Jump to content

User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

April 2020

Welcome back! (For now)

Hey Boing! I just Wanted to warmly welcome you back during your (unless you state otherwise) temporary return to the adminship. Your assistance during this tough time in the world is greatly appreciated. I still respect and agree with the stand you took last summer, and I appreciate even more the fact that you were willing to offer an extra hand in Wikipedia accurately chronicling and giving accurate info about COVID19. Given how much you've helped me in my Wikipedia adventure (which we've already gone over enough), I thought it would be rude if I didn't personally acknowledge your return. As much as your help is appreciated here while we are stuck in our homes, I hope you're staying safe out there in the real world. Have a great day! :D DrewieStewie (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Up and down

Does the "Boing!" in your name refer to the way you bounce back and forth into and out of the admin corps? JBW (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hehe, it probably should. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Respect, and disrespect

If it's of any interest, I totally agree with your statement "I still have little respect for Wikipedia's current governance structure". It's an absolute shambles. You rightly specifically mention the leadership of the Trust and Safety team, of course, but I have also never had less respect for an Arbitration Committee than I have for the present incarnation of it. Of course there are a few excellent arbitrators, but what good is that if their reasonable opinions are drowned out by the noisy rabble of useless fools? The only reason I am not listing the good ones, to give them due credit, is that doing so could be construed as a personal attack on the ones not listed. Of course an alternative would be to tone down my comments about the majority, both here and on other pages where I have commented, but I don't want to do that. Useless fools are useless fools.

My feeling is that, while I share your lack of respect for "Wikipedia's current governance structure", my leaving would not make the governance any better, and I am immodest enough to think that withdrawal of my contributions would make Wikipedia slightly worse, so although I fully respect your stand, I am resigned to soldiering on, despite the problems. Anyway, it's good of you to be willing to help out when needed, despite your evident distaste for doing so. JBW (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I could disagree with a single word of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
(Actually, one thing I will add is that there are some excellent people in both ArbCom and T&S, which makes things even more frustrating. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC))
Absolutely. JBW (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your swift response to this issue. Good to see a zero tolerance approach towards insensitive things such as what that user continued to write. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Seconding this accolade, as the original reporter who isn’t an admin. Good work. KingForPA (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

And thanks to you to, also for raising the issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

CaradhrasAiguo

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, I tried to post this on User:CaradhrasAiguo’s talk page but it was promptly deleted. You blocked them for PA in edit summaries and they’ve done it again right after their block ran out... They’re once again using political affiliations as an ad hominem [1]. Can you also let me know in the future what the best venue for this sort of complaint would be? I assume that the editor in question’s talk page would be the most appropriate place followed by the talk page of the blocking Admin, am I mistaken? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The above would be more credible if it had taken into account Spencer's assessment of the new user's edits as spamming or vandalising, or demonstrate even an elementary grasp of facts (Boing! declined the unblock request but did not place the block). Also, at 16:34 UTC, Floquenbeam reverted HEJ for spamming myself with notifications, while, around four minutes later at 16:38 UTC, HEJ tags me in the above nonsense (thus sending me another notification). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian Spectrum

Dear User:Boing! said Zebedee, could I ask you to keep an eye on the entry for Hungarian Spectrum which you kindly saved from a call for speedy Deletion from anonymous user 84.224.163.158 a few days ago?

I am afraid that user (and perhaps others) will continue to try to suppress the entry for Hungarian Spectrum. It is not a coincidence that this entry was attacked one day after the Hungarian government adopted a law granting the prime minister the right to rule indefinitely by decree. And the first targets now will be any journalists or private citizens in Hungary who dare criticize.

He has less power outside the country, but if you look at some histories of WP pages bearing in any way on Hungary, you will see that there are relentless attempts to control their messaging.

After you deleted the speedy-delete sign, a higher-level partisan was alerted, and first removed the Soros Quote and then clapped on a Notability tag; then 84.224.163.158 started to add the very familiar innuendos that appear constantly on the Hungarian troll sites.

I then provided (far too many) proofs of notability, as requested, restored the Soros quote, and moved 84.224.163.158's accusations to a "Criticism" section. I'm glad it's there, actually, because it's so ridiculous that any informed reader will immediately see what's going on. But I'm a University Professor and not a WP policeman, and there's only one of me, so I can't keep defending this entry against trolls.

