User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

July 2020

u inmature

What's it like to know "u inmature"? :-) Deb (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I imagine it's similar to you being "zeb" :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Chuhra

Hi, you blocked Kitsa127 (talk · contribs) a couple of days ago and that account is now globally locked. But I suspect they're still being disruptive at Chuhra as an anon. No chance of a range block but maybe Chuhra should be semi'd for a bit? - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense. Let's try a week, and if it continues after that let me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see ....

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019

Sorry to trouble you, but I think we're being trolled at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 #One Source to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. The CDC has referred to the content of a preprint, and formed its own conclusions in issuing advice, which is exactly how we expect a secondary source to work. I think that Iluvalar is deliberately refusing to get the point that a secondary source provides the expertise and authority to interpret primary sources, which is why MEDRS requires secondaries. The deliberate attempt to undermine MEDRS in their comments there is apparent. Would you be kind enough to help find a way to avoid any repetition of that behaviour, please? --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother, we are fine. I understand the significance of the CDC. I think RexxS think I want to go rogue and delete the chapter or something. Not sure but I'll figure this out with him. Iluvalar (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We're a long way from fine. Your latest suggestion implying you think it's acceptable to average two figures from different sources in clear violation of WP:SYNTH makes me even more convinced you need to be reined in. --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've offered a few words, which I hope will be sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. Let's hope so. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LennyBernstein (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a look

here and here Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

When you make a speedy deletion request, it appears at CAT:CSD and will be reviewed in due course - there's no need to ask an individual administrator too. I see both have now been deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

Hahaha! happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

:-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

How weird. I have had dealings with a Redphoenix over the last few hours, the latest being this. Definitely not admin material in this case. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

thank you for making us smile, Boing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Bania

Any chance of some administration regarding this? Edit warring for days now re: unsourced statments. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Forgot heading here but have now added; forgot IPA alert there but have now done that, too. At this rate of errors, I will need a lie-down in a dark room. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Strangely enough, after the few occasions we've met, I've needed a lie-down in a dark room too - though that could be the alcohol, I guess. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not my excuse today! I'm tiring of having to fix stuff - eg: take a look at User talk:EruTheLord - and perhaps should step back for a couple of hours/days/weeks/months ... years? - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you're doing fine there ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback

Good evening to you, can I ask you for feedback whether or not you think I qualify for adminship? Timothy McGuire (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timothy McGuire: I've examined this breakdown of your activity, and I'm sorry to say I don't think you would pass an RfA. Here are the main reasons...

• You have 5,905 edits, but 4,125 of those are deleted. That includes 1,660 deleted edits to your user page, of accumulated information about supercentenarians, and 1,273 deleted edits to User:Deaths in 2013/sandbox before it was moved/renamed. At one stage your user page held more than 500,000 bytes of assorted supercentenarian stuff. It was eventually deleted in February 2020 under WP:U5, "Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". I have to go back as far as 2015 to find deleted article edits, and then it's things like lists of supercentenarians that have all since been deleted. Finally on this point, most people judging your RfA would not be able to see any of your deleted edits anyway, and many would probably decide solely on your 1,780 live edits (and of those, only 1,408 are to main space). That would almost certainly be seen as insufficient.
• The second thing is your lack of recent activity, at least in your live edits. You had a burst of activity between 2013 and 2015, but very little since then. Even in the last few months you haven't reached 50 edits per month, and most of those have only been to your user page, again.
• I think the deleted edits, the user page misuse, and the lack of recent activity would be enough for an RfA to not succeed. But I also think you'd encounter resistance for your singular focus on supercentenarians. Focusing on one specific topic means you can't show the breadth of experience you'd need to pass RfA, and you won't have encountered any Wikipedia policies, disputes, sanctions etc that don't relate to your specific topic. Also, your chosen topic has been a controversial one for some time, and it looks like you've been been working on a lot of material that the community does not believe belongs at Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm sorry to be so negative about your RfA chances, but it's a tough process and I need to be honest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, one other thing that is likely to count against you is your sock block in 2017 which included the use of account names that were clearly personal attacks - I'd completely forgotten about my unblock until I just checked your block log. I obviously think it was right to unblock you, and it was three years ago, but it's not good background for an admin candidate - at least not without having made many contributions since then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Kamma page

