User talk:Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose.: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:18, 31 October 2011 editWouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk \| contribs)12 edits removed test edit← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:57, 22 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 29:		Line 29:

	:Having studied research methodology and been involved in various research projects myself, I don't see how you can possibly have any evidence for anything from my edits. The article is on my watch list, your edit showed up, I noticed the copyvio, and removed it. You replaced the copyvio and I removed it again. At no point did you comment on spelling. I'm not sure even now if you are arguing that by 'correct form' you mean spelling it as spelled in the lyrics or if you think Boadicea is actually correct. In any case I've mentioned this at ] not for action against you if this is all good faith but so that others are aware that you are supposedly carrying out some research about some sort of unspecified bias (my bias here of course was against copyvio, although you seem to see it as evidence of something else, but that looks to me like a problem with your research protocol. You might want to explain your research at ANI. ] (]) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)		:Having studied research methodology and been involved in various research projects myself, I don't see how you can possibly have any evidence for anything from my edits. The article is on my watch list, your edit showed up, I noticed the copyvio, and removed it. You replaced the copyvio and I removed it again. At no point did you comment on spelling. I'm not sure even now if you are arguing that by 'correct form' you mean spelling it as spelled in the lyrics or if you think Boadicea is actually correct. In any case I've mentioned this at ] not for action against you if this is all good faith but so that others are aware that you are supposedly carrying out some research about some sort of unspecified bias (my bias here of course was against copyvio, although you seem to see it as evidence of something else, but that looks to me like a problem with your research protocol. You might want to explain your research at ANI. ] (]) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Your post at AN/I has the appearance of being written to intimidate others. Consider this a fair warning: Users are routinely blocked for attempting to intimidate others to win a content dispute, whether through ], ], or ] threats. Now, I am not an admin myself, but I would advise you to pick and choose your words more carefully, ''especially'' if you're actually doing research into bias and not just being a troll hiding behind that sort of smokescreen. —<~~font~~ ~~color~~="228B22">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</~~font~~> <sup><small>Components:] ] ]</small></sup> 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)		::Your post at AN/I has the appearance of being written to intimidate others. Consider this a fair warning: Users are routinely blocked for attempting to intimidate others to win a content dispute, whether through ], ], or ] threats. Now, I am not an admin myself, but I would advise you to pick and choose your words more carefully, ''especially'' if you're actually doing research into bias and not just being a troll hiding behind that sort of smokescreen. —<span style="color:#228B22;">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</span> <sup><small>Components:] ] ]</small></sup> 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


Line 35:		Line 35:

	Was that a threat to block me by using ], ], or ] means? It is important that you make your position clear, ''especially'' in matters such as this. PS What is this "content dispute" you are talking about? I don't recognize one. ] (]) 22:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)		Was that a threat to block me by using ], ], or ] means? It is important that you make your position clear, ''especially'' in matters such as this. PS What is this "content dispute" you are talking about? I don't recognize one. ] (]) 22:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:No, it wasn't, and I'm not an admin and therefore cannot block you. However, seems to imply you're willing to use your "research" for reasons tangential to your alleged research. (I say alleged because I highly doubt anyone doing serious research would make such a post, given the tone used and the nature of that noticeboard.) —<~~font~~ ~~color~~="228B22">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</~~font~~> <sup><small>Components:] ] ]</small></sup> 23:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)		:No, it wasn't, and I'm not an admin and therefore cannot block you. However, seems to imply you're willing to use your "research" for reasons tangential to your alleged research. (I say alleged because I highly doubt anyone doing serious research would make such a post, given the tone used and the nature of that noticeboard.) —<span style="color:#228B22;">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</span> <sup><small>Components:] ] ]</small></sup> 23:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


			==Boadicea: The story so far...==



			'''fact #1''' on 21st October 2002 ''The Libertines'' released a song ''The Good Old Days'' which referenced


			'''fact #2''' at ] user ] added this information to wikipedia


			'''fact #3''' at ]‎ IP user ] incorrectly changed the orthography to ''Boudicca''


			'''fact #4''' at ]‎ user ] corrected the orthography to ''Boadicea'' - and provided to demonstrate the correct orthography.


