Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Ah, great, thanks, that looks like a very helpful response. I've got a nearly completed answer, so rather than waste it I'll add it too. -- ] (]) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
::Ah, great, thanks, that looks like a very helpful response. I've got a nearly completed answer, so rather than waste it I'll add it too. -- ] (]) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi King Finland - in case you haven't seen it, I've replied over on your Talk page -- ] (]) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi King Finland - in case you haven't seen it, I've replied over on your Talk page -- ] (]) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
== RfA stuff ==
Hi Boing. Now that we have both participated, I can ask what your take is on ]. It is being used to obtain feedback on ]. I have seen other indisputable evidence of systemic bias and tendentious editing, not only, but also during my own survival in the snake pit. --] (]) 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion. I think it it's best to keep discussions in one place. So my talk, your talk, or an article talk - I'll carry on wherever it started.
Talk page stalkers are welcome here - just join in any time you feel like.
Admin: I'm new to the admin business, so if I do any admin things that you disagree with, please don't feel you need my permission to revert or adjust them - just use your judgment. But please do let me know.
Hi Boing. Despite all the water throwing going on outside my office window, it looks as if I'm the coordinator of this project. Although I started it, I'm an admin already and have nothing personal to gain or loose, but I don't really want to be seen as the leader or pushing my own opinions or ideas. I know you're already very busy on many aspects of WP, but would you consider being one of the permanent coordinators of the project? It would mean moving threads to their respective new sub pages as they occur, and perhaps striking or removing inappropriate or irrelevant comments, and generally keeping the whole thing on track. If we start a very short coordinator list, I would put my name on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I really would love to help, and I've been prevaricating - but I don't really think I can make the commitment. The problem isn't my other Misplaced Pages work, but real life demands, and my Misplaced Pages time is likely to become more intermittent in the coming months. I really do wish you well, and I'll be following progress as and when I can, but I wouldn't want to try take something up unless I was confident I could see it through. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, but I do hope you will chime in from time to time. You and I are charwomen now, but we have to think of the poor sods who have to follow in our footsteps! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Zebedee, I've redone your changes to Transport in Burundi, as you had perhaps inadvertently undone other changes I had made. As you'll see from the edit summary, it should effectively be my old version, plus the railways bit that had been moved to Rail transport in Burundi (which I have copyedited), plus the few other minor changes you made.
I noticed that you were unsure where to leave the Railways section, and I have left it at the end (where I'd put it last time). It had actually started at the top, (ie above Roads), and I'd be very happy if it was moved back there to be in line with guidance at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Transport, but I cannot find any. There just seems to be a convention to put Railways first, but to my mind, it doesn't make sense when there aren't any.
The normal structure for articles like this would be to start with History, then the Present situation, and then Future, which would still put any Railways vapourware at the end. You may have seen my rant on the "Rail transport in X" articles at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Trains#Redirects?, and I think that much the same goes for "Transport in X". (Reply here). Tim PF (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I've only just noticed this - yes, that's fine, sorry for accidentally undoing your other changes. And I'm happy with wherever you think the best place for the section - as you can see, I wasn't in a decisive frame of mind :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I got there via that AfD and the similar ones from bobrayner - though I do actually like railways. I did notice that the structure of some of those articles is pretty messy, so good luck if you decide to tackle them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Titling a discussion to coincide with it's content seems more appropriate then leaving it untitled?
Why does reverting a title that coincides with the content of that discussion back to an untitled discussion provide more clarity then a defalted "no title"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.255.165 (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Titling it neutrally to reflect the question might have been acceptable, but retitling it to push the point of view offered in your answer is most certainly not. And as the question was asked back in 2006, it's pretty much history now and should really be preserved as it was. Also, please note that the Ron Wyatt article Talk page is not a forum for discussing science and the bible, it is only for discussing the article itself - I see someone else has reverted you recent addition now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I editted the title. What "push of a point of view offered in my answer are you referring to? My title edit did not include any expression of an answer or opinion, but it did accurately reflect the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.255.165 (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Your title did not reflect the open question as it was asked, but your opinion of the correct answer - but it's not important any more as your contribution has been removed because the page is not a discussion forum, so I'm not going to argue with you any further -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have been having a think about the situation with regard to the three articles Landalva has been editing and that are subject to my merge proposal. I'm not sure if a blocked user can edit anything other than their talk page but if they can edit their own userspace then would it make sense to move all three articles into that space while Landalva works on them?
