a new movie (though, nowadays, a number of "movies" that are independently released can be deleted under the web content portion of A7, since most people release such movies through Youtube, etc.). But the thing that really took me a long time to understand is that, the way the policy is written, CSD is specifically designed as an exception, not as the norm. I remember asking the same question about books (to DGG, widely regarded as one of the experts on deletion matters), and being told this same thing, and having it alter my whole way of thinking about the processes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Yep, I think that's exactly it - CSD really is for exceptional cases only, and not, as many seem to think, as a first choice option for deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC) A project that might interest you. I have created a rough draft of what could become WP:EASYMONEY at User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY for the purpose of helping COI editors actually understand what they are doing wrong, how to fix it, and how to actually become a contributor instead of a liability. I'm trying to avoid all the adhoc speeches given to the growing number of PR and marketing firms that are joining us, and at the same time avoid taking a stand on the policy or politics of the issue. I am interested in your opinion of the wisdom of this. If you like the concept, please feel free to participate or modify in any way you choose. I'm not married to any format or details in this, it is just a rough draft at this point. I will drop this same note to a few other editors whom I feel would be beneficial in considering this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC) CSD Feel free to consider me a deletionist but... I didn't really think there was enough content worth saving? Pol430 talk to me 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Well, stubs are acceptable, and as long as the copyvio is gone, what's left isn't really eligible for speedy deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Could you block IP 75.129.130.145 for block evasion, per WP:DUCK? It seems he can't even add a single sentence without copying it from somewhere... Pol430 talk to me 21:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Heading Why'd you delete my page? It doesn't matter if an article is boring as long as it is factual. Some people find my article interesting anyway. It is not your place to dictate your opinions to other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacra3 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Create any more nonsense like that and you will end up blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC) SK Foods Thank you for your message below. I understand. I don't even know the guy. I work at the Government and actually have a conscience. This is sick and you are proliferating it. I am not writing in a glowing manner. The last edit is all referenced. Look here to see the hatchet job they ordered on the only decent worker in tomatoes - http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/sk-foods Over 20 lame articles - the worst of all - "Does nude photo of jailed SK Foods co-founder's girlfriend -- holding tomatoes -- qualify as produce porn?" http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/05/sk-foods-scott-salyer-naked-picture-girlfriend-tomato.html. They are enjoying Salyer's money! I hope they get caught. Possibly you could assist with the edit and just include the basic info from the donation reference it tells a bit about the company in a short paragraph. Why does Wikipedia assume the LA Times does not lie? You also need to read WP:UNDUE. A Wikipedia article about a relatively minor company should not be filled with every last detail about it, and should not be used to push a personal point of view about how wonderful the company is and to blame other people for everything bad that happened to it. You clearly have a close connection with the company, and must stop adding to the article in this glowing, praising manner. Now please, wait for the results of the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/SK Foods, and add your comments there if you have any. And take this as your last warning - if you carry in like this, you will be blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneforGoliath (talk • contribs) I'll reply on your talk page, to keep things together. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Request I've left a request for you at Thisthat's talk page, it could be a little unusual, but I wanted to keep the discussion in one place. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Making this informally to you in your position as an Admin. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Everyone involved here please check Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unequal_treatment_from_an_admin. Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Jackie Mason birth year Yo Zeb. I wonder could you possibly have a quick look here: [4]. I'm not sure if it can be classed as vandalism. I have reverted twice already. So has another editor. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Looks like they've just been given an edit warring warning and been reverted again - I have it watched now and will take some action if it continues. (And whatever his birth year, the 1936 claim certainly looks like a PR whitewash job). I also see that another editor has tried outing this person by stating what is claimed to be his real name - I have redacted it and have warned against that too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC) And it looks like he did it again while logged out - I've blocked for 24 hours and semi-protected the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Many thanks. Yes, I'm not sure that jumping onto a blank User page with a public accusation is the best way forward in any dispute! Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your involvement and actions. I had been trying to freeze changes until the talk page discussion could progress to a consensus. The page protection and block you imposed should give everyone breathing room. It may be difficult to resolve the year (age) question. Only the one editor (& IP counterpart) is pushing 1936, but three other possible dates abound. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Just to add to the mix, we also have the question of the (possibly illegitimate) daughter. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC) If there's no reliable source, I'd say remove it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Our blocked editor kindly took care of that for us, supporting your PR hypothesis. