Revision as of 13:40, 11 May 2017 editBoing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users96,327 edits →SPI's← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:39, 11 May 2017 edit undoMPants at work (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,602 edits →SPI'sNext edit → | ||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
I've never been involved in an SPI before, but I have the niggling suspicion that {{noping|PraiseTheShroom}} is a sock of {{noping|FL or Atlanta}}. Do you have any advice on what I should look for as far as specific evidence, and on starting an SPI (beyond whatever instructions I can find at ], of course). I would, of course, consider "They're obviously not socking, mellow out, dude." to be valid advice if such is your opinion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 13:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC) | I've never been involved in an SPI before, but I have the niggling suspicion that {{noping|PraiseTheShroom}} is a sock of {{noping|FL or Atlanta}}. Do you have any advice on what I should look for as far as specific evidence, and on starting an SPI (beyond whatever instructions I can find at ], of course). I would, of course, consider "They're obviously not socking, mellow out, dude." to be valid advice if such is your opinion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 13:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
:Hmm, interesting. The two accounts are recent, so checkuser evidence could be used, but there would have to be a compelling reason for a check to be done. Examples that spring to mind are the use of the same or similar phrases (or misspellings - they're great), use/misuse of the same or similar sources in similar ways, article overlap can be good (but obviously not if it's all about one specific article). Timings of edits can be informative - for example, if they're always on at different times it can lend support, but if they're both editing different articles at the same time it goes against the socking idea. For me, I generally just spend time looking at their edits and reading their words, and some particular characteristic just becomes clear (or it doesn't). I'll do some comparing when I have a bit more time and I'll let you know what I think.<p>As for the mechanics of starting an SPI, by far the easiest way to do it is using Twinkle - Choose "sockpuppeteer" or "sockpuppet" under the ARV option and fill in the dialog, and it does all the formalities for you. ] (]) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC) | :Hmm, interesting. The two accounts are recent, so checkuser evidence could be used, but there would have to be a compelling reason for a check to be done. Examples that spring to mind are the use of the same or similar phrases (or misspellings - they're great), use/misuse of the same or similar sources in similar ways, article overlap can be good (but obviously not if it's all about one specific article). Timings of edits can be informative - for example, if they're always on at different times it can lend support, but if they're both editing different articles at the same time it goes against the socking idea. For me, I generally just spend time looking at their edits and reading their words, and some particular characteristic just becomes clear (or it doesn't). I'll do some comparing when I have a bit more time and I'll let you know what I think.<p>As for the mechanics of starting an SPI, by far the easiest way to do it is using Twinkle - Choose "sockpuppeteer" or "sockpuppet" under the ARV option and fill in the dialog, and it does all the formalities for you. ] (]) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
::Thank you for the advice. I quickly laid out their editing histories since Shroom's first edit and plotted (I work in software development so this only took me about 10 minutes to put together). They've only edited on the same day twice; the day Shroom made their account (~18 hours apart) which was at a time when FL or Atlanta and I were involved in a dispute over this article, and again on 4/23/17, (49 minutes apart) when FL or Atlanta engaged in some minor canvassing, posting messages on a few talk pages of editors who'd edited the article from the same POV including Shrooms. There's some behavioral stuff, as well. Shroom's archaic (almost Shakespearean) mannerisms strike me as possibly being an overdone attempt to prevent people from recognizing shared mannerisms, they both repeatedly make saccharine-sweet entreaties to "move forward together" while ignoring the actual content issues that produced the conflict, they both seem disdainful of philosophers and respectful of scientists and they both infrequently edit other articles seemingly at random, but show up to edit this article in a flurry. In your opinion, is this evidence or am I seeing things? | |||
::<small>Apologies if I'm being a pain in the ass; being on the receiving end of a number of baseless complaints, I'm very reluctant to make complaints I'm not '''extremely''' certain of, myself. </small><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 17:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:39, 11 May 2017
Archives |
2017 - Q2 • Q1 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Please leave your message at the bottom of this page, for example by using the "new section" or "+" tab at the top, or by clicking -> here <-
You might find this interesting
https://www.bing.com/search?q=triangular+moving+average
You can help me to write a bit more about market/investing indicators. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm afraid I know nothing about the subject, so I can't help, sorry. All I did was remove your addition to a disambiguation page as, according to Misplaced Pages policy, those pages are not supposed to contain entries that do not have a link to an already existing article. A disambig page is not a glossary of a term, it is a page for listing existing articles and to help people fine material that we do carry. As you can see, it says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title TMA", not "This disambiguation page lists all meanings of the term TMA" . Now that you have added it back with a link to a relevant existing page, that's fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Header
Hello there, i think an apology is in order, at the end of the day i can see how its affect can be annoying and certainly taken into alot of consideration with a great deal of stress, more general annoyance though, i understand that.
