User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Re:block of User:Ellebelle1 on hold

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jesus Taught Me

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jesus Taught Me. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Taught Me (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For using common sense and declining the speedy on Bernd Teo Matthias. I will re-write it, and in the mean time, have a cookie:

Acather96 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Acather96 (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mob dynamics

There is no consensus in a mob. I appreciate your endeavour in doing what you perceive is best for Wikipedia but representing me as a problem is not the truth. The problem is heavy handed administrators who forget their charge and not the editors who qualitatively improve articles. Very rarely are my edits contentious and as they 99% of the time involve citations I have demonstrably qualitatively improved the project. Out of 20,000 edits there have not been many if any significant conflicts with editors that have not been resolved. I may continue editing Wikipedia on the odd occasion to fix a spelling error or provide a linkage but apart from that my input will cease. You and the others in question have made it clear that my edits are not valued. Even more importantly, I have completed what I intended to do. Being associated with a cult by the Wikipedia community has fueled my resolve to discontinue editing. I wish you the best.B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. As I just had a difference of opinion in regards to grammar as I write in Traditional or Formal English Grammar and speak in received pronunciation (which should really be the Received Pronunciation) which is very different to the English speech variety of the majority of English Wikimedians and as Wikipedia servers are in America, I will discontinue all editing.

This is very typical of you, you deny that there is any problem with you, it's everybody else. You accuse us of being a mob and say admins are heavy handed. Then why aren't you blocked right now? It would only take me about five seconds to indefinitely block you if that was what I wanted to do. You are very wrong when you say your edits have improved this project, there is a massive incomprehensible mess to clean up thanks to you, and it's going to take considerable effort to filter out all the flowery nonsense you have added to Tibetan Buddhism articles. Normally I would try and convince an editor that they should remain and try and resolve their issues, but your utter rejection of the manual of style, and indeed the very concept of consensus make your goals utterly incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. Since you refuse to even acknowledge the problem, it would be best if you do as you have promised and completely cease editing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Transformers vandal is back

Just to let you know the user you blocked for making up tons of fake info on Transformers pages User talk:24.207.226.65 is back and already vandalized 2 pages. I reverted them. Mathewignash (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Thanks for the heads up. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! He also seems to be User talk:Mdj56 and he made a fake page called Alienbots under that name. It's completely made up nonsense. All these and more are sockpuppets for User talk:Twctinc1. Mathewignash (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Foreign language articles (test pages)

Thanks for the contact Beeblebrox. The reason I marked it as a test page, after it was first marked under A7 Bio, was the fact that they'd included the "Example.jpg" image, and it appeared to me from first glance, since I didn't have a damn clue what it said, to be someone doing the old "can I really edit this?" thing. Since I now know otherwise, thanks for letting me know, just making sure you understood why I tagged it the way I did - it wasn't simply because I didn't understand it. To me, it genuinely looked like someone testing stuff. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 17:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose technically all three of us were correct, there was no indication of the subject's significance, there was an apparent test image, and the content was an unsourced negative biography. It puzzles me why someone would come to a website that is clearly intended for an English speaking audience and post something in Serbian, but maybe they were already kicked off the Serbian Wikipedia... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm the original tagger, and when I first ran across it I ran it through Google Translators until I could read it. I didn't think to tag it as an attack page, though, as I couldn't be certain it was some kind of attack. It was certainly unreferenced BLP, though. Thanks for taking care of it. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I did

I actually did read that the block reason stated sockpuppetry, but the probability is hardly ever 100%, which is why I had commented. mechamind90 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I report a problem with an article?

How do I report a problem with an article to get more outside neutral attention on it?

You know that article you deleted, the one which someone had obviously posted as an attempt to spam Wikipedia, "The Diet Delusion", the author's article is even worse but it had references so I tried to clean it up instead of marking it for deletion - however when I did that, I got repeatedly reverted and calling my edits vandalism and "warning" me by another user who seems to have been making changes to keep it to a promotional version over a while [1] [2] [3] ... as well as an IP editor who uses the exact same edit summary when changing it back to their version... Talk:Gary Taubes#Deletion_of_Relevant_Material

Here is the cleaned up version in an attempt to make it actually factual rather than full of weasel word promotion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Taubes&oldid=362684635

Here is the version he/they are trying to push: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Taubes&oldid=362698924 - which seems to be more about helping to sell books rather than neutral factual coverage, deliberately bigging up physical science awards as though they are relevant to nutritional biology just before going on about books, it's incredibly misleading and just a total advertisement, I can't believe people try to protect people who do this crap. --94.193.135.203 (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Beeblebrox,
Editor 94.193.135.203 (talk) (above) has issued me a "Final warning", for reverting their editing once on Gary Taubes. See DIFF. Mind you I did give them a final warning, DIFF, (perhaps that was too far? But they had a level 3 already). They appear to have been making major edits/reverts on Gary Taubes, without discussing them. I also invited them to take their concerns to the article talk page. DIFF, which they did, sort of, DIFF. Quote: "Darrell" you know damn well this article is biased, you just don't care. Let me know what you think. Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Replied here: [4]. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop deleting Cameo/Other Jack O'Lantern & a playable characters who was a bosses in the other version