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Pantsaklan I really don't have an opinion, but that doesn't really matter — I blocked Pantsaklan two months ago for two weeks. You'd do better to ask JamesBWatson, who levied the currently-in-place indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC) OK, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge It looks like to me, that you closed this discussion, but I'm not sure. If you have, than could you post a closing statement at the top of the section? Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC) No, it wasn't me who closed the initial RFC - I just offered my judgment of consensus in a later discussion after the RFC was closed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC) User:Pantsaklan Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Chamoquemas I don't know how to talk, can you assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanfordHistory08 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC) The above user is plainly another sock of User:Chamoquemas. Chamoquemas, if you're willing to learn how to use a talk page and collaborate etc, you may be unblocked with your main account, possibly. See WP:Tutorial for getting started. Rd232 talk 22:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC) That was my assumption too, yes - but I see they've discovered how to talk now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Indeed. Rd232 talk 06:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC) U-8047 article The source which you removed is the only reliable source which can be found for the assertion that the boat is "currently moored at Clarence Dock, Leeds, England". I have, accordingly, removed that assertion as unsourced. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Oh, OK - on balance I thought the headline for the source (about the VAT thing) was best avoided as it was one of the causes of contention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC) PamD found a reference I missed or perhaps couldn't find because I'm in the US and restored the material. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Nice teamwork :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC) The same IP is attacking other articles as well. See the contribution history. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC) An IP block by another admin is now in place, but the other Royal Armouries-related articles may well need to be fully protected for awhile as well. Thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I've semi-protected the articles he's attacked - if he attacks them from registered accounts we can quickly block them, and ultimately up the protection if necessary. If you see any attacks on any other articles, please let me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC) In light of the accusations made by Uboater against PamD and me, I think it might be best if I did not correct this edit by Uboater's self-admitted brother in law, but it is objectionable on multiple grounds: part of it is a close paraphrase copyvio of the cited source, as a violation of WP:BLPREMOVE as an inadequately-sourced negative assertion about a living person, and as a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. If you'll take a look at the history of that article, you'll see that while this is a revision of an addition first made by this same editor, and thus not meatpuppetry, it is at least parallel to Uboater's attacks on the museum. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I agree, but I don't really want to take part in actual content disputes, as that would prevent me from acting in an admin capacity on the article. Don't let unfounded personal accusations stop you - I don't see why you can't revert if you think it is a violation and request that the author discusses it and seeks consensus for its addition. If he then persists, I can think about admin action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Done. I rv'ed and explained on the article talk page, dropping a couple of warnings and a tb on his talk page. Frankly, I hope this guy takes the clue. His previous edits, if a bit newcomer-y and fannish, aren't bad and he may have the makings of a good editor if he doesn't get consumed by Uboater's issues. Thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Yep, let's hope so :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Uboater has posted to my user talk page under a different IP address, see User_talk:TransporterMan#Royal_Armouries. I'm letting you know, just so you know, but also asking that no administrative action be taken at this time since he was civil. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC) OK, that's cool - thanks for letting me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC) He's ignoring the block, perhaps repenting at leisure. See this today, same IP range/ISP as this on my talk page and this during his rant, both mentioned above. Sigh... Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I've been following his Three IP addresses - I suspect he might be heading East on the Leeds to Liverpool canal. He doesn't get to to forget his obnoxious attacks and threats against others and just carry on as if they didn't happen, so I think we have to play whack-a-mole and just keep blocking IPs and protecting the targeted articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 June 2012 Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg" News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit Featured content: The cake is a pi Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Tirunelveli IP straight back at it Just FYI - User_talk:182.72.180.46#You are doing it again. I am hoping that my detailed explanation finally puts this one to rest, but that may have been a pig that I just saw flying over my street. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC) They were removing sourced census info from other articles too, so I've blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Damn. I meant to check their other contributions - good catch. Fancy taking a look at the work of User:24.99.126.146, who is clearly intent on Ezhava promotion etc via disruptive removals. