User talk:Boing! said Zebedee

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Boing! said Zebedee, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

- Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Global renamer welcome[edit]

Hello Boing! said Zebedee. Welcome to the global rename team! Good to see another helping hand at the w:en:WP:CHUS page. Global renamers have a mailing list for internal communication; please subscribe here and send Savh or Trijnstel an email to confirm it is you requesting it. You are also welcome on the #wikimedia-renameconnect channel on freenode. Feel free to ask me or any other global renamer any questions you may have. Thanks, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I'll get connected up with those things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No renaming between November 20 and November 27[edit]

Hi,

You’re getting this because you’re a steward or global renamer. The Community Tech team are working on cross-wiki watchlists. We need to add a couple of fields to the localuser table in centralauth database. In order to be able to do this, we’d need to run a script that will get in the way of renaming users. Our apologies – we realize this is getting in the way of your work.

We ask that you do not rename anyone between 00:00 November 20 (UTC) and 00:00 November 27 (UTC).

(UTC means that if you live in the Americas, it will be on the evening or afternoon of November 19 when the script starts running, and if you live in Oceania or eastern Asia, it can be closer midday on November 27 before we can be sure the script is no longer running.)

Phabricator task.

If there are any problems related to this, or you have any questions, please write me on my talk page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to be renamed[edit]

I heard that you are a global renamer. I would like to be renamed to miles527. If someone has already taken that username, you can change me to miles.527 or miles_527. Either is fine with me. Thanks. Miles.mu (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


Hello Boing! said Zebedee. I would like to be renamed to SOC or SOC24 or some variation of that if possible. Much obliged.

Adjusted text[edit]

There has been a request to inform all who voted in the RfC about interlinking accounts involved with paid editing about the following adjustment in the "statement of issue" on Sept 18th, 2017.

It was clarified that this effort will help deal not only with impersonation of specific Wikipedians but also claims of being in good standing made by those who are not.[1] Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Your RFC on INC has attracted the "usual suspects" of known troublemakers. Those opposing the RFC, with any degree of comment, are simply trolling you/us. Suggest you ignore, per "don't feed the trolls". If you feel you must not leave some remark unchallenged, then just point out, for example, that a particular comment contains a number of untrue statement or deceptive/misleading language, but don't get drawn into the details. These people have no concern with the facts, so arguing about facts is just a game for them: they just want to be windbags about their opinions on wiki policy, that bears no actual resemblance to real policy or community traditions. -- Colin (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(Recent changes stalker) It's a shame that we don't do more on Meta to prevent this sort of thing. I've always been pretty upset that the club of users banned on enwiki tends to turn up here, and we have no real policy or procedure from preventing them so long as they don't do anything too ridiculous. Maybe it's time for a "no continuing behaviour that got you banned on other projects here" rule. – Ajraddatz (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand what you mean, but there have been so many people trying to use every wikilawyering angle they can to keep INC active here (I have no idea why, but without his army of supporters he'd have been globally banned well before now), that I've just wanted to be sure that there has been no procedural reason to reject the current RFC. Oh, and correcting details/facts is not aimed at the troll but at the audience who might be convinced by their inaccuracies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, the numbers suggest "so many people" is about a handful, compared to about 60 who support a global ban. So I wouldn't really worry. I've run RFCs in the past where it is very disappointing to see a lot of oppose votes based on wrong-thinking or just outright lies, and the RFC gets derailed. But here I think your RFC is fairly clear support and there is a danger that if you keep feeding the trolls, people will wonder why there is so much discussion when really the facts and case are straightforward. It is telling that those with bans (or past bans, or friends with bans) are those who tend to campaign against bans. Mostly these people are well known for their inaccurate and often voluminous opinions, so many are already wary of their "facts". You won't prevent every "per XYZ" unthinking vote. I know you think you are helping other readers by "correcting details/facts" but in fact you give weight to those details/facts if the reader is already predisposed to be "against bans", for example.
This sort of thing is well known wrt issues like Trump or Global Warming, etc, where if you present facts to people who are already opinionated, they just dig their heals in. The rational assumption is that facts will make those folk go "Oh, I hadn't considered that, I'll change my vote" but it actually doesn't. You end up with nonsense like claims of "alternative facts" and folk distrusting "experts". In the UK we had Brexit because the "Remain" campaigners tried to use facts as their argument where as the "Leave" campaigners simply used emotion and the facts were of no concern. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thankfully, it's only a handful this time, but they helped defeat the previous RFC and have been very vocal in supporting INC at Commons (which is perhaps understandable after his impressive previous record of constructive contribution there). I mostly agree with the rest of what you say, but with a couple of points. My correction of facts is really aimed at the undecided, not at those already opposing (just the four of them - though I accept there are unlikely to be many undecided now). And, we actually have had one example of someone considering the additional information and withdrawing their oppose - Fae did just that, and he's someone who is influential and greatly respected (by me included), and it then led to the withdrawal of a "per Fae" oppose. Anyway, discussion does seem to be dying down, and I expect all there is to do now is just wait for it to conclude. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Template Wizard script available for testing[edit]

Hello. I'm contacting you because you voted for the Infobox Wizard in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey.

The Infobox Wizard has gotten an upgrade - it's now a Template Wizard which works for infoboxes and all other templates. The feature is being developed as an extension (which will allow for localization) but there is a prototype user script which works well.

The Wishlist Team would love it if you could take a few minutes to try the Template Wizard prototype script out and give us feedback on whether it lives up to your expectations. This feedback will help build the script into an extension. To get started, add the following to your Special:MyPage/common.js -

mw.loader.load( 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Samwilson/TemplateWizard.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

The Template Wizard will show up as a puzzle-piece icon in the 2010 WikiEditor. You can click on the icon to insert a template. Your thoughts are needed on whether it makes sense for the wizard to be available for all users by default or if there should be a preference for it. If it's a preference, what should the default be? Please leave your feedback here. Thank you! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

regarding serious matter of concern about my account.[edit]

Global unblock for account Asim543[edit]

Hi,its long since i submitted the request on your suggestion [2] but nothing had been in progress since then.I know its take time for review but it had already been 9-10 days.But i guess not much time is needed in a web case.I hope no innocent wikipedian would suffer that long.Its a humble request please help in recovering my account.(117.227.16.67 16:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

Hi. I'm sorry, but I have no advanced permissions here on meta and your request can only be handled by the stewards. You can make follow-up comments at your request if you wish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi,I have seen some progress here [3] but i didn't know what they are talking about is the account is block or unblock.As i had answered the question here [4]that User talk:Ruslik0 made on my global unlock request page.One more request can you please add that above message at my request section as i didn't understand how to add that.(117.226.136.211 03:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but again, this has got nothing to do with me - I just directed you to the appropriate place. If you want to add a response somewhere, just click "edit" and do so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi,As according to Wikipedia suggestion I had requested here[5] but it had been rejected.For few of disruptive editing i had followed not to repeat that again and also mention it

here[6].You know mistake might happen.So,can you guide me what to do now,should i leave it.If nothing going to happen then please kindly delete or locked this page [7] page completely as i don't want other to misuse it.Plus i don't want to suffer from legitimacy drain out anymore.Its a humble request.(117.226.252.119 08:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC))

I have deleted en:User:Asim543 as requested (but I have left the talk page as talk pages are not deleted). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for concern.It was necessary.So that page should not be misused.(117.226.253.226 05:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC))

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)