Please stop deleting the Other characters liked Jack O'Lantern (who appears in Prison Cutscene, the fire headed guy) & the playable characters who appears as bosses in the other version liked: Common Bosses: Deadpool (PS3/360 in Washigton, he's not a boss in PS2/PSP/Wii) Green Goblin (Boss to any versions) Penance (PS3/360 in Rykers Island) Thor (PS2/PSP/Wii in Storm Mission) Venom (helping Green Goblin) Anti-Registration Bosses: Agent Madrox (it is Multiple Man, but it describe as Agent Madrox, Multiple Man's Clone in PS2/PSP/Wii version) Iron Man Mr. Fantastic Ms. Marvel (PS2/PSP/Wii in HYDRA Base) Songbird (PS3/360 in NYC City) Pro-Registration Bosses: Captain America Daredevil (PS2/PSP/Wii in HYDRA Base) Iron Fist (PS3/360 back up Captain America) Luke Cage

+ there's a Iron Fist Texture that hidden on MUA2 Disc.

Note: Blaw of the Marvel Mods merely made sure:

a) the tattoo was aligned, in 3ds max it wasn't really aligned that well.. b) the green skin used MUA2 Wii's Iron Fist color. No there's no MUA2 Iron Fist model, but the sneaky bastards at N-Space left a file (hud head? dunno) which contained an Iron Fist texture. For the red version, I just applied the most bright red color I could get c) the mask and sash"belt" look as if they are what they are, instead of just a skin (shadowy effects for the win). d) the top of the body at the collar is correctly aligned so there won't be any green or red where Daniel's skin is supposed to be. Purpose was to make the collar look better.

It's been a long time since I made this one, and I happened to take a look at it and adjust it for release. The collar has been smoothened, because it became blocky when I imported it (I recently found new settings for a smoother import, but like I said this one has been made a while back).

I hope you and Iammingy are satisfied with the result!

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6476/naamloos1o.jpg http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6476/naamloos1o.jpg

If you don't play both PS3/360 + PS2/PSP/Wii or watch the cutscene/gameplay & see what's differents & what's same. You gonna feel sorry for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKazama (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that this user has been notified that any playables that appear as bosses are mentioned in the prose of the section to keep the table smaller, that the character Jack O'Lantern appears in a very brief cutscene or two and has no notability whatsoever towards the plot, and that hidden features left on the disc are not encyclopedic. This user continually adds them back, and every few weeks I have to revert the edits. --Teancum (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I need some more context here, I don't have the slightest idea what this discussion is about. I'm guessing it has to do with something that I speedy deleted at some point because it lacked sufficient context, but without article titles I don't know what to tell either of you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know -- I can only assume one of two things: 1) This was meant for me, and it was posted to your talk page by accident, or 2) ScottKazama feels this needs to be escalated to an admin. English is not his first language, though he can speak it, so this may be the case. As I'm involved with the page in question (Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2) I should probably let you see what he needs. If he meant to put it on my page I can handle it from there. Thanks much. --Teancum (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

Thanks for your suggestion of dispute resolution.

Meanwhile Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy has been closed -- as "no consensus". I'd like your opinion on whether it would be useful and defensible for Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad and Uighur guest house, Pakistan to redirect there. If you agree that it would be useful and defensible I'd appreciate your opinion on what my next step should be.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Libel and legal threats posted by anon

Check out a dump of the last 50 edits from 95.79.0.0/19 here.

There are no good-faith edits from that range since 6 March. How about a three-month block of the range (anon only)? I'll enact that block if no one sees a problem with it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me, go for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

moar silliness

• see here
• and here

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How could checkuser confirm that I've been evading a block on an account that I never used, and that I only knew about because you pointed it out? AN certainly has his own unique perspective on things, I hope he has fun with his little games over there, I certainly won't be wasting any more of my time paying him any mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also this, which is pure trolling. The dust has all but settled and I'm glad the games are pretty much over an am glad to move on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

voestalpine

User:East of Borschov must have seen the Village Pump policy discussion. He helped me at least indirectly, because one Wikipedia article he told me about had a template that said exactly what I needed to know--at least as far as German Wikipedia is concerned.

I finally said what I needed to say on Talk:Voestalpine, but I want you to trust me. It's worthwhile and important to the project, but I just have some trouble saying it in a way you can understand. It all makes perfect sense to me, so I don't know what the problem is.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the future, the article talk page is where to start as opposed to finish, and the reason I closed the thread at the pump was that it is a forum for discussing Wikipedia's policies, not article content. I think many of us found your repeated reference to "naughty words" a little off-putting as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, well, User:East of Borschov did see my problem there and directed me to the solution. I guess I added too much detail.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so you'll know, my efforts have been recognized.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone suggested that your efforts at improving the article were not valued, just that you were trying to discuss article content on a policy talk page, and that you couldn't seem to stop making infantile references to semen. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the company was Fuchs.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions ·