So sincerely i apologise for abusing this website, have a nice day now! terrible weather here honestly, try to enjoy it while it last i think :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1washear (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
regarding WP:Requests for page protection
I did request rpp for White Hart Lane, I saw you added protect I am not sure if you saw the page or if you're suppose to leave a note on it, cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. No, I didn't see your RPP request, I was just checking new users and I saw one of them vandalising the White Hart Lane article, so I popped it on my watchlist - and I protected it later when I saw the IPs come along. I hadn't realised there was a derby match tomorrow, so I've now upped the protection to 48 hours as you suggested, and I've responded at WP:RPP. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Willing to rename a blocked user?
Hi Boing, I seem to recall you've got the global rename flag. Could you take a look at User talk:Sorenland, and rename them to the non-promotional name User:Youmightrecall? I'm bugging you instead of reading up on how and where I'm supposed to request this because he's been waiting a while, partially my fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, it's done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you much. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Fan4Life
This user has returned from their block, and has, yet again, begun edit-warring by continuing to re-add the same information that's been removed (and explained why), and yet they continue to re-add. Surely this behaviour is unacceptable, per Misplaced Pages standards. livelikemusic talk! 22:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see a number of changes made since the block ended, and the only thing that looks like edit warring to me is changing "Tokyo" to "Chiba" twice. That was among a number of other changes which don't appear to be contested, and I'd be reluctant to issue a new block just for that. But if it continues, please report to WP:EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on an old NAC at AfD?
Any thoughts regarding User_talk:Kharkiv07#NAC at 1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province? The closer has not been particularly active recently, although they do appear from time to time. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I see no consensus for that redirect - in fact, only one out of four participants supported it (the other redirect suggestion was not to that target), and there's a very good argument why that redirect is wrong (in that there was no Pakistan in 1901). Wait and see what they say, but perhaps starting a new discussion (with reference to the old one) might be the best way to go now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those were my thoughts but it will need now to go through RfD rather than AfD, and I've never had a happy experience there. That's why I don't usually bother querying things like Jakhrani even though it seems wrong to redirect something that cannot be sourced. I'll see if Kharkiv07 responds in the next few days but I think it is way too old for them to revert their close or for WP:DRV to look at it. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it would have to be RfD now - let me know if you do it and I'll offer my opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Will do. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, it would have to be RfD now - let me know if you do it and I'll offer my opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those were my thoughts but it will need now to go through RfD rather than AfD, and I've never had a happy experience there. That's why I don't usually bother querying things like Jakhrani even though it seems wrong to redirect something that cannot be sourced. I'll see if Kharkiv07 responds in the next few days but I think it is way too old for them to revert their close or for WP:DRV to look at it. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Arjun (singer)
Hey there, You sent me a email today regarding my removed content from the wiki page Arjun (singer) I'm working on his behalf and I've noticed that some pieces from his biographie aren't true at all. Could you please help and explain the best way to remove or change content?
in your email you said: In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate edit summary. I'm not quiet sure I understand that
Thanks
Lou.team (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Louisiane
- It was just this edit you made which removed content (the Tamil spelling of his name) without any explanation. When you make a change, below the box in which you are typing you will see another box labelled "Edit summary". You should explain briefly, in that box, what you are doing and why. In this case, explain why you removed the Tamil spelling of his name (which I note you only removed from the lead sentence and not from the information box). Was it spelled incorrectly? If so, it's better correct it rather than remove it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to add that if I use Google Translate on "அர்ஜூன் குமாரசுவாமி" it translates it to "Arjun Kumaraswamy", which looks to me like it's pretty close (given that there can't really be literally correct spellings of names between different scripts). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looking a bit further, I see the Tamil Misplaced Pages spells his name as "அர்ஜுன் குமாரசாமி" (see ta:அர்ஜுன் (பாடகர்)), so maybe that's the correct spelling to use? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, finally, if you are working on Arjun's behalf, you should declare your conflict of interest on your user page - see WP:COI for more details. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/pvmoutside
Thanks Boing! said Zebedee.......I think I fixed the statement....Pvmoutside (talk)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
- Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
- Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight
- An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
- Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Misplaced Pages forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
- You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
- There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
- Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)
- Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
deleted spam user page transcludes from wikimedia vexes me
I deleted this for spamuser. Could not see how to request deletion @ Wikimedia. Can you help kill this particular whale? Dlohcierekim 12:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Requested at Meta:Requests for deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- thanks Dlohcierekim 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- and it's gone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- thanks Dlohcierekim 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