The constant changing of purpose on Ardash Shree in particular does rather take on the appearance of almost being edit tests. Moving all three would not unduly compromise the WP coverage (indeed, them not being there might at present improve WP's image even if not its coverage). It would enable Landalva to develop them in peace and, subject to review, they could later be moved back into mainspace. The proviso as I see it would be that Landalva must agree not to introduce any further articles in mainspace until these are either binned by him or accepted for mainspace by an appropriate admin; failure to impose this might just lead to further circumvention attempts. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I like that idea, and I was actually thinking about suggesting something similar depending on his response to his latest block. I've asked him to explain what the Adarsh shreeramleela samiti khanpur ghazipur article and his others are actually supposed to be about, so if he comes up with something rational maybe we should userfy one or more of them and see if he comes up with anything useful? But I'd prefer to get some explanation of the three articles first, to save him producing long and possibly useless articles. What do you think? And no, a blocked user can only edit their own Talk page - so to put them in userspace we'd really need to lift the block too, so we would need the restriction that you suggest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying - had a small heart attack & have just been released from hospital. I am watching your page, but wasn't doing so from hospital! I need to spend a couple of hours catching up on events but obviously I'm happy to give Landalva the chance to explain etc. I thought that I had asked this question of him but probably not as I seem to recall that I was trying to hit a moving target most of the time. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: seems that the attack was happening while I was starting this section. Do you think Sinebot would have finished it off for me if I had been finished off? <g> - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, that's awful, I do hope you recover well from it - I had one myself a few years ago, and I wasn't out of hospital as quickly as you! (Maybe we do need a bot to cleanly close the Talk pages of expired Wiklipedians ;-) Anyway, take good care of yourself, that's the highest priority. Landalva has messed up an unblock attempt - the priority has to be to get him actually talking -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
It was small & I have a basket full of meds to down/spray etc until my return there next week. The problem with the suggested bot is that we would first have to verify the expiration using reliable sources, and a short ad in a local newspaper probably doesn't count. Just because I know a director of the Daily Telegraph doesn't mean that they're going to run an obit for me! Shameless name-drop, there, sorry. One shouldn't really name-drop, as HM The Queen said to me only last week.
I noticed the unblock request & agree with your rationale in refusing it. Is it worth explaining to Landalva that there is nothing to fear if English is not his first language etc? That is, we'd rather have some sort of dialogue than none at all. Off for a kip. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
When an editor (especially a young one) causes repeated problems and shows repeated signs of trying to do things they don't properly understand, they will often get a few more experienced editors keeping an eye on their actions - you really need to pay attention to the discussion at WP:ANI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
CWP 121
It is important that the public understands what cwp is. It is being used by government and was used to clean up Chernobyl Nuclear disaster, If we do not create the awareness of what CWP is than toxic water and contamination will continue to kill and cause cancer. Why don't you block all other chemical related articles, definitions and clean up methods that are posted in Wiki. Simply deleting this important information is unjust and not fair to the public. They need to know that there is an alternative to other chemicals and hope with technology like cwp for situations like what is happening in Japan, CWP was invented for cleanup of nuclear disasters, nobody knows this because people dont understand what it is or even that it exists...Since they don't understand they just ignore it and delete it thinking its spam! We have show that this is real and that this is a currently applied solution not an ADVERTISEMENT!...I think humanity deserves at leas the awareness...Do you not agree? Don't be so quick to judge and shut down important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyjuice (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