NPOV across articles

The discussion here was directed over the the ANI board but the link isn't direct. I've been away so would you please link me there and maybe reflect that in the closed discussion so anyone can follow the train of debate? Thankyou. Alatari (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That thread is now archived, ANI is very busy and is archived frequently. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Inappropriate comments at Criticism of Judaism. It also seems the discussion was resurrected just below the previous thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That link has nothing to do with the NPOV across articles discussion. Where is that link? Thanks! Alatari (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Really that was what confused me. What does ANI board have to do with a discussion of a theoretical change to NPOV and WP:BIAS? I think there was some confusion and that section closed by mistake. How do I get the locked border and message removed from that discussion? Alatari (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the discussion was re-started right below the closed thread, you can just continue there. I went ahead and removed the closure anyhow. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Mr two headed alien. Alatari (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of The Diet Delusion

Hi do you know where I could find the deletion discussion for The Diet Delusion. I thought I would point this editor to it [[5]]. Many thanks. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion, it was speedy deleted as advertising and just now I recreated it as a redirect to the author's bio page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there any way I could look at the page to see if it is possible to remove advertising concerns and keep it as a useful article (at least one reader thought it useful as it stood.) Many thanks, Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:USEFUL, that's really not a reason to have an article. However, I will provide you with a copy of the article in your userspace where you can work on it and try to fix the problems that led to it's deletion. The most pressing problem is a lack of independent reliable sources to verify the content and establish the subject's notability. There was also no real substantive content, just a regurgitation of the main points made in the book. Click here to access the user subpage I have created with the deleted article. Once you have rectified these issues it can be moved back into article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The ten points are verifiably from Taubes' book. His summary, P454. Will fixing the attribution and adding quotation marks solve the problem? I consider the summary fair use, so do reviewers, that's where I found them (and it is probably why Taubes wrote the summary, so it could be used).Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have taken my point. Properly attributing the content is of course a good thing, but the article needs sources that are writings about the book if we are going to have an article that is about the book. We can't allow the author of the book to determine what content will be in the article, and by the same token we can't rely on our own observations lest we stray into adding original research to the encyclopedia. Basically the article needs to conform to the five pillars of Wikipedia, the central rules that are behind the whole maze of policies and guidelines that govern article content and user conduct on Wikipedia. Click here for guidance on citing sources and here for the definition of a reliable source. I'm not certain myself whether this meets the inclusion criteria or not, but another possibility is to simply create a subsection of the article on Gary Taubes and add this content there. The redirect page can be tweaked to point directly at the new section. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Too complicated for me. Sad, it is exactly the content someone looking for an article about the Diet Delusion would want in the article in my opinion. Chalk one up for the deletionists. Thanks for all your help. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with deletionist-vs-inclusionist philosophical struggles. The article as written was like an advertisement for the book. I gave you a copy, told how to fix it, and pointed you toward relevant help pages. If you want someone else to actually make the effort for you, you can post a request at WP:RA. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Mcjakeqcool

I thought you locking Twyfords/Jake out of his own talk page was a little harsh, but whatevs. I wondered if you'd noticed that you and Bwilkins are going in entirely different directions with MC Jake. Şłџğģő 00:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever hear of the old good cop bad cop routine? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhh... Şłџğģő 04:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

...it was not intentional though, Mutt LOL. For me, it was more WP:ROPE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblocks on hold

I note your request on my talk page; apologies for any problems I have caused you. I actually was not aware that i had, with any meaningful frequency, put unblocks on hold for discussion. But I am, of course, fully aware of the {{unblock on hold}} template, and will take care to use it in future. Thank you for pointing out my omission. That was not sarcastic, I meant it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that it is an ongoing issue with you per se, it's just something I've generally been running into a lot lately, and today in particular there were like seven users in the category and four of them already had an active discussion going on but weren't placed on hold. Anyway, thanks for taking it on board. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee ArbCom

Hello Beeblebox. Since you were involved in the mess with User:Keegscee, I'm listing you as such in an ArbCom request. Your input is desired. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, this: [6] represents the entire extent of my involvement with this user. I haven't followed what was going on with this user before or since that one edit, so I don't really have anything to add. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Honest mistake

My apologies for the incorrect speedy deletion nomination. This was a mistake on my part and I assure you it will not happen again. fair ♫ talk to me 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

These things happen. WP:CSD takes a while to get the hang of, that's why I let you know why the nomination was declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you only believe

Then that would mean the block of 63.226.45.178 should probably include "anon-only, autoblock enabled (if it was already inferred that an autoblock would be applied to the IP address)". You have not yet posted a statement confirming sockpuppetry. mechamind90 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They made an unblock request but it wasn't really an unblock request, it was a request for an explanation of the block. All I did was explain the block, which, if you bothered to actually check the block log, was placed by another admin. You are basically arguing about semantics anyway, but if you want to discuss how the original finding of socking was established, the blocking admin was User:Kurt Shaped Box. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Point being, it was established. Perhaps it should state that on the talk page rather than only saying believed. The word believed doesn't have to be removed though as it was part of a decline reason. mechamind90 18:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's just semantics. We never know with an absolute certainty that anyone is a sock, even if they tell us they are. You are arguing a point that makes no difference one way or another. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Give 'em enough rope