			'''fact #5''' at ]‎ administrator ] deleted the edit of ]


			'''fact #6''' at ]‎ administrator ] blocked user ] from editing wikipedia.


			Doesn’t look good, does it boys?


			] (]) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
			:Were you an actual researcher, you would have just invalidated your own research due to conflict of interest. Therefore, you just annihilated your own alibi. —<span style="color:#228B22;">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</span> <sup><small>Components:] ] ]</small></sup> 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

			:You're right - abusing multiple accounts doesn't look good. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

			::And keeps forgetting that I reverted on the basis of copyright violations and that that he/she didn't mention spelling their edit summary, a vital omission. ] (]) 16:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:57, 22 February 2023

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Misplaced Pages:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Misplaced Pages

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page and follow Misplaced Pages's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Misplaced Pages tutorial is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Boadicea

HI - I thought it was clear that I removed your edit for two reasons. First, the links are copyright violations. But I would have removed it anyway as the section above it ends with "She has also been mentioned in The Libertines' song The Good Old Days." so it was inappropriate to add it again. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug Weller, today's edits were part of a research project to demonstrate bias in wikipedia - you have provided us with a very clear example. How interesting that the unreferenced and orthographically incorrect Boudicca used to describe The Libertine's song had stood for half a year or more, but that when it was corrected and provided with ten, not merely one reference, it was removed within the hour. Of course you " would have removed it anyway " - but how interesting that you waited to do so until the exact moment when the orthography was changed to the correct form. Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Having studied research methodology and been involved in various research projects myself, I don't see how you can possibly have any evidence for anything from my edits. The article is on my watch list, your edit showed up, I noticed the copyvio, and removed it. You replaced the copyvio and I removed it again. At no point did you comment on spelling. I'm not sure even now if you are arguing that by 'correct form' you mean spelling it as spelled in the lyrics or if you think Boadicea is actually correct. In any case I've mentioned this at WP:ANI not for action against you if this is all good faith but so that others are aware that you are supposedly carrying out some research about some sort of unspecified bias (my bias here of course was against copyvio, although you seem to see it as evidence of something else, but that looks to me like a problem with your research protocol. You might want to explain your research at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your post at AN/I has the appearance of being written to intimidate others. Consider this a fair warning: Users are routinely blocked for attempting to intimidate others to win a content dispute, whether through legal, physical, or psychological threats. Now, I am not an admin myself, but I would advise you to pick and choose your words more carefully, especially if you're actually doing research into bias and not just being a troll hiding behind that sort of smokescreen. —Jeremy v^_^v 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jeremy,

Was that a threat to block me by using legal, physical, or psychological means? It is important that you make your position clear, especially in matters such as this. PS What is this "content dispute" you are talking about? I don't recognize one. Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't, and I'm not an admin and therefore cannot block you. However, this seems to imply you're willing to use your "research" for reasons tangential to your alleged research. (I say alleged because I highly doubt anyone doing serious research would make such a post, given the tone used and the nature of that noticeboard.) —Jeremy v^_^v 23:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Boadicea: The story so far...

fact #1 on 21st October 2002 The Libertines released a song The Good Old Days which referenced Queen Boadicea

fact #2 at 15:32 on 26th July 2011‎ user Rdjnoble added this information to wikipedia

fact #3 at 13:24 on 6th August 2011‎ IP user 92.29.215.252 incorrectly changed the orthography to Boudicca

fact #4 at 10:09 on 29th October 2011‎ user Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. corrected the orthography to Boadicea - and provided references to demonstrate the correct orthography.

fact #5 at 11:02 on 29th October 2011‎ administrator Dougweller deleted the edit of Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose.

fact #6 at 07:24 on 30th October 2011‎ administrator MuZemike indefinitely blocked user Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. from editing wikipedia.

Doesn’t look good, does it boys?

Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Were you an actual researcher, you would have just invalidated your own research due to conflict of interest. Therefore, you just annihilated your own alibi. —Jeremy v^_^v 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right - abusing multiple accounts doesn't look good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And keeps forgetting that I reverted on the basis of copyright violations and that that he/she didn't mention spelling their edit summary, a vital omission. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)