WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE
- I really don't mind how people choose to Talk to me, though I do think that to make a discussion easier to follow, it's best to keep it in one place.
- So If I leave you a message on your Talk page, I think it's best if you answer there. I'll be watching, so there's no need to alert me here.
- Likewise, if you leave me a message here, I will answer here - and if I think it's likely you may not be watching this page, I'll leave you a {{Talkback}} message on your own Talk page.
- But if you don't agree with these suggestions - well, just feel free to Talk to me any way you please.
- Finally, Talk page stalkers are welcome on this page, and I'm happy for anyone to join in any discussion if you have anything you'd like to offer.
- Please click here to leave me a new message.
|
Februrary 2011
Please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gavin_Menzies
"Reference lacks of neutralityI had deleted the second footnote: "The 1421 myth exposed" which point out to this site http://www.1421exposed.com/ Since the site has been set up only to refute Mr Menzies's theory, it lacks neutrality. The user: user:Boing! said Zebedee restored previous version claiming that the footnote has sound information. I still consider that this reference should be deleted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiphopmast3r (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks - I've replied and will watch the Talk page. (I'm off to bed now though, so any further comment will have to wait until tomorrow). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest,did you get your name from The Magic Groundabout? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Magic Roundabout, yes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry,that's what I meant! Gobbleswoggler (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported a case of a sockpuppet and requested CheckUser but then actually discovered what it is. I misread the description when i requested it. I thought it said someone else would do but it actually says i will use it. Is there any way i can cancel this request? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only suggest you edit your SPI report, state you made a mistake, and ask for it to be withdrawn. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually don't know how to do this as it's a first for me. I just wondered if you could tell me what to do. Do I have to just write under where it says i have requested it that i made a mistake and i don't want it anymore. This is the page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watderp#06_February_2011_2 What will happen from now for this case? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He's also just blanked the investigation page. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (I added a comment asking for the SPI to be withdrawn -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- I don't want to withdraw the report i just want to withdraw the checkuser request.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well edit it and add a comment under mine saying exactly what you want! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And listen up, Gobbleswoggler - numerous people have told you numerous times to stop trying to do things you don't understand properly and which are beyond your competence. So do your football stats, do some very slow and careful reverts of blatant vandalism, and NOTHING ELSE. Do not file SPI reports, and do not venture into any other areas, unless you can get some adoption/mentorship from someone willing to take the time to try to teach you. To be honest, I'll be surprised if you last the day without being blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And having looked closer, your sockpuppet report looks badly wrong to me. Firstly, it is common, and not prohibited, for someone to start editing using an IP address and then go on to register an account to edit. And secondly, you should not accuse two people of being sockpuppets just because they both edited the same article - especially not when they made very different edits. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I put this because i thought it was a bit more of a coincidence that two new editor were,to me vandalising. Watdurp was calling Kilheeney a cheater and Fergyc123 was showing him handballing a football which i counted as vandalism so i thought one person has created two accounts both for vandalism.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, the only edit User:Watderp made was this, which says nothing about cheating. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the talk page system, but I hope I got it right this time.
I send you this message regarding the articles of Alexshinia. I hope the following facts will help in making matters more clear:
1) The country exists only in a book, while the organization is yet too anonymous to be known.
2) All members, including the book's writer, are anonymous on the Internet.
3) If you are still not satisfied enough to let the articles remain once I rewrite them, ask anything you need to know and I shall do my best to answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja of Tao (talk • contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. If the book is as yet unknown, and the authors are anonymous, then they have not achieved the notability needed for a Wikipedia article. To be considered notable, what you want to write about (the book itself, and the details about Alexshinia), must have been covered by multiple independent source which you can quote in the article. Have a read of WP:N to learn something about Wikipedia's notability requirements, and WP:RS to find out about reliable sourcing of articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are me, my organization and the books that will be published in 2012. If that isn't enough, then I am currently working on a new wiki only containing Alexshinia-related information.
- No, that is not enough - as I said, you need multiple independent sources. Please do read WP:RS. Good luck with your new wiki -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Beeblebrox's page you have put,do you think it is about time. Are you referring to me being blocked again. Cos if that is the case,i'll stick to just Stiki,spellcheck and manual editing instead of trying things i'm not sure about.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry dude, you have made that promise multiple times and have broken it every time - what Beeblebrox does now is up to him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One last chance? I really do not want to be blocked again.I was actually really bored.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll answer over on your Talk page, because I want to say a few things in general that I think would be worth keeping on your record for possible future reference. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok,that's fine.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In your opinion,if I continued using Stiki at the moment in the right way,i might escape a ban because,like you say,i'm trying to edit in a good way not vandalize wikipedia. Oh,and i'm 13.I really don't want to be banned and i mean that from the bottom of my heart.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Gobbleswoggler please use your talk page and stop clogging up BSZ's with all your comments that he has asked you a. To not do something if your not sure, and b. To use your talk page. There is nothing else you need to say here, at least. Check your talk page. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 14:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tofutwitch11 is right - talk over there (and my latest comment there has already answered your question) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Please stop trying to whitewash the article to reflect only the Cambodian view". I just want to say the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunchhel (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's good, we're agreed then - the Wikipedia article should be written neutrally, with sources reflecting both sides, and no excuses should be used to paint it one-sided. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TO Boing!
I am sorry for doing vandalism. I did it for a weird reason "I don't know" so I will not do vandalism anymore, well my friend did it all right! He forced me to give my account name and password so when I was not there he edited it. but still there is vandalism, I tell you My teacher, She told to me that never use Wikipedia! that is because her uncle some coach from the US, she said in wikipedia Her uncle died in a Plane crash when actually, he is still alive.
I did not vandalize anything on 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia. NATO did not achieve any of its goals, they killed civilians instead of the military. You think that they won because they killed civilians, I highly doubt it. Lessons of Kosovo, it was from WHUC and was uploaded on YouTube and has spectacular truths and overviews of the operation and I cannot believe I could not put true things on this page. If this is an encyclopedia, how come I cannot put the truth on the results. Who cares if NATO did not win against us. USA lost in Vietnam, and half the time I believe that you people revert it. VJ-Yugo (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks,
Emirates777saeed! :-)
 User(s) blocked. GedUK 12:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