The page is addressed to users who should be given a just one second chance, and I'm having trouble imaging a situation where a user who has been blocked for "blatantly defamatory attacks" would ever meet that definition. I'm not going to revert because I doubt having this listed or not on that backwater page will have much affect, either way, but these are the worst kind of users who deserve a one way forced exit, and it is a terrible idea to test a user's proclivity to continue when the chance you are taking—that further defamation will occur—is the most likely way to put Wikipedia in harm's way.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just very general advice for block reviewers, which is usually done on a case-by-case basis. There have been users who are blocked after only one or two especially nasty edits who get the point and are able to continue editing. Thanks for throwing in a belittling remark while you were here though, that always help strengthen your case. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the page's history and was not aware you were its architect. But now that I have, I can see why you might have felt the "backwater" comment was intended as a way to insert a personal slight. When I said that, I was viewing the page as I might any Wikipedia namespace page that has had a few hundred authors over years. I do not intentionally engage in insult ad hominem, and if that's how your took it, which it was not intended as, then I apologize. It does not appear we can agree on the real issue, so let's leave it there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

Dude ... am I on drugs? When we moved to the new skin, I seem to have lost my "warn" tab. I've looked everywhere ... it was damned handy, especially with the block notices now in it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're using Twinkle right? It's should be under the "TW" tab. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah, if I had a TW tab... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok that's screwy. I'm one of those smug Macintosh users who almost never needs to do this, but have you tried bypassing the browser cache? That will often fix little bugs like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried that. Ok, thanks to AzaToth, I have now removed all the TW configs from my .js and added it using Gadgets instead ... yay, I now have a TW menu (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:45g

Just noticed your comment over on 45g's talk page. I disagree with you about whether or not the removal of block notices is allowed. WP:BLANKING doesn't list them as an exception, and pretty much every discussion I've read and/or participated in on the topic has ended with the consensus being that removal of the notice itself is fine. --Onorem♠Dil 13:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read that and you are right, it's only declined unblock notices. My main point in either event was that there was a multi-party edit war brewing over something that really wasn't worth it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi, this is Smartse. I asked to be blocked til July 1st but I'm not quite sure why because my exams are done now. Any chance that you could unblock me? Cheers 86.7.19.159 (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have very carefully read User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking_requirements (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "This is to prevent you from appealing the block since you requested it in the first place, so don't ask if you are not serious."? If so then don't worry. I blocked myself in a rush and didn't really think about when I wanted to be unblocked. Just thought that it couldn't help asking. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question

You asked why you lost. I have some ideas. However, I don't know how to e-mail you. I'm a bit of an idiot. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Left hand column of this page, the "email this user" button, or you could just tell me right here. Point of fact: I really don't feel like I "lost" as I was only volunteering to do some extra work anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am such an idiot. I don't see it. Anyway, the censored, public version of my intended message is that more people have to know you. I never heard of you. Some people are known in a negative way. Maybe a sanctioned ArbCom canvassing, like a template notice of an election, may help? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but 111 users did oppose, and I don't know the reason for a single one of them. That's the problem as I see it. I figured those who never heard of me made up the 119 users who went neutral. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nwar24

I was alerted to this from Wikipedia:Administrator review/King of Hearts. The reason I blocked him so quickly was not just because of spam/advertising, but also for sockpuppetry; it is very likely that Madeinusacertified is the same user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I had to figure that out for myself because you didn't note it in the block log. Since I had already unblocked him I left an admonishment on his talk page, my guess is this is the last we'll be hearing from them since the page they wanted to create is protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was just passing by and thought I'd drop in. I didn't DO anything, except notify KoH, which I thought was reasonable. If it has given offence, I wholeheartedly apologise. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no offense taken at all. Sorry I didn't note it in the block log. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You and your mob are bullying me under guise of mentoring, what a farce

The reason why I first got really upset was being discussed in the same item as "cults". Which was unfounded and unsubstantiated and there has been no apology. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, whatever, I don't really care what you have to say at this point. You can make your case at WP:ANI if you want, but any further posts by you here will be removed without being read. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI + B9HH

Aye, that was pretty much what I thought. I figured since I'd been hasty enough to !vote, then revert myself, I should take some time to consider. It does look to me to be very poor - saying nothing, then commenting once it's obvious the next step is the community saying "screw the RfC, let's just block". TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I really did try to communicate with him, but he won't listen to anything that is even remotely critical and he just pours out gibberish in response. This sudden interest in the RFC appears to be an 11th hour delaying tactic now that he finally realizes he has exhausted the communities rather long measure of patience with his antics. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Afd

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReVamp; somehow this article has no comments except for first-time commenters, and established editors like you are nowhere to be found. I don't think there's a chance in the world this band is notable right now; maybe I'm wrong, but I would at least like some "valid" votes at this AFD. Thanks. Note, you are the third (and final) editor who I've notified about this. I just wanted some other eyes, because the possible SOCK votes are discouraging. — Timneu22 · talk 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(responded at afd) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Past help