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I saw the edit to Ezhava, and seeing as they blanked something else after your final warning, this one is on the naughty step now too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC) We may be in for one of those days ... - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I guess you guys are buddies. What hope is there now! haha! 117.231.144.44 (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Please compare the Ezhava and Nair. These are two traditionally competing communities. Look how different the two articles are. See how the Nair article is turned into utter trash and slander. Possible massive COI Hi Boing. I think I may have discovered a massive case of COI. In an article on a draft proposal to build another Central Mall to AfD, I discover that the user is also the creator of these articles, and has posted hundreds of edits to other Central malls and closely related major Thai businesses who all have holdings in eachother. CentralFestival Hat Yai CentralPlaza Lampang CentralPlaza Chiang Mai Airport CentralPlaza Phitsanulok CentralPlaza Rattanathibet See the contribs. and the long list of deleted files. I also asked for another file to be deleted at commons of the same kind but which the user claims not to have been the uploader. The user admits to being a shareholder in major Thai businesses I would like your take on all this as I'm not sure which noticeboard, if any, it should be reported to for further investigation. Thanks for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC) OK, I'll have a look later - meanwhile, I've added a !vote to the AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Hello, sorry to bother you. Can you give me and example of sentences or statements in the articles above? If there aren't any then i take that it's Wikipedia's or your personal policy to act before investigate thing? If that so it would discourage good intended user from create many potential good articles for Wikipedia community in future. Have you ever review your acts after you have done something I don't know how much you make wrong? I don't want anything special but please next time find evidences before accuse someone, that's all. AnaTo (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Nonesence It clearly says on my page that only I can replace it. I have done it twice and you keep removing it. I have told you that Transporterman and I have sorted things between us. I have no intention of editing anything again exept for beurocratic people like you. I have no intention of apolojising, espesialy when I have had libelus things writen and infered against me. I have withdrawn the thret of legal action and stoped disrupting things. All I want is the page restoring and for you and PamD to keep away from it. This is surely not much to ask if it stops me coming on with 10 ips and identitys each hour and desimating things. Capt R Williams U-boater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.169.93 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC) That refers only to users who are not blocked from editing, and only logged into their registered accounts. You are personally blocked from editing all of Wikipedia, including from anonymous IP addresses. To change that situation, you will need to request unblock by following the guidance at WP:BASC (seeing as you are also blocked from editing your own talk page), which will require you to address your obnoxious attacks on other Wikipedia editors and your threats to disrupt the project. Any other editing is a violation of your block, and will be reverted. This is the last time I will reply to you when you post as an anonymous IP. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Oh, and how you thought continuing your threats and your unacceptable demands would get you what you want beggars belief - bullying and threatening people might work in the circles in which you move, but they are neither acceptable nor effective in any vaguely civil society, including Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Fucking Tosser. You will never stop me writing or disrupting what the fuck I want Again Historyfeelings socketpuppet /hired crowd. The user Historyfeelings has waved a new edit war, this time to delete my articles in the encyclopedia using socketpuppet and/or hired crowd. The user:JohnRak is a socketpuppet of the user:Historyfeelings or a hired crowd as it is obvious from the history of his contributions, as it was dedicated for the deletion of Bani Mustafa article as shown here from the first contribution dated in 12, June 2012. The user:JohnRak admitted in his talk page that he has real life connections with Historyfeelings, as he claimed that they work together, which makes him, if not a socketpuppet a hired crowds. In addition, the user:Historyfeelings used the the talk page of JohnRak as a platform for attacking me with accusation that violates the condition of his unblocking. Banimustafa (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC) User talk:Stevezdude1 Unblocking to give another chance seems reasonable to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC) OK, thanks - I'll go ahead. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Complaining about a user Hello, I noticed that you had warned Vineet Nayar1 for "attacking" another user. He replied to you saying that what would he do when even after providing references his edits are not welcome. You answer was that, it should be discussed in the Talk page. But what if the Talk page is hogged by a single person and a few others and this person refuses to allow any edit that doesn't fit his POV? I am seeing this on the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nair A user is being dismissive of any and every suggestion that doesn't fit his/her POV. Meanwhile, the article has turned in a horrible mess and nothing anywhere near what such an article would be in general. I guess you would agree that if an article on wikipedia is totally deviating from what people in general say and is written in say Encyclopaedia Brittanica, then something is problematic. I think Vineet Nayar1 has given upon on that article and soon I will. It's no wonder so many people are leaving wikipedia. (reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/25/wikipedia-editors-decline ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.144.44 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The complaint is really about User:Sitush about whom many have complained in the Talk:Nair page but it seems like it's the people who complain who have been banned. Oh well, I guess my time here is limited too. But it gets frustrating when a user hogs an article and anybody native to Kerala can see the bad motives behind what is a slanderous article on a whole community. I had noticed the changes about 7 months ago but I got so frustrated today that I finally decided to respond for the first time on wikipedia. Until now I have only been a reader here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.144.44 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Sockpuppet claim in the wrong venue. I see this as highly disruptive, but understand that others may have a different view [5]. I'm not requesting action, but I am interested in your perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)