[60] Ayres, Alyssa; Oldenburg, Philip (2002). India briefing: quickening the pace of change. This book has been used in Kamma page. I doubt its reliablity also it is superfluous . Kindly remove the citation. EruTheLord (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think a source should be removed and that its removal would be uncontroversial, do it yourself. If you think its removal might be controversial, start a discussion at the article talk page and seek a consensus. If you want help with your doubts on a source's reliability, you can use WP:RSN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Jangid

Hi, any chance of you keeping an eye on Jangid? I think there will be a further move without consensus before long. I've left a comment on the article talk page and also on the user talk of the person I have just reverted. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a little list, and I've got it on my list. And a bit of move protection won't do any harm. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Damn, I also think we have some suspicious stuff going on at Chakkala Nair. Going to be another of those days, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Eyes peeled there too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this but I'm pretty sure it is wrong. I'd guess they were trying to archive in some way because they've cleared their talk page in the past. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, no worries - fixed here. That dark room is going to be beckoning again. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that - I've just deleted the leftover blank talk page as a test. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

But things are still not right - User talk:PinkeshSharma. Hopefully, you're less confused than I am. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ach, yes, I think it's fixed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(and I'll delete the latest leftover redirect shortly, when I'm convinced the latest move has been seen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC))

Durgvanshi

Hi, there is something wrong about Durgvanshi aside from the terrible sourcing. Someone has just created it but, honestly, the Rajput caste area has been done to death and it is implausible that this one never surfaced before. So, I searched the logs and wonder if this is the same blocked/banned contributor yet again. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted CSD G4. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, the content was uncannily similar to the previous version from April, and someone else independently creating it in almost the exact same form four months later seems unlikely. The new author's account was created several months after the previous author was blocked - though that's CU-stale now. I'd prefer to look a little more closely before I'd go for a block, and I don't have the brainpower for that right now. But I might well come back to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And Favonian has sock blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I hadn't noticed the sock block. I might ask for speedy of their other creations still in mainspace because they're terrible. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

?!

See Talk:Varya_Rajputs. As with the just-deleted version, practically all of this new version is irrelevant and/or synthesis, including by use of a multitude of supposed synonyms and alternate spellings. It's a while since I've seen such a mess but it looks like the creator has a bit of a knack of doing such. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And the other half of it has appeared at Chaudharies_of_Ambota. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a mess. It's too much for me today, though, as I have other demands on my diminishing number of grey cells. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I've nominated Chaudharies of Ambota at AFD, and I see you've pruned Varya Rajputs quite severely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Very severely, and the one remaining source is dubious for the purpose used. They're building a house of cards, as with the recently deleted article. The sources don't even use the term Varya and they use umpteen other words that may or may not be the same community. I thought Praxicadae had nominated the Choudharies one for CSD but have been out of the loop - mother locked herself out of her garage and so could neither get to her car nor her freezer. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I had to decline it as a G4 as the content had not been present in the deleted article. In fact, there was no mention of Chaudharies in the deleted one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I've just been so curious what they would pull out of their ass with that one. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, might be time for talk page access to be disabled for that one. Seems to be going nowhere fast... Glen (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen really want to see what they pull out for this one though. Then yes, I agree! Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, on my watchlist already :) Glen (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking next blatant lie, revoke TPA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

But really, what are you thinking? "It's not my profile! Someone hacked it!" "someone is framing me!" "331dot is TaffyAU!" Praxidicae (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm TaffyAU! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Giving

Thanks for your useful information i'm glad you telling me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamilMirchi2 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Some Effort

Though good work done, Making some effort not to frustrate will be added advantage. EzinneAnwuri (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@EzinneAnwuri: I'm not quite sure I understand, but please feel free to ask for help with understanding what Wikipedia is about and how to use it - and please do go back and read my comments on your talk page, which you have removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

TamilMirchi2/SUSTAMI

I think I've figured out which farm they belong to. Praxidicae (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Aha, well spotted. CU results should be interesting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

About Draft:Pakistan International Public School and College

Hi, I wanted to know about Draft:Pakistan International Public School and College about which you earlier said on talkpage that you'll look into it. After it's move from deletion log to draft space, I tried improving as much I could. Some references I added and other some which I posted in reply on talkpage with mention of the said school. Looking forward to what more could be done. USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@USaamo: Apologies, I'd forgotten about this, and I was just reminded about it when it auto archived. I've pulled it back from archive now, and I'll have a look before the archive bot gets it again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for unarchiving. I've expanded the article further and added various citations from national dailies about the college's academics and activities. Have a look into it and do tell if there are anymore shortcomings in the article. I'll improve it further with time and availability of information. USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cape Diamond MM