Hi you were kind enough to help me with the addition of the creative commons license that I need to add to my web pages in order to port that information over to Wikipedia, it was July 17th and 18th 09. I have added a note to the articles that simply states

• This page incorporates text taken from Rivington Pike, Rivington, Lancashire

My original pages had been updated so I then updated wikipedia ran out of room and openned another creative commons site to port link to my first. Regrettably another user has got the impression that I have mirrored wikipedia rather than allowed my site to go to creative commons on wikipedia. I don't know if you will recall my site was published in 1996 anf later formed the a number of wikipedia articles about Rivington. Would it be a good idea do think if you were to recall the conversations from logs.

Hmm, I've searched my own talk archives from that period and didn't find anything. Looks like I posted a few templates to your talk page along with this [7] remark. That's all I can find on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rovington is referencing Rivington articles to his own personal website. I have looked at it and his Rivington Pike page contains text that I have edited into the Wikipedia article in the last week or so. In spite of his protestations I thought this was inadmissable as a verifiable scource. I am no expert but I don't expect to see what I have written when attempting to verify a reference.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking me. You have at least partially restored my faith in the administrators here. Hopefully more will start using some sort of basic standards for evidence, as on the receiving end, that was a very unpleasant sequence of events. WavePart (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. As I mentioned, climate change article have of late become a toxic environment to edit in, and lots of users have been rightfully blocked as a result, it seems you were collateral damage. I hope you won't let this put you off the idea of continuing to edit here, there are over three million other articles out there to edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanding WP coverage for Britannica readers

Many readers, with years of experience in reading Encyclopædia Britannica, might be frustrated when coming to Wikipedia and seeing the differences. I have recommended to also consider Scholarpedia, for users who expected the traditional expert essays that Britannica has contained for decades. Of course, some of those EB essays contained rather shocking opinions, but it was better to allow experts the freedom of over-analyzing the facts, rather than not allow experts to offer perspective in complex fields, such as Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, which maintained a standard format for over 2,600 years. Numerous scholars have had trouble with Wikipedia, so perhaps some changes can be made to avoid future disputes, such as happened with B9. I am sorry that you had so much trouble in confronting his style, which may have resulted from him knowing too much about the Britannica treatises and less about WP:MOS. As long as your "suffering" leads to better practices in the future, consider it not just an isolated incident that seemed to waste your limited time now. Again, perhaps the first response should be to mention "Scholarpedia" if a similar confrontation arises. I have predicted WP to total over 9 million articles before reaching a "steady state" where deletions offset new articles, perhaps in year 2045 (see: WP:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth), so there is a lot of time to adapt and expand our policies here. I and other people are recommending huge changes in Wikipedia structure, so beware "This isn't (yet) your grandchildren's WP". Certainly, we will also see "auto-translators" between article languages, so the future is still wide open. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you grossly misunderstand what happened with B9, and I don't recall claiming that I have suffered, rather that articles on Tibetan Buddhism have. You may suggest any changes you like, but beware yourself that consensus based decision making is the very heart of Wikipedia, and if your ideas do not have support from the community they will not be implemented. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• So far, I am still reading Britannica about these concepts, and much of what B9 wrote is stated there, so I am glad you were not the one trying to keep Britannica ideas out of WP. The nondualism, and moral relativism, of Buddhism might be more complex than some wanted to admit, so I advise to take the Buddhist approach of delaying further judgment, perhaps another 6 months. I am glad that B9 was not overly angry during departure. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Which version of Britannica are you reading? I have access to the current, online version, and I'm not seeing any similarity between B9's muddled, mumbling, archaic, mid-1980s, pseudo-pomo writing style and the clear and easy to read encyclopedia articles hosted on their servers. B9 has a problem understanding the concept of clarity, which is very strange considering there is nothing easier to understand. Be clear. Where is the difficulty here? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that B9's farts smell like sweet perfume and we should be digging through his shit for the fine golden nuggets to add to our coffee. His disdain for the reader and editor alike is pathetic, and he was given multiple chances to change or apologize. He's welcome to come back any time he has a change of heart, but with an ego his size, it may take several lifetimes. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacobsen v. Katzer

Thanks for slowing things down on this page. I would appreciate advice on how to proceed. Should the NPOV issues be primarily discussed on the article talk page or one of the noticeboards? Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say whichever conversation has the most participation would be best, and the participants in the other discussions should be encouraged to move over so it's all in one place. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That'd be the article page. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Adminship ban

I was a bit offended by your comments about me. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, feel free to participate in the discussion at WP:ANI. I don't believe I have said anything not supported by the facts. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be offended - it takes a strong constitution to run for RfA, even for someone who is fully qualified. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban

What do you mean by a topic ban? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that you would not be allowed to nominate yourself for adminship. That is all the topic ban would do, you would still be free to edit anything else you like or participate in another user's RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I request to be banned from nominating myself for adminship for a year.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What happens now? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. Just go about your regular editing business and don't run for RFA for a year. I've closed the discussion since you have agreed with the proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't that work?

