User talk:Boing! said Zebedee

Bosnian pyramid claims

I wonder, what is it that makes one assertion 'factual' while others not? There are two 'establishments', not one. I am not a 'fan' of this particular person, he is unimportant. The fact remains that the motivations of the establishment you cite have been exposed in many places, as having nothing to do with whether this is authentic (and they have been demonstrated as authentic) but to do with controlling money related to tourism around the term 'pyramid'. Does that mean that the other establishment is right? No. Hence my changes to make the text balanced and unbiased.

Your revertions render the text on the page biased. Is that the point of Wikipedia? I understood it was meant to be neutral. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not judge what is fact and what is not, and "neutrality" in this context does not mean giving each side equal weighting. Wikipedia weights its articles according to the balance of reliable sources (see WP:RS to learn about what constitutes a reliable source). Anyway, as I said, you need to discuss the changes you wish to make on the article talk page and gain a consensus for them. If a consensus supports you, you'll get no further complaint from me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Chorale cantata (Bach)

Seeing you active: Chorale cantata (Bach), an article with a history and a good common name, and many links, was just made (without a discussion) a redirect to List of chorale cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. Moved to Bach's second cantata cycle (not a common name). I would like to see this version restored, instead of the redirect, willing to work on it. The other articles can stay as they are. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I've done what was needed and have reverted to the state of play before the moves were made without consensus, including reversing a second move made immediately after I reversed the first move. Let me know if anything is still wrong. (Disclaimer: I offer no opinion on the content of any of the articles, and this action was purely in an admin capacity to reverse a non-consensus move which needed admin tools). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:. User:Francis Schonken has reinstated his preferred version at Chorale cantata (Bach), but I have not reverted him again as I wish to keep out of the content dispute. I have, however, left him an edit warring warning, and as per WP:BRD I think you would be within your rights to revert his undiscussed no-consensus changes - I'll leave the content business to you and him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for trying! Yes, I know I would be within my rights, but would prefer an uninvolved person to do it, on top of being often told when I try to move that it needs an admin. You don't have to get deep into content, - it's simply that Francis expanded the article (good), then split part of it to the list (not so good), a very complicated list with far too many numbers for my taste (not so good), then made the article a redirect to that list. I talked on the talk, he responded only by edits, and some show a lack of understanding. Therefore: rather than revert, to leave "his" articles as they are, but have an earlier version back as Chorale cantata (Bach) might be a compromise. I am willing to work on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, at least the article is back where it was before the no-consensus move - I'll leave it to you folks to sort out the content and versions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do so until tomorrow when it will be linked from the Main page. Francis, you are free to create an article on the cycle, using the material you added, but we need a simple link to Chorale cantata (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of Francis' way to link to his preferred version (this is only one example of several)? Easter egg, if you ask me. I reverted two, but don't have time for games. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, can you give me some diffs? (I'd search for myself, but there are a lot of recent edits). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Most recent one here, I reverted a second time, claiming WP:BRD. Related open discussion about bold or not bold BWV 1 (in that case BWV 7) is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Somewhat related discussion: Linking and bolding of acronyms in alternate names in lead. (You may need some time, sorry.) Also here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Disputing a major BOLDSYN change, because Francis had changed a guideline without waiting for aconsensus. (Sorry again.) - Better listen to the music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but in my admin capacity I need to avoid offering any opinion on content disagreements (except for, perhaps, things like blatant MOS violations). But what I see there is a bold change, validly reverted by you, and if I see edit warring without a consensus for a change then I can act. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I added now a table with the article names and hymn names (not numbers, who knows them by number?), as it was inthe article before, with a link to the larger table for the experts, - please watch, I need to go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Will see what I can do,- one idea was on the talk. Music is better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock Profile101

Hi, I'm not creating anymore accounts which is enough and i want to unblock User:Profile101 again and i'll be promised not to do it again. And all those four socks: Eeditflyover, GTX1975, FJY2013 and WorldTrainSpotter were not from me, they were individual accounts. And i'm promised not to do it disruptively on my Userpage again which i'm violated. Please unblock Profile101 and other four socks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.229.67 (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing here logged out is block evasion and is not allowed. You need to log in to your account and use WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out these less than collegiate edit summaries, here and here, and this this threatening TP message. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I've blocked, and I've reverted all user talk edits that had not already been done or answered - thanks for getting all the article ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)