I actually was a mouse click away from removing TPA and stopped. Shoulda gone ahead. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, all's good now. Just calculating a suitable range block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI the block evasion continues: Special:Contributions/136.228.175.160/16. --JBL (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. That's a range of 64k mobile addresses, and not all the recent edits look like the same person. It's in a country (Myanmar/Burma) that doesn't have great telecoms infrastructure, and I fear blocking that many addresses could have too much collateral damage in Yangon/Rangoon. I'd be tempted to just leave it for now, and only consider action if we see any vandalism or personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I realized it might not all be him — but the edits to wp royalty are definitely the same person. Anyhow, not pushing for any particular action, just wasn’t sure if you knew. All the best, JBL (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it's good to know, yes, so thanks for that. I'll check on the range every now and then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing for COVID-19 as a current event

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Speaking about this discussion [1], yes, I know about WP:MEDRS and agree with it. But this new disease is an exception because it is essentially a "current event". One can not properly cover current events using WP:MEDRS because there are no scientific reviews on many aspects of the subject (yet). We only have original peer reviewed publications (reliable primary sources) and the coverage of these primary publications in news sources (reliable secondary sources). For example, this sours refers to this article and tells that "a study from 69 countries, funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF), found that 55 per cent of 1,261 patients studied had abnormal changes to the way their heart was pumping, with around one in seven showing evidence of severe dysfunction.". I do not see what would be the problem with including such sourced content. So, one should simply follow Wikipedia:Verifiability (which is the policy), rather than WP:MEDRS for important new currently developing diseases. That was my point. It might be proper to start a discussion about it somewhere at WP:RSNB to develop consensus. What do you think? My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• It was not me who decided we use MEDRS for medical content, which covers Covid-19, it's community consensus. I do not have the power to renegotiate that, and have no interest in debating it with you. I merely uphold the sourcing requirements that we have, and will sanction editors who refuse to follow them or who disruptively push against them. That is all. I suggest you read the archives of Covid-19 article talk pages if you wish to gauge the likely response you might get if you try to push against MEDRS resquirements the way a number of others have unsuccessfully tried to do. And it might benefit you to examine the list of sanctions already imposed, at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019#Log of administrative actions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will try to follow WP:MEDRS while editing such content (if I will). I did not check stories of the users who were sanctioned (that would require wasting a lot of time), but I did check again what WP:MEDRS say. In spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability this is not a "black and white" instruction, but a very complex guideline. It uses wording like "ideal sources" with regard to certain types of RS (rather then "the only allowed type of sources"), tells about certain sources which should be never used [2] (yes, sure, they are not good!), and does NOT prohibit using research articles from good biomedical journals. As described here, "Journal articles come in many different types, and are a mixture of primary and secondary sources. ...Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources. However, they normally contain introductory, background, or review sections", etc. Speaking about news sources/popular press here, it tells that "A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source". Fine, this is exactly what I suggested. It is another matter that the inclusion of new materials requires WP:Consensus. That's why I did not try to include this info to the page. Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: From my reading of many lengthy discussions, there seems to be clear general consensus that MEDRS is *more* important when we're dealing with the uncertainties of Covid-19. There is more to it than just reading MEDRS itself, which has to be worded to cover a wide range of topics and to cover exceptions that might be appropriate. The strictness of MEDRS interpretation will inevitably differ between topics, for example between minor ailments and population-threatening plagues. There are huge amounts of sourcing discussions in the Covid-19 talk page archives, and there's a clear consensus for requiring peer-reviewed MEDRS sources for biomedical Covid-19 content, pretty much without exception. So, if you stick to a strict MEDRS interpretation you should be fine. And if you are uncertain about the use of a source for Covid-19 content, ask at the article whether others think it's suitable. But, importantly, accept the judgment of more experienced editors and don't get into arguments - it's the people continually arguing about it who end up sanctioned.