FYI if you are including a URL in a field of a template, you need to include 1= unless there's any more specific name. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the fix and the explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of user:Dottygray

I suppose the block reason could have been clearer; but the user did violate BLP re: Chuck Lorre in the edits that resulted in their level 1 and 2 warnings here and here. The level 3 and 4 warnings were related to general POV disruptiveness. The block reason should have been a different one. I'm all for giving second chances where a user has some evidence of positive contributions outside of those that resulted in a block; but this unblock seems to be more due to a technicality rather than evidence of the user changing their behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That "technicality" being that they weren't actually doing the thing they were blocked for. As I said, I warned them about the actual problem when unblocking, if they keep it up it will be a simple matter to reblock them as they've already been warned. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The block was appropriate, only the reason given for the block was in error (the reason only applied to the first two warnings which were BLP related - not the subsequent edits that resulted in continued warnings). If you look at the string of events - their disruptive edits only stopped due to the block that was placed when their disruptive edits continued after the fourth warning.

I agree that they can be reblocked should the disruptive behavior continue; hopefully it won't come to that. But, given their edit history has no edits outside of the disruptive behavior, I would have seen a correction to the block reason more appropriate. Obviously, given my involvement and opinions on the user, I won't be the one to re-apply a block should it become necessary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Something I have found is that when a user is upset about being blocked and has only made disruptive edits, unblocking them takes all the "fire" out of them and they simply go away since they have "won" their unblock but they know they can't keep making the type of edits that got them blocked. I'd be willing to bet that is what will happen here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Wikitanvir's talk page.
Message added 08:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Tanvir 08:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking

Category:Administrators willing to consider requests for self blocking, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamilah B Creekmur page deletion.

I'm New wiki, so my apologies in advance if I'm contacting you the wrong...a page I recently created under Jamilah B. Creekmur was deleted because of "ambiguous" promotion and copyright infringement. I just edited the entire bio on Jamilah by compiling information from reliable sources, and took out what I feel was biased information. However, I'm open to you suggestion on what I may have left in and need to take out. I'm learning the process, and would appreciate your feedback, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suganique (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete Jack O'Lantern

Do not delete Jack O'Lantern. He makes cameo in Ryker's Island. ScottKazama (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is the second time you have sent me a message like this, I still have no idea what it is you are talking about or how it relates to me. Please explain. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, i thought it was you who did that. But, he appears in this cameo, the flame head guy was him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv68t3eag2s

As well concept art on the games ScottKazama (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I still don't know what it is you are talking about so it really doesn't matter to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern.

Well I didn't know someone could really unblock anybody, you see! I thought they were just threats! Mayurvg (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Newbie Question?

How can i get in touch with you abut unprotecting a page title that you protected for "repeatedly recreated". I am wanting to create a legitimate wiki entry for someone of the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookmark this (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You can get in touch with me by posting right here on my talk page. (you might want to try simply clicking the "new section" tab next time, it's a bit easier) Anyway, in a situation like this your best bet is to construct a draft article as a user subpage. Click here to learn more about that. What particular article are we talking about? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did make a draft. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bookmark_this Then another editor almost deleted it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookmark this (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the page I am trying to create was tried by someone 4 years ago. I found a deletion log. I think the person I did the article about is definitely notable now. There is another person with the same name that is the subject of quite a bit of ire on the interntet and I assumed that was what the "repeatedly recreated" was about. Can you let me know if/when you will be able to unlock it? Cheers Bookmark this (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Page is moved and live for editing. I looked at the previous versions (administrators can do that) and they were in fact about the same person, but it looks like you have come up with better sourcing for this new version. However there are some problems with the point of view the article is written from, all Wikipedia articles must be entirely neutral in their tone. I've fixed some of it but it still needs some work. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your effort to rewrite the Gundala (film) that I AfD-ed. Bennylin (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II on the PC

The reliable source is here. And on Wookieepedia they tell that the PC version will be developed by Aspyr. 84.86.199.99 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazon is not an WP:RS and neither is Wookiepedia for the same reason that you would never use Wikipedia as a reference for an essay. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be having this problem lately where I get posts on my talk page about content disputes in video game articles [8] and I have no idea how this conversation relates to me. You wouldn't happen to be User:ScottKazama editing anonymously would you? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I odn't know if this a issue I'm not fimiliar with but a simple google search [[9]] could show this to be real. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I kind of don't care to be randomly dragged into a content dispute that has nothing to do with me by a user who is spamming talk pages and more than likely is another user editing logged out. Not really my thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok as I said wasn't familiar if this had been a ongoing issue just saying....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