I note that George Soros's entry is protected. Hungarian Spectrum certainly does not have stature comparable to George Soros, but it's under similar attack, for similar reasons, and it will get worse, after this law. So it needs, if not formal protection, then some high-level WP defenders. I know user:DGG, but not many other WP editors, even though I've been editing WP for 15 years... I'd be grateful for any help (or advice) you can give. --User:Harnad (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Harnard, I will take a look this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)\
Harnard, I made a NOPV adjustment in a heading. I'm now the most recent editor, and ifI'm reverted, I will deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblocking Fanoflionking

Hey Boing! I'm thinking about unblocking Fanoflionking, but didn't want to go against your decline. I asked NinjaRobotPirate for a second opinion here. Also, PrimeHunter left a critique on my talk page about my deletion of one of the user's articles. So I'm concerned I might have been hasty in my effort to block them. If you want to participate in the discussion, that's fine. Yeah, there's a significant communication stumbling block, but if my rationale to block them was that they were submitting inaccurate information, and PrimeHunter seems to support their edits, my instinct is that I probably effed up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

See the section immediately above. As far as I'm concerned, anyone is welcome to do whatever they think is right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Fanoflionking block

I'm concerned about this block. Per WP:CIR, "Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a last resort." Of course, it does also say, "after a pattern of behavior has been well established and a user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions." I'm not sure I'm seeing the pattern of behavior. The post on the blocking admin's talkpage mentions an edit of Fanoflionking's that was reverted in July 2019 and then again a couple weeks ago, so like eight months apart. The blocking admin deleted List of highest grossing actors per G3 (blatant hoax). Sure, the information wasn't sourced, and was instead just calculated up manually, but I don't think that makes it blatant misinformation - the article could've been moved to a draft or a sandbox to work on in the meantime. Obviously, the user's English writing is quite bad. Readable, but not by a wide margin. Maybe not a native English speaker or maybe dyslexic or something. But, hey, at least (s)he usually works in draft space while doing article work. Anyway, normally I'd talk to the blocking admin directly, but since there was later an unblock request declined by you, I think that puts the ball in your court instead. And normally I don't even get involved with what other people are doing - I just go around fixing punctuation and such. I'm not saying the block was completely off-the-wall and totally unjustified, please don't get that impression. I'm just saying it seems so brutal, as a concept, to block someone who is clearly trying to help. I don't know, maybe I AGF too much. But maybe instead of an indef block, we can find someone at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters willing to mentor him/her, just to make sure we have exhausted all avenues before resorting to a block. Or maybe I'm missing something and the user has made many more mistakes and maybe a lot of people have already unsuccessfully tried to help. I don't know. Thoughts? Useight (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Useight. Firstly, I don't think it's an AGF issue at all, just one of (essentially English language) competence. I don't doubt Fanoflionking's good faith, but good faith alone is not enough for someone who has problems communicating comprehensibly in English. But if you think I've misjudged Fanoflionking's English through only looking through a few examples, and you think there's a realistic chance they can contribute usefully in English, then you're welcome to unblock.
As for mentorship, I don't have a lot of faith in the process myself. It's mainly because every case I've followed and assisted over the years I've been here has taken up a lot of other people's time and every single one has failed and resulted in an eventual indef block. And in these hard-pressed days, I really don't have the time or the patience to try helping someone down that route again. But if you, or anyone else, wants to try and find a mentor, please feel free to go ahead according to your own judgment. You will earn (even more of) my respect if you want to try it :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Nope, you have not misjudged Fanoflionking's English writing skills. There's no question that they're bad. I'm not going to unblock. I did, however, send him/her an e-mail offering help in learning spelling and other writing basics. If Fanoflionking takes me up on the offer and I see improvement, then I'll consider unblocking on the basis of a realistic chance of contributing usefully in English. Thanks for getting back to me. Useight (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, and I wish you luck. If Fanoflionking's English does improve then they'll have my support for an unblock - and you're welcome to tell them that if you think it might provide some encouragement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Boing, @Useight: I have unblocked the user. Useight, my initial concern was that that list article was a copyright violation, as it appeared to have been copied from The Numbers and presented in largely the same way. When I attempted to verify the figures, none of the 20 or so that I checked seemed to match, which made me suspect numerical vandalism, which is prevalent here. The user's failure to answer my questions in a coherent way on their talk page led me to question their ability to edit here constructively, and I still had no idea where those inconsistent figures came from. Anyway, they're not free to edit, and I'm backing away from administrating near this user unless there's a glaring issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Whoops. I said "not free" when I meant "now free". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. - RichT|C|E-Mail 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A question

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, could you please tell me is it okay to strikethrough the text full of rants of permanently banned editors (on a TP)? cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sadko, I'm not sure if it's allowed, but I generally wouldn't do it as it's still readable and doesn't achieve much - and a strikethrough really should come from the author as a retraction. If I see long distracting rants on a talk page, I will sometimes "hat" them to hide the disruption - using the {{hat}} and {{hab}} templates at top and bottom respectively. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, Now that I'm unblocked, I ask that in the future you do not block me from writing on my own talk page, regardless of if you disagree with what I may write. CheersEditor940 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want anyone to revoke your ability to edit your talk page, all you need to do is avoid the behaviour that led me to revoke that ability this time. Admins are all volunteers and we don't have infinite time or patience to keep reviewing unblock requests that do not address the reason for the block and have no hope of being accepted. It's nothing to do with whether we disagree with what you write, but whether what you write is disruptive and violates Wikipedia's policies. Anyway, I'm sure I won't need to do the same again, and I wish you a happier restart now that your block has expired. Welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Alas, it was not to be. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Rebel Heart Sapphire

