User talk:Boing! said Zebedee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/pvmoutside[edit]

Thanks Boing! said Zebedee.......I think I fixed the statement....Pvmoutside (talk)

your username origin[edit]

Where did you get your username from? I swear that phrase sounds familliar to me. 199.101.62.55 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(tps) The Magic Roundabout had this fellow.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
That's it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
And there was me thinking your parents had particularly fertile imaginations when it came to child naming [1] (like mine did) Face-smile.svg Optimist on the run (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hehe :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

OBR Disambiguation Page: Removal of Entry "OBR10"[edit]

Did you read the summary note I wrote when I posted the edit? I did not remove anything, and I was working on the page. If the convention is to write the page and then link and remove disambiguation, I stand corrected. I did change the order of the entries on the page as they were not alphabetical. Funkihunter (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talk page to keep it all in one place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

hm[edit]

I identified this contributor as not useful, based on a correlation of a number of factors which I'm not going to mention publicly. I'll concede that this may have been a premature decision; if you choose to unblock, I won't object. DS (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Indeed, don't spill the beans ;-) As you're OK that the block might have been premature and you don't object to an unblock, I'll go ahead and do that. If you want to email me and let me know of the other concerns, please feel free to do so and I can keep an eye open for any possible future issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Oh; once again I type too slow. I was just about to suggest the block be kept. No problem, it's just one person and relatively easy to keep an eye on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK... just unblocked. Please feel free to email me if there's anything I'm missing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldn't have muddied the waters; when I got the e/c I should have just moved on. It's nothing like "obvious ax murderer" or anything. I just stuck my nose in because I was bored and your talk page is on my watchlist, and I saw a few things (I assume some overlap with DS67) that would have led me to pull the trigger faster than normal too. I'm watching now too, and I expect one of us will be re-blocking within the day, but I've been wrong before. I think it was back in '05... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, do feel free to drop in any time you're bored - I'm feeling a bit like that myself today, and it's always nice to have someone to chat to. But yes, with all these eyes peeled, they're well watched now (which reminds me of a line from an otherwise long-forgotten movie: "Keep your eyes peeled, or I'll peel 'em for you".) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

SPI's[edit]

I've never been involved in an SPI before, but I have the niggling suspicion that PraiseTheShroom is a sock of FL or Atlanta. Do you have any advice on what I should look for as far as specific evidence, and on starting an SPI (beyond whatever instructions I can find at WP:SPI, of course). I would, of course, consider "They're obviously not socking, mellow out, dude." to be valid advice if such is your opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The two accounts are recent, so checkuser evidence could be used, but there would have to be a compelling reason for a check to be done. Examples that spring to mind are the use of the same or similar phrases (or misspellings - they're great), use/misuse of the same or similar sources in similar ways, article overlap can be good (but obviously not if it's all about one specific article). Timings of edits can be informative - for example, if they're always on at different times it can lend support, but if they're both editing different articles at the same time it goes against the socking idea. For me, I generally just spend time looking at their edits and reading their words, and some particular characteristic just becomes clear (or it doesn't). I'll do some comparing when I have a bit more time and I'll let you know what I think.

As for the mechanics of starting an SPI, by far the easiest way to do it is using Twinkle - Choose "sockpuppeteer" or "sockpuppet" under the ARV option and fill in the dialog, and it does all the formalities for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I quickly laid out their editing histories since Shroom's first edit and plotted a chart (I work in software development so this only took me about 10 minutes to put together). They've only edited on the same day twice; the day Shroom made their account (~18 hours apart) which was at a time when FL or Atlanta and I were involved in a dispute over this article, and again on 4/23/17, (49 minutes apart) when FL or Atlanta engaged in some minor canvassing, posting messages on a few talk pages of editors who'd edited the article from the same POV including Shrooms. There's some behavioral stuff, as well. Shroom's archaic (almost Shakespearean) mannerisms strike me as possibly being an overdone attempt to prevent people from recognizing shared mannerisms, they both repeatedly make saccharine-sweet entreaties to "move forward together" while ignoring the actual content issues that produced the conflict, they both seem disdainful of philosophers and respectful of scientists and they both infrequently edit other articles seemingly at random, but show up to edit this article in a flurry. In your opinion, is this evidence or am I seeing things?
Apologies if I'm being a pain in the ass; being on the receiving end of a number of baseless complaints, I'm very reluctant to make complaints I'm not extremely certain of, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not had a lot of thinking time today, but I'll have a dig around over the weekend. (But that's another thing we have in common - I did s/w dev for about 30 years.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot of us on WP it seems. I guess it's that freedom of information thing so many coders believe so strongly. Take your time, there's no rush. And in case I forget, I appreciate it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Ha, after seeing a couple more joining in today I was going to reply here, but I see you've already done it and got a result! Proposing discretionary sanctions if there's a recurrence would probably be a good idea. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I only expected a partial result. I thought that Perf might not have been the main account, and I was still only half convinced about Shroom (TheLog was, I felt, a pure WP:DUCK) but at the last minute, figured I'd just toss in every account I even slightly suspected. The result that they're all related (except, possibly for the IPs which I understand won't be announced publicly as being related for privacy reasons) actually came as a complete shock to me. At this point, facing that result, I doubt that the problems will be ongoing. I had previously expressed confusion at how so many editors could feel so strongly about this, but now I understand that it was just one editor with little regard for our policies.
Also, thank you again. I know that behavioral issues that are this soaked in content disputes can be a pain in the ass to deal with. I appreciate your willingness to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was very surprised by the result too. And with the Florida connection, I've no doubt the IPs are the same person. Anyway, I'm happy to help - philosophy is one of my subjects, but I hadn't realised this article was under such an attack. If you keep an eye on it from a content perspective and I watch it for behavioural issues, we should be able to keep it good - I'll keep out of any actual content discussions so I can remain WP:UNINVOLVED as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Kishore Biyani[edit]

I've just collapsed some irrelevant stuff at Talk:Kishore Biyani while massively expanding the article. Would it be better if I deleted them? - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say delete it - it looks defamatory. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Intex technologies[edit]

HI are you willing to create a page for me if possible do let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shusilence (talkcontribs) 07:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't write articles on request. Please see WP:AfC for some help if you're not sure how to start an article yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for making me return to Wikipedia. It was a difficult decision that I'm glad you took. I will make a conscious effort to ensure you don't regret it. Darreg (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what I did (other than welcoming you back), but thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Being an admin, you interceded for me, that's commendable from my perspective. But you're right, it literally escaped my mind that it was Mike V that hit the button. I will give him a barnstar too. Darreg (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK - it all turned out well :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

as long as i use subpages on my userpages, is it okay that i make a parody of nazi germany?[edit]

as long as i use subpages on my userpages, is it okay that i make a parody of nazi germany? i have to tell you the homour is kind of dark but dont worry is not meant to offend anyone! its kind of family guy style humour! please let me do this, this is not for advertisment or any misuse or disrespect for wikipedia i just want a page that looks exacly like a real wikipedia article (this will not be an wikipedia article! just my a subpage of my userpage! please i would be so cool if i could do this! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to write personal material, please use a blog or something like Facebook. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
but people allowed to to do this all the time....wikipedia is full of non serious articles they even have a cateogry see Category:Wikipedia humor!
they are allowed to make joke wikipedia articles! and you say i cant even do it on my subpages! what the.... Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

cdg428[edit]

I am sorry. I have an extremely short temper about certain things and I've had a bad personal week. Please do not make me lose the opportunity of Wikipedia without possibility of parole. -- cdg428 Margravechristophe (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Margravechristophe (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Test Margravechristophe (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)