New users leading us down the garden path

Hello. This is to Beeblebrox and HJMitchell. A while back we spent lots of time on a new user and his peculiar timestamp username. It probably added up to several user-hours spent. That user has since not made any edits. This is not a unique case. Many follow this same pattern ending in a waste of time for all. I am watching one unfold now and it is really annoying me. Do you have any recommendations on a clever way to handle these kinds of new users? Please drop me a line on my talk page if you have any thoughts. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who it is you are talking about. If they are causing a real problem, take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If they are not I would suggest ignoring them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hi Beeblebrox and sorry for bothering you; I see you've declined User:Theirrulez's request for unblock on the basis that it's an ARBCOM sanction and so an admin cannot lift it. Well, to make a long story short, my curiosity is: do arbitrary sanctions imposed by an admin in accordance with an ARBCOM ruling have to go through the arbcom-l mailing list? From your answer there, I gather they do, but I wanted to make sure, so a "yes" will suffice. ;) It's just that I find it a bit puzzling that any admin can impose such a sanction and, yet, only Arbcom can lift it
Thanks for your attention. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Despite the fact that a single admin can impose an ArbCom sanction block a single admin cannot lift that block. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But the imposing admin can?

And am I mistaken in believing that, anyway, the community can? Thanks for your answer! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A discussion at WP:ANI wherein a consensus emerged that the block was flawed would be sufficient. Community consensus trumps anything short of the Wikimedia Foundation front office. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you've been most helpful! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Baillie

Hi I am requesting that you please unlock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Baillie so that we may enter new content to reflect the fact that he is now running for political office. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Votebaillie (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Request undelete

Hi,

I'm requesting you undelete New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc., as there are now sources for the article. Becritical (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be better if I provided you with a copy as a user subpage, then you could expand it and fix the problems that led to the deletion before moving it back into article space. Let me know if you want to do this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, that would be great (: Becritical (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Article restored to User:Becritical/New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc. If you're not comfortable with moving it when the time comes, let me know and I'll put it back into article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (: Becritical (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive ban close

Please remember to sign the close so everyone can tell in retrospect who closed, and log the ban at Wikipedia:List of banned users.

Thanks!

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I figured it didn't matter who closed it as there was no real interpretation or closing statement involved given the unanimous support for the ban. I did forget about adding him to the list though. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Camry Hybrid

Hello. You were extremely helpful in the Zubaty affair, and I thought your expertise would be helpful in the current discussion at Toyota Camry Hybrid regarding whether to merge the article with the larger Camry article. I have stepped back for a few days of cool-down period, but I would like to see what cooler, neutral heads might have to say regarding the current debate. Note that I am not asking you as a subject-matter expert, but rather as a Wikipedia rules expert. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look and left some comments on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox , how are you?

I am also involved in this discussion and I was quite annoyed that Mariordo had unfairly skewed the results by contacting five users that would support his point-of-view by personally contacting all of them and unfairly canvassing votes via their user talk pages: [10], [11], [12],[13], [14]. Canvassing votes is against policy, please see: Wikipedia:Consensus#Improper consensus-building.

I look forward to your reply. Kind Regards. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that, and you are correct that it violated WP:CANVASS. As I said, I think it would be more productive to move forward than to re-hash what mistakes have already been made. To make an imperfect metaphor, think of it as "declaring a mistrial" as a judge will often do when there is evidence a lawyer has acted improperly. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, we still appear to be having issues regarding "what is a consensus?"

If all votes are included, we have 4.5 opposing votes versus 7 supporting votes, a difference of 2.5 (or 56 percent more votes: 2.5 ÷ 4.5 × 100 = 56%).

If canvassed votes are excluded, we've got a total of 2 opposing votes and 5 supporting votes (2.5 times as many).

Either way, I see that as a clear consensus to merge the article, but Ebikeguy disagrees. Would you mind taking another look with the above in mind? Any changes that I make are only going to get reverted, so we really need someone such as yourself (a neutral third party) to do this for us. Kind regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Zubaty affair, in which nearly all "votes" favored keeping the page, but the page was deleted anyway, because that was clearly the right thing to do under Wikipedia rules. The Toyota Camry Hybrid has been the focus of many articles in mainstream media, as shown in the reference section. It is noteworthy on its own, independent of other Camry models. Several editors have done a lot of work making the article a good one. It deserves its own article.

Interestingly, when several anti-merge editors had registered their views and only two pro-merge candidates had registered theirs, no one was insisting that we cut off debate and take the merger discussion off the table. After OSX canvassed multiple editors at what he perceived to be "the last minute" of the debate, and they responded, he attempted to claim "consensus" and he merged the article without any discussion. His merge was subsequently reverted, and the debate goes on. It is clear that both sides could find editors to support their position, through neutral, non-canvassing means, but what would that prove? It would further prove that there is no consensus.

Bottom line: The vehicle in this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, and it should stay. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked two editors who had already voted at a previous discussion at WP:CARS—that's not multiple—your buddy Mariordo was the one who immediately went around scabbing votes (five in fact) as soon as voting started. How is one supposed to compete with that?