Maybe if he reads it enough times. . . . I couldn't help but notice he used the Brit spelling "spelt" instead of the American "spelled". Fascinating. Maybe living in Canada is having that effect, eh? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I hadn't noticed that. My own English is a mix, as I've worked in different countries, and for US and UK companies. But generally, I think the variety of our takes on the language is one of the best things about it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

sshhhh

I don't mind. I just live in fear that someone will mention the size of his talk page and we'll re-run the 2014 argument all over again. Cabayi (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, sshhhhh indeed :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Zoonotic

Thanks for nailing that at Coronavirus disease 2019. Of course, we now know that cats can become infected, so the current advice is to keep two metres away from tigers.

Hope you're keeping well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, actually, you should keep at least four elephants' distance away from a tiger (but don't use real elephants). Anyway, I'm fine thanks. Just bored, as you can tell by my activity here. Hope all is well with you too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Happy Easter or whatever you celebrate

or: the resurrection of loving-kindness --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

... and today concert spirituel --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

... and today Credo, or this is the day from Psalm 118. What do you think about Fanny Hensel vs. Fanny Mendelssohn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Thank you ...

... for speaking my mind better than I could, while I slept, and often --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That's kind, Gerda, thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
see also dare to laugh --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
look, 15 May Mary Monteverdi --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Re:HeartGlow30797

He/she does seem to be trying to set some sort of editing speed record. Maybe an administrator should know. (?) WQUlrich (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added a message at their talk page. Please feel free to let me know if you see errors being made as a result of excessive speed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Akb20

Just a sock. Oh well. DMacks (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Can't say I'm surprised they're a sock, but I am surprised by who the sockmaster is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Fooball

Hey there Boing! I noticed you speedy deleted a redirect titled Oragne as the result of a vandalism spree. Well, at RfD we have another similar case with Fooball. This redirect was created yesterday (for no apparent reason) after this discussion took place a few days ago when it was still a red link, which makes me think that it was created on purpose as a form of disruption; since the creator is sort of an active user at RfD and was probably well aware of the aforementioned discussion. Should a speedy deletion also be required here? I'm very eager to know. Thanks! CycloneYoris talk! 21:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't speedy delete that myself, as there's an argument that it's a plausible mis-spelling of "Football" (whereas "Oragne" is definitely not a plausible mis-spelling of "Apple", which is where it redirected). The equivalent would be if "Fooball" redirected to, say, "Cricket". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Got it, I agree. Thanks for your response! CycloneYoris talk! 08:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Respected sir/madam

I will take care in future will you please add the appropriate tag for the article 's which I have put wrong tag because I am innocent about it I only saw that those articles were any sources or promotional with merely a single reference Thanks once again09:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easytostable (talk • contribs)

I'll reply on your talk page, to keep the discussion all in one place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to seek your help in future if required?Easytostable (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Answered at your talk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hi Zebedee, a CEO or Chairman of a company does not in of itself meet the noteworthy requirement for biography of living persons. There needs to be something of note in their biography referenced, don't say things are nonsense. Please explain your reasoning and don't enter such childish talk responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathrogers7 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree Sir George Alfred Wills is a noteworthy person because he was knighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathrogers7 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page, to keep my comments all in one place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

sock?

see [2]

new account Vaquero rápido acts like KasiaNL you blocked as sock suspect. Staszek Lem (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem and TonyBallioni: I only modified the block to revoke talk page access based on obvious deception on the talk page, and I don't know much about the sock evidence. Tony made the block, and might be able to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Senor Freebie

Naturally I would say that you are not being unfair or over-strict. Obviously I am not quite impartial as it is my block that he was complaining about, but frankly I think he's got off lightly so far. Deb (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

General Sanctions Request at Wuhan Institute of Virology

Over at Wuhan Institute of Virology, PhysiqueUL09 is trying to edit-war in a statement that suggests that CoVID-19 might have leaked from the lab, based on a sentence from a bioRxiv preprint. PhysiqueUL09 at first proposed using this source on the talk page. I and Darouet both objected to the idea (see Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology#Concerns as source: May 2nd biorxiv preprint about zoonotic origin and human adaptation), because a non-peer-reviewed preprint should not be used to make such a serious claim. Ignoring our objections, PhysiqueUL09 added in a paragraph based on the preprint here. I then removed it, and PhysiqueUL09 added it back in again, accusing me of "vandalism" in their edit summary.

