Archives |
---|
2019 - Q1 |
Suggestion
Hi, Boing! You might want to consider reverting this edit. It could be taken as a legal threat. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- That the next reviewing admin will judge whether the block reason has been addressed could be taken as a legal threat? I don't get it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, do you think it sounds like I'm suggesting a legal judge would review the unblock request? ;-) I've added two words to make it clearer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Abusive IP more
Hi there! The abusive IP seems to have reappeared at the Gua Sha article[1] with a completely different address. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, editing from just across the border in Malaysia too. There might still be a range block possible on the Singapore IPs, but for now let's go for protection - I've semi-protected the three articles they've been attacking for a month. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Trolling
Posting further gibes at him is disruptive. The dispute had been dealt with and is over, and you need to move on too. So stop it and leave him alone
Remind me again: WHO left the pointless trolling? And who's shown utter incompetence at (literally) everything he's done on Wikipedia?
Let me know if you figure it out. --Calton | Talk 11:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was settled and closed *two days ago* and he hasn't edited since. Now, if you don't want your already lengthy block log to get even longer, drop it *now*. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 06:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
If you feel the same, we can discuss it here too. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 06:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Got it. I'll take a look when I have a bit of time (but I have a busy day today). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: Hope you got time to look at the earlier and the new mail? this was just to remind you gently remind you. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 08:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: Sorry to bother you again, if I am asking something which doesn't fit in policies or general guidelines, let me know. as it's been 9 days. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, many apologies for the delay. I was ill for a little while, and this week I've had a lot of other things on my mind. But I will look at the issue as soon as I can. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Too eager
You are too eager to contest well referenced cited 2nd source information, that leads to low quality. Let the world participate, the later things can be overturned, consensus can be achieved, its not set in stone but a living document. But without information, without willingness to listen, you are just being an overbearing overlord. In other words, admins should not be too lazy, all too many wikipedia articles will remain low quality and even more people will flee. I know thats what some want the final say, truth or falsehood be damned, but its no good for wikipedia.Doseiai2 (talk)
- So, admins can be overbearing overlords and they should not be lazy? Thank you for straightening that out, Doseiai2. It's what an editor always wants to read about themselves. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not acting in an admin capacity here (and can not now do so seeing as I have expressed an opinion regarding article content), so my failings as an admin are not relevant. All you need to do, the same as anyone seeking to make contested changes, is gain a consensus at the article talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Doseiai2: I should add that sources used to support any medical benefits of Gua Sha must comply with the strict standards of WP:MEDRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee:Look, I appreciate things you are pointing out, and I do read those specific articles, but in the grand scheme the average joe such as myself doesn't have time to monitor every detail of wikipedia's policies and read every page of the manual, it becomes a major unpaid job. Contributors are often in the dark when policies change, and just who is involved in determining consensus and/or even if consensus is even discussed at all. To me, it seems like discussions are not happening for a vast number of articles that have simply been gutted where a wealth of information previously existed, particularly in areas of biochemistry and health. Where are these wikipedia discussions being held? Who is invited? Endless questions. I am hardly new to wikipedia and if all this daunting for someone who has contributed as much as me, imagine for everyone else, the casual contributor. There is a HUGE problem with social inclusion. Is it all a bunch of people who look act and think alike making these consensus decisions? Are they all white old men? I simply do not know. But inclusion is a major issue in tech circles and this country, that has been far from addressed. I hope you understand what the implications are, and I'm appealing to your good side, because frankly I do not you personally. That is what I meant by lazy, I am not witnessing improvement in analytic quality nor quantity nor inclusion of ideas to long gutted articles that are simply languishing in limbo despite a vast wealth of information in regards to the subjects. Wikipedia is venerable but still a oft cited source. It may not remain that way if trends persist as they have been going, but why reinvent the wheel when there is one already? Doseiai2 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of course I understand that you can not possibly know all of Wikipedia's policies, and that is why I gave you links to the most relevant ones - and I get accused of being lazy for doing so! To expand on what you need to do - start a discussion on the article talk page to seek consensus for your desired changes, and in that discussion explain what those change are, provide your justification for them, and explain the sources which support them. Then let the community discuss and decide. The rules are the same for everyone, regardless of social or demographic status - and as an aside, you refer to "in tech circles and this country", but I don't know which country you mean, as the English Wikipedia is not country-specific. Anyway, it's bedtime where I am (very possibly in a different country to you), and I will be happy to join in the discussion you start at Talk:Gua Sha some time tomorrow evening after I've had a night's sleep and done another day's work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A beer for you!
That's a great idea! As Jim Royle would say: "my arse!" Have a sensible 24 hours :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
flowers for you
... with thanks from QAI |
You made my day by the term "not-listeningest" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My editing since January
Thank you so much for unblocking me back in January. I was fairly young when I got myself blocked. I feel that I've matured a lot since then. I wanted to let you know what I have been up to since then. I have reverting vandalism for a while. I was trained at the Counter-Vandalism Academy to become a vandal fighter. I was also granted rollback. I never thought I was ever going to granted that right just because I was blocked before. I also learned a lot about Wikipedia by asking questions at the Teahouse and the editors have taught me a lot about how to become the best editor I can possibly be. My reputation as an editor became positive and I'm trying to become a constructive and a responsible editor. See my contributions and my thanks log for proof. I look forward to contributing to this wonderful encyclopedia whenever I have free time. Enjoy the rest of your day! Mstrojny (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Mstrojny: Thanks for letting me know how things are going, it's great to hear. And you just got another thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Unblock requests inside headings
So what I think happens here is that the user, quite reasonably, starts a new section, and then just puts their unblock request in the first available box: the subject/headline box. The parser simply treats the === as plaintext if it gets stressed by templates and such. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I suspect the same thing - and the parser stress idea could explain why complicated ones don't get terminated properly. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a "Click here to request an unblock" thing which presented a form with simple text boxes to fill in? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
N0nscriptunderscr1pt
Thank you for having me back. Now I forgot the password I used and I stupidly didn't assign an email address to the account. Can you help at all pls? Thanks. user:N0nscriptunderscr1pt old name: N0nscriptbot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.88.147 (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but if you've lost your password, don't have an email address registered, and have no identification method we can check (something like Template:Committed identity, for example), there's no way to recover the account. You'll have to abandon that account and create a new one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
All sorted - thank you. Wrong caps use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.88.147 (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for your help!
N0nscr1ptunderscr1pt (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
User talk:209.209.238.149
For what it's worth, that's an anon-only block, which is odd for a proxy block. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, so it is, how strange. Can you think of a reason not to strengthen it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- not offhand. But I've asked the blocker about it; usually Edgar181 does anon-only vandal blocks and such. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Favour
Dear medium-weight Boing!, could you semi-protect my user talk page for a while, please? Nsmutte is being tedious again. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I've given it a month. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do it yourself ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! And I get your very subtle point :p --bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hehe ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! And I get your very subtle point :p --bonadea contributions talk 08:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)