Also, and this is key, Wikipedia is not supposed to be at the leading edge of breaking news - so if a source can not be used and some breaking information can not be added, that is intentional and is not a fault. I'll recommend one piece of reading material: this appeal against a sanction I placed - Iridescent's comment in particular, which I think is the essence of it.

If you think I'm being a bit hard and abrupt towards you, it's nothing personal. It's just that if we have yet another argument from first principles over sources with every person who comes along and wants to include breaking information they just read in the news, we'd end up with many more hours and megabytes of wasted resources. I don't know how many individuals have contributed to Covid-19 content so far, but it's in the thousands - it only takes a very small percentage of those to get too argumentative over sourcing requirements and we can end up with constant disruption. The volunteer time of editors is our most precious resource, and those contributing many hours of work on Covid-19 are becoming exhausted with having to argue the same things over and over. That's why we have Covid-19 sanctions to cut off such disruption before it goes too far. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, I only wanted to help, but apparently did not. Not to renegotiate anything, but just to explain my thinking... Consider that me or someone else is writing a review, a popular science article, a WP page, whatever, about something. Would it be appropriate to completely ignore an important scientific publication (not preprint) with new and interesting results on the subject just because it was a "primary publication"? No, that would be ridiculous and even could be a scientific misconduct if someone does that with nefarious intentions in a scientific paper or review. Of course a lot of publications on the subject can and will be omitted in a review article, but for entirely different reasons, usually because authors of the publications did not discover anything important and new, so there is nothing to include. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Understand your thoughts, thanks for the explanation. It can sometimes be hard to be sure where to draw the line, yes. So if there's a source that might be borderline, there's nothing wrong with asking at a talk page. Of the regular contributors, I think MartinezMD and RexxS seem to have the best grasp of current consensus regarding sources, as they've been involved in the discussions for so long. I'd always defer to their judgment myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not think that such edits by RexxS [3] represent improvement. This is pointy editing which removes an important clarification that the infected people have developed the protective antibodies, so acquired immunity to COVID-19 do exist. Not only that was sourced, but this is just a matter of fact and biology for schoolchildren. Without the acquired immunity, none of the people with the "mild" COVID-19 would survive, and creating the vaccine against the virus would be meaningless and impossible. But whatever. Given such comments and the style of editing, I would rather stay away. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The removal of unpublished studies is in line with consensus and with MEDRS. But if you oppose those, then yes, it might be better for you to stay away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course I agree with removal of poor sources. The challenge here is to find such MEDRS sources that would be readable and understandable for general public. Those are official statements by agencies like CDC. But unfortunately, the CDC, being packed with political appointees, issued a lot of strange, unclear and contradictory statements, so I had to use a comparable European agency to source that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss specific instances of specific sources, please take it to the relevant talk page. I think I have made my position clear with respect to enforcing Covid-19 sanctions, and I really have nothing more to say here. I'm going to close this section now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for taking allegations of harassment seriously, and for taking the time to diligently investigate. Your efforts have made Wikipedia a safer place. – bradv🍁 20:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's kind, thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I know Slatersteven well enough to trust him to evaluate sources properly.

Hahh fooled you!Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

LOL! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

What do you think about my New Year's resolutions (on my talk, look for 1RR)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Next: I like today's Main page, with the TFA on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

BreakTudo (website)

The article is about a website that is clearly spammer here in the project (as decided earlier). How do I request deletion? J ^talk 10:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version", and the content was significantly different in the new one - I explained the differences in my edit summary. You'll need to use WP:AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

How to provide a reliable source

Hello, I am Sphinx120. I read the message you leave in my talk page and your saying that I have not provide any reliable source, because I thought that the book I included in my edit is considered to be a reliable source but if doesn't so please tell me how to edit the article with reliable source. And by the way the book provide as a reference to support the article that doesn't support the thing written on the page. Sphinx120 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're talking about this than I have. I think you misunderstood my edit,I have written the name of the book as a reliable source and may be you thought that I was talking about the article in title so please check it again. Sphinx120 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Saying "According to the Source Wikipedia..." is refering to Wikipedia itself, and we never do that in an article - Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for itself. Also, the source reference you gave was total nonsense - you provided a new title but the reference link still went to the Hiltebeitel source, and you gave the author's name as "Source Wikipedia, Books Llc". You must present a source properly, so that readers can check it for themselves and verify the content you are using it to support - see WP:V.