PhysiqueUL09 has been made aware of the general sanctions related to CoVID-19. I reminded PhysiqueUL09 of these sanctions and asked them to self-revert ([3]), and they responded that they were not going to remove the paragraph ([4]). WP:GS/COVID19#GS states

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page.

PhysiqueUL09 has violated both of these guidelines, and I think sanctions are appropriate. I would appreciate if you could take a look. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I have issued a short block. Hopefully that will get their focus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: I want to say that it was finally a misunderstanding because I was not fully aware of the concensus rule, and how it worked. I did not wanted to add this paragraph because I wanted to make the claim that the virus leaked from the lab. Which I tried to explain in the comments section. I wanted to add it because, to my knowledge, it said that no hypothesis should be overlooked because of the likeliness of it happening. Plus, the science in their paper I find is pretty solid. And I found that the section we were talking about was dismissing this theory as conspiracy theory. I guess only the future will tell what really happened, but I still firmly believe this hypothesis should ne be overlooked. Thanks for your understanding. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I saw in my block log that you wrote it is per agreement to avoid Covid subjects. I did not see that before, I thought it was because of the misunderstanding about the concensus rule. I have read on it now and gotten experience from other users. Does your statement in my block log means I can't go to talk pages or do BRD's? Because, I want to be transparent, I did some of that. I will stop if your decision is strictly on the premise of avoiding covid subjects. I am trying to get a username change, because it's very old and because of the year reference in it, and I don't want it to impact on their decision. Thank you! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: You just made a rambling statement on Dr. Tedros' accusation against Taipei, which has nothing to do with the Der Spiegel report at hand and the RfC there. I don't think that is remotely acceptable conduct in light of your agreement. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: Rambling statement? I was making a comparison about stuff that was added in other wikipedia pages as per concensus. This is unrespectful and should not be tolerated. I hope this is a mistake and will be corrected accordingly. One could argue that you came here in bad faith because you wanted me blocked from discussing in the talk page. I hope this is not the case... @Boing! said Zebedee:. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@PhysiqueUL09: No, there are no restrictions on your editing. If I remember correctly, you said somewhere that you would not edit further on the subject of Covid-19, but that's entirely your decision and the unblock was not conditional on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: If you have a problem with PhysiqueUL09's editing, please take it elsewhere and don't bring it here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you. And yes, I was thinking that at first, but it probably was due to a loss of confidence because of the block. I was not expecting the hammer of WP justice to be so swift XD. But now that I know more about the process, partly because of very helpful people, I think that I can start doing it correctly and I will be attentive to others and will learn from every experience! Thank you again. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • This issue is still going on, with the above user continuing to push fringe POV claims into the article in what is now very clearly a RGW and NOTHERE manner. I don't think this will stop without a topic ban. JoelleJay (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a topic ban rather than page ban because at the end of the linked discussion, where Thucydides411 has repeatedly explained how their sources and edits breach MEDRS, OR, and SYNTH, this user states I think I will be moving this in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China in the Investigations of origins of the virus section. Where more people are bound to participate and if we get a concensus there it would be hard to overlook it here PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC) JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, and sorry I don't have time to investigate this properly at the moment. I'll try when I can (and there are other people aware of it too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Specifically this one: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear out the FRINGE accusations JoelleJay (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Continuous biting by a user

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, I hope that you are in good health.

Do you remember that you recently removed the tag of vandalism from a disambiguation page named Guhathakurta. But the user named Hatchens, who attached the vandalism tag there, doesn't seem to be happy. He continuously accuses me of vandalism and even gave me warnings in my talk page!

Let me explain from beginning. From the past few days, I have been doing minor editings in the articles related to Indian surnames. But when I opened Guhathakurta, I was shocked. It is indeed a surname, but said that all the people holding Guhathakurta title have originated from a single family! Then I checked articles like Dr. Madhulika Guha Thakurta and Kamalika Guha Thakurta. They were not related to the family! So, I removed the single family history and converted it into a disambiguation page. Then Hatchens reverted my edits and gave me first warning. I ignored that and moved the erstwhile Guhathakurta article to Guhathakurta family of Barisal, because that was a suitable title. Then I converted the redirection Guhathakurta into a disambiguation page. But then Hatchens charged me of hijacking and vandalism.

Meanwhile, you removed the vandalism tag and another administrator reviewed my article! Still, I was depressed for the allegations against me. So, although my article was reviewed, I converted the disambiguation page back to a redirection. Once again he gave me a warning and referred me as a confused man.

This time, I was angry. I removed all the alleged vandalism notices from my talk page. But then he gave me third level warning for removing the notices without proper reasons! He threatened of being blocked!