your username origin
Where did you get your username from? I swear that phrase sounds familliar to me. 199.101.62.55 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- (tps) The Magic Roundabout had this fellow.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)- That's it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- And there was me thinking your parents had particularly fertile imaginations when it came to child naming (like mine did) Optimist on the run (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hehe :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- And there was me thinking your parents had particularly fertile imaginations when it came to child naming (like mine did) Optimist on the run (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
OBR Disambiguation Page: Removal of Entry "OBR10"
Did you read the summary note I wrote when I posted the edit? I did not remove anything, and I was working on the page. If the convention is to write the page and then link and remove disambiguation, I stand corrected. I did change the order of the entries on the page as they were not alphabetical. Funkihunter (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'll reply at your talk page to keep it all in one place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
hm
I identified this contributor as not useful, based on a correlation of a number of factors which I'm not going to mention publicly. I'll concede that this may have been a premature decision; if you choose to unblock, I won't object. DS (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @DragonflySixtyseven: Indeed, don't spill the beans ;-) As you're OK that the block might have been premature and you don't object to an unblock, I'll go ahead and do that. If you want to email me and let me know of the other concerns, please feel free to do so and I can keep an eye open for any possible future issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) Oh; once again I type too slow. I was just about to suggest the block be kept. No problem, it's just one person and relatively easy to keep an eye on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, OK... just unblocked. Please feel free to email me if there's anything I'm missing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I shouldn't have muddied the waters; when I got the e/c I should have just moved on. It's nothing like "obvious ax murderer" or anything. I just stuck my nose in because I was bored and your talk page is on my watchlist, and I saw a few things (I assume some overlap with DS67) that would have led me to pull the trigger faster than normal too. I'm watching now too, and I expect one of us will be re-blocking within the day, but I've been wrong before. I think it was back in '05... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, do feel free to drop in any time you're bored - I'm feeling a bit like that myself today, and it's always nice to have someone to chat to. But yes, with all these eyes peeled, they're well watched now (which reminds me of a line from an otherwise long-forgotten movie: "Keep your eyes peeled, or I'll peel 'em for you".) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I shouldn't have muddied the waters; when I got the e/c I should have just moved on. It's nothing like "obvious ax murderer" or anything. I just stuck my nose in because I was bored and your talk page is on my watchlist, and I saw a few things (I assume some overlap with DS67) that would have led me to pull the trigger faster than normal too. I'm watching now too, and I expect one of us will be re-blocking within the day, but I've been wrong before. I think it was back in '05... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, OK... just unblocked. Please feel free to email me if there's anything I'm missing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- (e/c) Oh; once again I type too slow. I was just about to suggest the block be kept. No problem, it's just one person and relatively easy to keep an eye on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
SPI's
I've never been involved in an SPI before, but I have the niggling suspicion that PraiseTheShroom is a sock of FL or Atlanta. Do you have any advice on what I should look for as far as specific evidence, and on starting an SPI (beyond whatever instructions I can find at WP:SPI, of course). I would, of course, consider "They're obviously not socking, mellow out, dude." to be valid advice if such is your opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting. The two accounts are recent, so checkuser evidence could be used, but there would have to be a compelling reason for a check to be done. Examples that spring to mind are the use of the same or similar phrases (or misspellings - they're great), use/misuse of the same or similar sources in similar ways, article overlap can be good (but obviously not if it's all about one specific article). Timings of edits can be informative - for example, if they're always on at different times it can lend support, but if they're both editing different articles at the same time it goes against the socking idea. For me, I generally just spend time looking at their edits and reading their words, and some particular characteristic just becomes clear (or it doesn't). I'll do some comparing when I have a bit more time and I'll let you know what I think.
As for the mechanics of starting an SPI, by far the easiest way to do it is using Twinkle - Choose "sockpuppeteer" or "sockpuppet" under the ARV option and fill in the dialog, and it does all the formalities for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I quickly laid out their editing histories since Shroom's first edit and plotted a chart (I work in software development so this only took me about 10 minutes to put together). They've only edited on the same day twice; the day Shroom made their account (~18 hours apart) which was at a time when FL or Atlanta and I were involved in a dispute over this article, and again on 4/23/17, (49 minutes apart) when FL or Atlanta engaged in some minor canvassing, posting messages on a few talk pages of editors who'd edited the article from the same POV including Shrooms. There's some behavioral stuff, as well. Shroom's archaic (almost Shakespearean) mannerisms strike me as possibly being an overdone attempt to prevent people from recognizing shared mannerisms, they both repeatedly make saccharine-sweet entreaties to "move forward together" while ignoring the actual content issues that produced the conflict, they both seem disdainful of philosophers and respectful of scientists and they both infrequently edit other articles seemingly at random, but show up to edit this article in a flurry. In your opinion, is this evidence or am I seeing things?
- Apologies if I'm being a pain in the ass; being on the receiving end of a number of baseless complaints, I'm very reluctant to make complaints I'm not extremely certain of, myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)