User talk:Bilby: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Statement
Line 129: Line 129:
::Yes, you responded at COIN, you just didn't answer. Perhaps I am mistaken, and your editing is not pro fringe, but anti Gorrillaz? To be hionest, it probably makes no difference, as the effect appears the same. You really need to back off. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the PROD. </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 13:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
::Yes, you responded at COIN, you just didn't answer. Perhaps I am mistaken, and your editing is not pro fringe, but anti Gorrillaz? To be hionest, it probably makes no difference, as the effect appears the same. You really need to back off. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the PROD. </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 13:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
:::It's better for me if I take a few steps back from this, and you will get no further comment from me. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the PROD. </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 21:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
:::It's better for me if I take a few steps back from this, and you will get no further comment from me. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the PROD. </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 21:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

==Skeptics Dictionary and Skeptoid==

I noticed you removed a lot of links to Quackwatch because you said it was a self-published source. What do you think about the Skeptic's Dictionary website that is used on living biographies? [http://skepdic.com/], the website was maintained and owned by Robert Todd Carroll and the Skeptoid website is maintained by Brian Dunning. So by your logic shouldn't those sources be removed from many articles, because they are self-published as well? Why was Quackwatch singled out? What about the others? Should we create a discussion about this somewhere? [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 23:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:08, 9 February 2020

User
User
Talk
Talk
Gallery
Gallery
Contributions
Contribs
Email
Email

Template:Archive box collapsible

I need your help. ASAP.

I have created a page called Perumaan. The film stars Arjun Das. User:Brutalgraph] keeps undoing my edits on both the Arjun Das and the Perumaan page. Can you kindly help me? --DragoMynaa

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

LOL

I clear my talk page at the start of every year, and the month isn't even over yet, but so far I have 65 notifications this year for PROD/AFD on my talk page. :) The significant majority of them are for articles created several years ago, while the rest were mostly created within the last few months. I'm popular. ;) I've only contested maybe half of those, and that percentage decreases while I am in self-imposed exile from AFD. BOZ (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: January 2020

This Month in Education

Volume 9 • Issue 1 • January 2020


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: Romaine 07:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding

As you didn't answer me at COIN, I thought I'd ask again -

Now that the dust is settled at COIN, have you moved on? I note some pro-fringe edits of yours on my watchlist, should I look at your contributions, or will you continue your hounding of the Gorrillaz? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxy! I thought I did respond. That said, I don't really appreciate threats, especially when they are based around false accusations such as making pro-fringe edits. If you feel like dropping the threats and accusations and keeping things civil I'm sure that we can have a discussion. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I don't think you'll take my word for anything I might say, so how about we just wait and see if I edit in a manner that you approve? - Bilby (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you responded at COIN, you just didn't answer. Perhaps I am mistaken, and your editing is not pro fringe, but anti Gorrillaz? To be hionest, it probably makes no difference, as the effect appears the same. You really need to back off. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's better for me if I take a few steps back from this, and you will get no further comment from me. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptics Dictionary and Skeptoid

I noticed you removed a lot of links to Quackwatch because you said it was a self-published source. What do you think about the Skeptic's Dictionary website that is used on living biographies? [2], the website was maintained and owned by Robert Todd Carroll and the Skeptoid website is maintained by Brian Dunning. So by your logic shouldn't those sources be removed from many articles, because they are self-published as well? Why was Quackwatch singled out? What about the others? Should we create a discussion about this somewhere? Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]