I am sure that he is a WikiVampire. Please save me before I am blocked. Please...... Arnab2305 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arnab2305: I haven't reviewed the apparent content disagreement over the Guhathakurta and Guhathakurta family of Barisal pages. But the actions by User:Hatchens, especially after your friendly approach at User talk:Hatchens, were very much out of order. I've left them an explanation and a warning.

I've also made a few minor copy edits to Guhathakurta. A disambiguation entry should have only one blue link, to the target page, and readers can follow further links when they get there. And list entries should only be single spaced, not double spaced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Moreover, thank you for giving me necessary guidelines. Arnab2305 (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 05:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

More mail

Hello, Boing! said Zebedee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC).

You deleted my page

It was just a fun project, you could have just moved it to Drafts. Unepic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryCar28 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BryCar28: No, that's not what Draft space is for either. Draft space is for genuine Wikipedia articles under development, not for your made-up nonsense like John Muir Alpine International Airport. If you want a "fun project" like that, you'll have to find somewhere else for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol bet you're fun at parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryCar28 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So much fun, I sometimes even break into a slight smile. But it's not my decision, it's Wikipedia policy that governs the use of article space and draft space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

But what is the fun in following rules. Live a little bit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryCar28 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Go away now, there's a good chap. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Another request

Sorry to overburden you with requests, but I've been keeping an eye on a number of CoVID-19-related pages that are suffering from the same phenomenon.

LIXIAO9987 is a new user who appears to be an WP:SPA dedicated to suggesting that the Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli either created SARS-CoV-2 in the lab, or allowed it to escape. Their only article-space contributions are to the Shi Zhengli article (and one redirect, Chimera virus, which gives you a hint about why this user is here).

The user has been warned about general sanctions on articles related to CoVID-19. I have also previously warned this user about their violation of WP:3RR at Shi Zhengli.

In the last few days, LIXIAO9987 has repeatedly removed a paragraph that summarizes the opinions of multiple leading virologists interviewed by NPR and Vox about the theory that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (diffs: [5] [6]).

I think LIXIAO9987 is only here to promote unsupported, fringe theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and to pin the origin somehow on Shi Zhengli, which is itself a very serious BLP issue.

Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Content argument belongs on article talk pages, not here. I will examine this dispute as soon as I have time, but right now I haven't even had my breakfast
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is untrue. I have been removing BIAS from the article that you continue to inject, including a Nature article that you refuse to use because you yourself decided "Nature" is not a valid source. Other users have noticed your bias with the Nature article incident. LIXIAO9987 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not ALL leading virologists agree to zoonosis transmission: Professor Nikolai Petrovsky has completed a scientific study, currently undergoing peer review, in conjunction with La Trobe University in Victoria, which found COVID-19 was uniquely adapted for transmission to humans, far more than any other animal, including bats Professor Petrovsky, from the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University who has spent the past 20 years developing vaccines against pandemic influenza, Ebola and animal SARS, said this highly unusual finding left open the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory.

>Overall, the data indicates that SARSCoV2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans, raising questions as to whether it arose in nature by a rare chance event or whether its origins lie elsewhere. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199

So how are ALL scientists agreeing? They are NOT. Why is one ONE SIDE represented? BiasLIXIAO9987 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

MIT postdoc explains the PRRA insert relative to RmYN02 evolution argument. >Conclusion is that "no evidence" either way for whether it's natural or engineered despite the authors of the RmYN02 paper claiming that it demonstrates "natural evolution" http://archive.is/17ong

>The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, as the genetic sequence of the virus was nearly identical to the sequences of decades-old strains. While there are several hypotheses that could explain its origin, the possibility that the 1977 epidemic resulted from a laboratory accident has recently gained popularity in discussions about the biosafety risks of gain-of-function (GOF) influenza virus research, as an argument for why this research should not be performed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/

Either you are intentionally ignorant about laboratory leaked argument put forth by scientists, or you are intentionally engineering the narrative to represent one side and attempt to discredit the other. LIXIAO9987 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


>" ... we call for the retraction of this Nature paper to further verify the sequencing data, patient sample collection date and provide more information regarding the origin, identification and characterization of this BatCoV RaTG13. Proper verification should involve Dr. Zhengli Shi sending the RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991-related bat samples to other noncollaborating laboratories to be analyzed independently. And this Nature paper1 should be cautious on making the “probable bat origin” hypothesis before RaTG13 existence could be confirmed. " >Conclusion: This paper was rushed to make a premature connection between bat coronavirus and SARSCoV-2, drawing a potential bat origin scenario to support SARS-CoV-2 zoonotic transmission from bat to human. However, this connection was based on a potential bat coronavirus strain RaTG13, that may not truly exist https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0044/v1