How is it strange if its true. Its an actual product no different than chlorine and bubble gum... why would it not be defined in wiki... it is creditable and tested by over 19 institutions globally, this is not a personal concern ...its a fact. you seem to accept defining chlorine in wiki but why not accuse that of being someones concern, why is there a bias against new market technology being applied, what makes you an expert in deciding the credibility of bio-nanotechnology and Molecular organic chemistry and its new market uses? Seems you are telling me that anythig that is not understood is labelled as not creditable and should be deleted.. that is silly...What are your credentials to make this decision, did you do the proper investigation into understanding the true potentiality of this technology and current applications... seems that this is more of your own personal concern because you don't understand what CWP is, perhaps i should clarify in more detail in the article? hence the purpose of posting this article to create an understanding and awareness of this technology...It needs to be defined, its not a personal concern...??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyjuice (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Find reliable references from third party sources (see WP:RS) demonstrating that the stuff is notable (see WP:N), and write an article about it from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) which does not push any specific agenda, and you should be fine -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
My RFA
Given your opposition to my nomination, is there any advice you can offer me since I do intend to try again in the future. You did say I was a good editor, so therefore I need to pinpoint what exactly you look for in a candidate. Of course your response and whether or not you support its totally up to you. –BuickCenturyDriver17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Yeah, I'm sorry that my comment was so vague - I had (and still have) trouble putting my feeling into concrete words. It's really that I want to get the feeling that you are fully familiar with the policies you discuss, and that that familiarity comes from experience (or that you are not familiar with some - we can't all know them all - and not afraid to say "I don't know that area too well, and would not venture into it until I did".) But in some cases it seemed like I was seeing attempts to provide short snappy "correct" answers, which didn't really explore the policy areas in sufficient detail for me to know whether you really understood them. For example, I did not get the feeling that you really understand the IAR thing - all it seemed you were really saying was "The rules have to be followed except when they don't", and there's actually quite a bit more subtlety and depth to it than that - to me its part of how the whole rule-by-census thing develops. If there's a part of the rules that you struggle to get "right", I'd be quite happy to accept an answer along the lines of, say, "It's not something I've really experienced enough to properly appreciate, so I personally would not invoke IAR - at least not unless I had come to fully appreciate it". I don't know - does that example help to get across what I was trying to say? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: If you ever feel it would help to chat with someone about any particular area of policy, you're always welcome here - I'll be happy to share my own thoughts (which may or may not be considered "correct" by others ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope you can offer advice to other editors whenever you decide to oppose in the future so that person can take the proper steps to ensuring sucessful nomination in the future. –BuickCenturyDriver18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Lately, it seems I'm not the only recent self-nom. Yours and the current candidates have nominated themselves. Do you think candidates that are nominated by others stand a better shot or do self-nominated candidates have an equal chance based on experiance? –BuickCenturyDriver18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting question, and I'm really not sure of the answer. I've seen people saying they're impressed by who's doing the nominating, but people also say they admire the courage of people nominating themselves - and most people do seem to make their judgment by examining the candidate's actual work. If it does make a difference (and I suspect it probably doesn't), if you're not a well-known editor then a nomination from someone who is might just help a little. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I think you'll have a pretty good chance with a future run - just a bit more experience and some work on what the opposes were saying, that's all you need -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi B!sZ. For my sins, I've taken Rcsprinter on as a mentee. I'll be keeping an eye on his edits, and hopefully he should be able to learn from his mistakes. I was wondering if you would consider commuting his block to time served, if he'd commit to not making amy more anti-policy edits. If not, I understand, but since he has accepted mentorship, I thought I'd ask. Worm · (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's great news - you're a terrific mentor. And yes, certainly, I'll go and release his block now and leave him in your capable hands -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
We'll see about terrific when I've released more than one into the wild, but thanks for the vote of confidence! Worm · (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Boing: I've responded on King Finland's talk page, in case you haven't noticed. If you have anything to add, the more the merrier... --Dylan62019:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Boing. Now that we have both participated, I can ask what your take is on this (Q11). It is being used to obtain feedback on this contentious discussion. I have seen other indisputable evidence of systemic bias and tendentious editing, not only, but also during my own survival in the snake pit. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Boing! said Zebedee: Difference between revisions
Add topic