You need to discuss the change you wish to make on the article talk page and seek consensus there, and present your sources properly. Present your argument in favour of your preferred source and against the current source, and see what others think. It's a clearly contentious claim, as are many caste-related claims, which makes it even more important to use solid sources and seek consensus (see WP:Consensus). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

CoVID- and BLP-related request

I've been dealing with a disruptive editor, Before the Bang, who is intent on adding massive amounts of hostile material (diff) to the page of a prominent epidemiologist, Ian Lipkin. A large amount of this material is sourced to the audio of a podcast interview and an interview with Lipkin on YouTube, and much of the material is synthesized. For example, take this passage that Before the Bang added:

In response to a question about masks on the Dr. Oz show, Lipkin said: "Well...ah..the...the really ...ah … the messaging that you're getting from WHO, CDC, and others suggests that... masks are not useful." As Director of the Northeast Biodefense Center and the WHO Collaborating Center, Lipkin headed a key WHO advisory body. Lipkin added that masks should be left for healthcare professionals and "emphasized" that the virus was less dangerous than the flu. He was not wearing a mask or practicing social distancing whilst on the show. At the time, Lipkin was aware of what he calls a “compelling” 2003 WHO study “that showed that face masks... had a dramatic impact on community transmission”.

Before the Bang looks like they're trying to build some sort of case against Prof. Lipkin, by mashing up various statements Lipkin has made in interviews, in order to try to prove that Prof. Lipkin was somehow suppressing information. The general thrust of Before the Bang's additions are that Prof. Lipkin is somehow engaged in dangerous gain-of-function research that might be responsible for the pandemic, and that he worsened the pandemic by supposedly lying about facemasks.

I've warned Before the Bang multiple times on their talk page and at the article talk page that Ian Lipkin is covered both by general sanctions related to CoVID-19-related articles, and that it is a WP:BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This same editor has now accused me of "vandalizing" the page by removing their massive additions: [4]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I've only just seen this, and it's too late in the evening here for me to investigate now. If it's still a problem in the morning, I'll have a look. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This has been a sporadic problem for months. It concerns both a BLP and CoVID-19, so I think it's a pretty serious problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides is objecting to direct quotes from the subject, in particular, a podcast interview conducted with Lipkin by Prof Vincent Racaniello of Columbia University. This source is a public broadcast of two notable professors discussing a notable subject. The page is not about Covid per se, it's about the views of a high-profile, influential expert who did massive amounts of media on the subject to "reach the entire country". It's reasonable that this considered, 'straight-from-the-horse's-mouth' messaging be quoted to provide a composite of his views. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Thucydides411: Sorry I didn't get round to investigating this, but I see Before the Bang is now blocked for edit warring - and I have just declined an unblock request. If the problem continues after the current block expires, please do let me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks, I'll let you know if the same issue arises again. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Help needed...

Hi Boing!_said_Zebedee, I added some info on Seuna (Yadava) dynasty page and someone removed it without particularly pointing to any specific issue. What was wrong with the content or its reference? Please take a look at this removal HinduKshatrana (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You might note that when User:Pied Hornbill reverted your changes, they used the edit summary "Please discuss this on talk page before adding content". When you make additions or changes to an article and someone else contests them by reverting, you then need to start a discussion at the article talk page and seek consensus (see WP:Consensus). So in this case you should do that at Talk:Seuna (Yadava) dynasty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello Boing! Said Zeebee! I just wanted to let you know that I have reached out to Brad v for a potential unblock on the article Republicans who oppose Trump re election. If I do get my editing privileges back, I wanted to make sure you knew that I apologize for edit warring and will do whatever I can to stop it from happening again. I’ve been making tons of edits in the past few weeks and avoided any edit wars. Even if I don’t get it back, a formal apology is still in order. Thank you for your time and happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and your apology and committment over edit warring are welcomed. I'm happy for Bradv to review your request however he sees best. But remember, my extension of your block to cover the talk page was not for edit warring. We need to see no more of you making your own deductions about someone's support or opposition based on anything other than a very clear statement in a reliable source. So no more "He hasn't supported, so he must oppose" stuff, you understand? Remember my words from your talk page: "The requirement for a source that explicitly states someone's political opinion before we can include it in Wikipedia is not negotiable". If we see any repetition of those problems, you are very likely to be blocked from edting that page again - and maybe even banned from political topics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45