All journal articles evaluating the origin or epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 that utilize the RaTG13 bat strain genomics are potentially flawed and should be retracted. https://osf.io/wy89d/

>Wuhan doctor publishes scientific article claiming SARS CoV 2 is a combination of SARS and HIV viruses designed by the US military at Fort Derrick http://archive.is/cAmtz

Did the SARS-CoV-2 virus arise from a bat coronavirus research program in a Chinese laboratory? Very possibly. >But long before Trump, Pompeo and Co. sought a Chinese scapegoat for the president’s gross and willful incompetence, researchers understood that the possibility of laboratory escape of the pathogen was a plausible, if unproven, possibility. It is most definitely not “a conspiracy theory.” http://archive.is/5m1N0

>That is to say, the idea of an animal intermediate is speculation. Indeed, no credible viral or animal host intermediaries, either in the form of a confirmed animal host or a plausible virus intermediate, has to-date emerged to explain the natural zoonotic transfer of Sars-CoV-2 to humans http://archive.is/RxbFv

https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787

https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 LIXIAO9987 (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Let's break down another thing. You consider your own sources as legitimate while mine are not, because they do not suit your narrative. for example, i have quoted shi zhengli's work of engineering bat viruses by making chimeras to infect hACE2 receptors, which is again in MULTIPLE Nature publications, and a Nature publication exists which criticized her work. None of that is suitable according to you for this article, despite very high quality referencing. There were moments where you INTENTIONALLY changing scientific wording on her work from the meaning of the article to make it look 'less bad', but in turn, scientifically inaccurate and not representative of her work. Ever think maybe I have background and that's how I can interpret the papers? Maybe you do too, and you are intentionally misleading. That, I don't know. But back to the sources.

So, "Vox" is a source, with this to say: >The scientists I did speak to all acknowledge it’s not possible to definitively rule out the lab-escape theory. “The trouble with hypotheses is that they are not disprovable. You cannot prove a negative,” said Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and a disease ecologist who has studied emerging infectious diseases with colleagues in China.

Can I just mention as a sidenote that Daszak controls the GENOME for this virus? and thus has HEAVY bias in swaying public information regarding it? James Taylor, a scientist at Johns Hopkins, tweeted in advocacy to make the genome accessible and transparent, which he believed it was not. This was not some FRINGE CONSPIRACY THEORIST, he was a world class scientist. I'd ask him what he meant, but he died at the age of 40 the next day.

That aside, if Daszak is a source, why isn't, say: >Prof. Richard H. Ebright, the laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University

Sounds like a credible source to me. What does he have to say? >Did the Wuhan coronavirus originate from a wild animal market -- or a laboratory accident? TheStreet posed the question of a top microbiology expert who said either was possible. https://www.thestreet.com/latest-news/was-the-coronavirus-outbreak-caused-by-a-lab-accident

So why is this not a valid source? or a credible guy? All your sources have not only strong ties to quickly swiping away any talk of laboratory origins, but are themselves, criticized and disagreed with among experts.

My account exists to tell the truth instead of pushing a one-sided false narrative. This is supposed to be a public source of free information and the way it's being suppressed is telling of the times ahead. Of which, you've contributed your part in help building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIXIAO9987 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The hatted comments give a pretty good idea of why this user should not be editing CoVID-19-related pages. See their comments at Talk:Shi Zhengli#This page needs to stop being biased and offering one-sided views as well. It's just non-stop pushing of the lab escape theory (and claims that various scientists are complicit), which is both fringe and a serious BLP problem.
With the statement, My account exists to tell the truth instead of pushing a one-sided false narrative, this user has basically declared that they're going to continue pushing this particular fringe theory as long as they're allowed to edit. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been having a look at this today (after a busy couple of days) and I agree. I've blocked for one month from Shi Zhengli and Talk:Shi Zhengli under the WP:GS/COVID19 sanctions. Please let me know if the disruption spreads elsewhere, or if it continues once the partial block has expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edit by user Chaipau

Hi, Chaipau is acting like judge of Wikipedia. He is misusing his seniority to accuse new users and block them. Then he revert edits made by new users. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/961160175 2402:3A80:DFB:9832:D379:D0F1:C28D:1108 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The above is WP:BE. Please look at [7] Chaipau (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

UTRS tests

Saw your experiements, just FYI that we're going to push large-ish quality of life updates to the blocked user side of UTRS in the near future so that experience might see some changes. – Majavah talk · edits 12:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Majavah: Thanks for letting me know - I'll keep that appeal open, and use it for checking out the new changes. And thanks for all your hard work again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Green UTRS comments-- access restricted

Interestingly, I've had appellants respond to my green comments. I don't know why. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 20:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting - I wonder if that might be related to UTRS2 originally being open to everyone, then afterwards being restricted to admins? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I just checked and at least on my own testing environment the appealant can't see green comments. If anyone can find a way where an admin comments are shown to non-admins we'll fix it. (please remember WP:BEANS when talking about issues with potential security implications) – Majavah talk · edits 05:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Some button-pushing requested

Hi Boing!, hope all is well. I wonder if you could perform a couple of revdels of the content and edit summaries here, here, and here. While I'm one of several people trying pretty hard to keep the article about Sambhaji from becoming a hagiography, I also think it's unnecessary to leave that stuff in the article history since it is likely to be extremely offensive to many people. Genghis Khan, also maligned by the same editor, I'm less concerned with. (I wonder what is up with that user – they made a number of unsourced but non-offensive edits, and then veered into utter vandalism!) Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Oh dear, yes, I've rev-deleted those. And on the basis of one of them in particularly, I've upped the block to indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the good edits then turning bad - Sambhaji is semi-protected, so they needed 10 edits before they could deface it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Multiple user pages created by a bot

Hello Boing! said Zebedee. I hope you are in good health. I want your help once again.

I recently found that a bot named AlexNewArtBot had created multiple pages some years ago, which provide the list of articles created on a certain topic and certain time period. The bot was superseded by another InceptionBot. However, the several user pages created by the blocked bot still exist. You can see the pages here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/PakistanSearchResult/archive4

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/IndiaSearchResult/archive25

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/OxfordSearchResult

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/CleanupSearchResult/archive38

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/LiteratureSearchResult/archive32

The bot has even created a new Wikiproject in the same style, adding a list of new articles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Odisha/New_articles

I don't know whether the Wikiproject page is in accordance with the Wikipedian policies or not, but the several user pages created by the blocked bot violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a web host (according to my opinion). In fact, many users are taking advantage by patrolling some specific articles provided in the list. You can see the talk page how it helps the users: User talk:AlexNewArtBot

As you know, I am a new user. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you! Arnab2305 (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arnab2305: I have a busy day today, but I'll take a look at that when I have some time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanked

Hey, sorry for the thanks I just sent; it was meant to be for a different edit of yours, but I didn't pay attention to which diff I was looking at when tapping the button. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks for the thanks whatever they're for :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Behaviour at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019

If you had a little time, I'd be grateful if you'd review the thread at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 #IJERA. I've been attacked nine times by User:Editsreviews in that thread and I've complained to them about their behaviour: permalink. The user tried to insert a fringe theory based on a problematic paper, published in a very dubious journal. They created an article for the IJERA journal, which is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications as it is predatory, non-indexed and not notable. Hope you can help. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Bit busy for a few hours, but I should be able to take a look nearer bedtime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Long day, too tired right now, sorry - I'll try in the morning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
That's okay, there's no urgency as the disputed content hasn't been restored so far. It's just the usual crap with belligerent newbies trying to push unusable sources. Take care --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: I've reviewed it now, and that is completely unacceptable behaviour. I've blocked them from that article and its talk page, with explanation at their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the firm action. I knew it was fishy, but was actually unaware of just how bad the IJERA was until someone pointed me to this 'sting'. Astonishing. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Yes, I saw that sting thing linked at the AFD - it's quite shocking. My first feeling was to issue a stern warning, as they'd gone quiet for a few days. But after digging deeper, I don't believe this is just a clueless newbie who innocently happened upon that paper - not in a predatory journal published in India. Whatever is behind it, this is not someone we should have editing that article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

UNDELETING Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd

Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd was first redirected to a a page which later got deleted due to my delay to contest and non disclosure of coi which i am now doing on my pages and talk page, then later deleted with the reason "Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page" But in all cases, WP:BEFORE was abandoned, as This Subject apparently has significant press coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Mulwanyi (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mark Mulwanyi: As a contested speedy deletion, I've restored Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd at its original state prior to redirection. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said ZebedeeThank you Very much, let me do the necessary disclosures and final editing.Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bryan See, harassment over on Indonesian Wikipedia

So not for the first time Bryan has created an article about me on a foreign version of wikipedia. Do you know what steps can be taken, as unclear if our block works on their website also? I also seem unable to blank my own userpage on their site even if I can edit some of the content out. Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Sorry, but the Indonesian Wikipedia is a totally separate project. English Wikipedia blocks have no effect there, and admins here have no powers to do anything over there. You would normally use the Indonesian Wikipedia admin processes, but I've no idea what they are. If the problem is extending across multiple projects, it might be worth asking the Stewards at Meta for advice, as they can issue global locks. You can find information at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you're feeling harassed or threatened, or being outed, Koncorde, the WMF has a procedure to intervene. Please take a look at m:Trust and Safety and see whether you think you should notify them of the problems you're experiencing. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yadav

Hi, don't know if you remember my Stash's Law regarding editors of India-Pakistan articles but इतिहास विश्लेषण could well end up being the most recent proof: "if the username contains the word history, trouble lies ahead".- Sitush (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, yes, good spot! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic

Hi Boing - here's the definition from the WHO: [8]. If you're happy with this, could you self-revert. I can't revert again on the sanctioned article. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: I think we'd need to resolve what our article says at Pandemic first, including checking what sources that uses and what they say - if we need to change it, I think we need to be consistent. I don't have time to do that now as it's late where I am, but I'll have a look as soon as I can. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. There does seem to be an inconsistency in the Pandemic article. Just one source is used, but it's not readily accessible. Let's maybe leave it 'till tomorrow and have a look then. As you say, we need to be consistent, and perhaps there's a need to change Pandemic. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Arcturus: there is unfortunately also an inconsistency in how the WHO uses the word. If you look at the announcement on 11 March when the WHO was classifying the outbreak as a pandemic, the WHO Director-General said "There are now more than 118,000 cases in 114 countries, and 4,291 people have lost their lives ... In the days and weeks ahead, we expect to see the number of cases, the number of deaths, and the number of affected countries climb even higher. ... We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic." That happened in the expectation that the outbreak would go global before it did, although it's not too much of a contradiction with the "A pandemic is the worldwide spread of a new disease" definition. My advice would be not to worry about it and leave the word "global" in as a kindness to those who don't have such a clear grasp of the meaning of the word "pandemic". Even a nominally redundant qualifier can have value to some readers. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Arcturus: A Google search for <"global pandemic"> (with quotes) gets 21 million results and shows the phrase is in wide general usage. When I enter <pandemic>, the first thing that pops up while I'm typing is a link to this which defines it as "(of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world". Searching on <pandemic definition> I find the following on the first page of results:
  1. Merriam Webster: "an outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population".
  2. WHO: "A pandemic is the worldwide spread of a new disease".
  3. WebMD: "A pandemic is a disease outbreak that spreads across countries or continents".
  4. Dictionary.com: "...a pandemic disease is an epidemic that has spread over a large area, that is, it’s “prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world.”"
  5. Livescience.com: "A pandemic is the global outbreak of a disease."
  6. Cambridge Dictionary: "(of a disease) existing in almost all of an area or in almost all of a group of people, animals, or plants." It adds "In some parts of the world malaria is still pandemic".
  7. MedicineNet: "An epidemic (a sudden outbreak) that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world..."
There's some inconsistency there, but I think it indicates a common usage consensus that a pandemic is not necessarily global. I think we should retain the qualifier. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee, RexxS. I guess it's no big deal either way. I had recently been removing "global" or "worldwide" from some country-specific articles as I came across it. It seems to be about a 50:50 split for 'pandemic' used on its own or not. It would be good to be consistent though. My view is that 'pandemic' should be used on its own, but why don't we put it to the Talk page of the main article, maybe linking to this discussion? I would hope that something like this could be resolved very quickly - unlike other issues at that article. Ultimately it would be down to consensus, given that we have references for both usages. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Arcturus: I think the search results I have presented make it clear that it is wrong to insist that "pandemic" universally means "global", and I don't know what benefit you're trying to achieve by contesting that. If there is any ambiguity, we should default to the most informative presentation. And if you wish for consistency, I suggest you revert your removals of "global" and "worldwide" from other articles. I don't see any need for a talk page discussion, but if you do start one please let me know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks for your thoughts on this. I've moved it to the article Talk page with a link here. Hope this is okay. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

How you've been?
Can admins or CU see the email address associated with an account? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Admins can not see email addresses, and I don't think CheckUsers can either (though better to check with one to be sure - maybe a TPS will confirm?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thanks a lot. I will explain shortly. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. No need to explain, I've just spotted what I suspect is the reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. It was a prank, without my knowledge. Although, if I could find out the email address associated with the old account, maybe I can recover its password, and in turn old account's password. I managed to find my old account few hours ago cuz I was absolutely sure I had edited articles of b*witched, Keith Duffy, and Boyzone; at least 10 years ago. And thanks a lot for your swift action —usernamekiran (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If you request a password reset, it will be sent to the registered email address without you having to specify it - then just watch whatever email accounts you have and see if it comes in on one of them? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have had too many email addresses. But I sent an email to that wikipedia account as soon as I found it. I am glad the email was enabled on that account. I might find that email someday, maybe not. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian K Horton (talk • contribs) 13:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you think all the recent brouhaha has something to do with lockdown? It seems like the world has gone slightly mad. Deb (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Ooh, lockdown and getting close to a full moon! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Nah. Brexit. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, that too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee/Archive_39&oldid=970949043"