Ebikeguy, that is exactly the reason why we have excluded those votes (from both sides), and a clear consensus is shown: we've got a total of 2 opposing votes and 5 supporting votes (2.5 times as many). OSX (talk • contributions) 01:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please stop continuing this debate on my talk page. There is little point in discussing this here when there is already a quite long conversation on the article's talk page. My previous advice that we throw out what has already happened and move forward does not seem to have been heeded. I suggest you initiate a request for comment in order to gather a broader consensus without concerns of canvassing. Be sure that it has a neutral introductory statement that does not suggest support for either position. I will be unavailable for the next several days so i won't be able to play referee for a while, but I have to say that either way it is not something worth getting all worked up about, it's just a merger discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Bigpimpin-az

People are allowed to create user names containing the word pimp? What about whore? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Offensiveness is of course a highly subjective criterion for blocking. There are no hard and fast rules about what words are allowed, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. The word "pimp" has developed new meanings in the last few decades and does not necessarily refer to prostitution anymore, i.e. Pimp my Ride. Seeing as this user has not made a single edit yet it's hardly worth blocking them or making a big deal about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitefish

I had just archived earlier discussion, including the sections you deleted, when I edit-conflicted with you. If you feel strongly about pulling them out of the archive, I won't object. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Thanks for letting me know though. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh

I was going to say "As much as we might appreciate Sopranos-style dealing with problem editors, we cannot condone such activity. Since we cannot find the proof in the Hudson River, we will have to pass for now" ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm sorry Vito, but you got the whole library blocked from Wikipedia, it's curtains for you, see..." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Tubbs

How is the consensus to delete? CTJF83 pride 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Although numerically there were more users who wanted it kept the arguments to keep were not based on Wikipedia policy and the arguments to delete were. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you move it to User:Ctjf83/DT and I'll see what I can do, thanks, CTJF83 pride 02:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

Dear administrator, Kindly take a look at my email. --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just closed the deletion debate, I am not going to get drawn into an ethnic/religious conflict. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Ja 62's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--ja_62 14:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Re. 4o4aestudiografico (talk · contribs) UAA end of here

(Hard to discuss UAA matters, as the postings to the page are so quickly archived)

OK, thanks, I guess it seemed obvious / common sense to me, not to others; I understand; I'll try to be more circumspect in reporting in the future. I'm actually pleased that you are so careful to AGF in UAA; I wish same happened in other areas - see Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account/Guide#AGF!  Chzz  ►  17:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a borderline case, if there had been a clearer indication that they were intending to spam something by that name it would have gone the other way. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:FirstRunFeatures8

This user has requested an unblock and it seems reasonable to me. I would like to unblock them so they can request a username change, but wanted to ask you first as the blocking admin. TNXMan 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! TNXMan 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg Barry

There is an ongoing issue with the Holmes a Court articles, it's OTRS stuff but you can email me if you want some more information. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

About Sugar Bear

In case you weren't aware, this user went under a previous name; Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · SPI · cuwiki). This user.. although I can't remember what specific month, was indef blocked for personal attacks, edit warring, and most of all, abuse of alternate accounts. He had about 2 other alternate accounts, and 20+ IP socks. He denied and lied until he was blue in the face, and when the indef was imposed, he finally admitted to the block evasion.

He was finally unblocked when he admitted to the socking, and promised to stick to one account, and not edit war or personally attack.

Now he's changed his username to Sugar Bear, and he's back to doing the same things that originally got him the indef in the first place. Edit warring, and socking.

Taking the advice of Gwen Gale, the admin who originally indef blocked, and subsequently unblocked, indef isn't long enough. I therefore petition you to increase the block length to at least 3 months, given he's violated his original terms of unblocking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't let this thread be forgotten by time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you have also made several appeals directly to Gwen Gale, you'll have to forgive me for not wanting to be the other parent. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about that. I'm going off of her advise: Asking for a longer block, instead of an indef one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Given yet another SPI that determined he was socking, I have changed the block to indefinite. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

hi

you locked one of my pages. can you write the things I wrote on the talk page onto the main page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefesf9 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(protection was only for one hour and has expired) Please be aware however that it is not "your" article. Click here for the relevant policy page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Userfication

Hi Beeblebrox. You userfied Donna Tubbs to User:Ctjf83/Donna Tubbs a few days ago, and I have now deleted User:Ctjf83/Donna Tubbs per Ctjf83's request. My question is, does the history of User:Ctjf83/Donna Tubbs need to be moved back to Donna Tubbs? Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the edits form the basis for the content at the redirect's target then, yes, the history should be kept at the redirect. –xeno^talk 18:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, none of the content was moved to the redirect's target. I'm guessing the history isn't needed then? Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. The article was deleted via AFD and I recreated it as a redirect to the list of characters independently of the AFD. You could move it back but since there's no content anymore I don't think there's any reason to bother. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns regarding BrownHairedGirl. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sakalauskas

My bad here; I confused two Lithuanian politicians with the same surname but different first names. Not really excusable; my apologies. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, how dare you not be intimately familiar with Soviet-era Lithuanian politics! Err, I mean, no biggie it's been restored anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PBSKIDS

Hello Beeblebrox, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

As far as I can recall, my only involvement with those articles was chasing off serial sockpuppeteers. I don't remember ever doing any actual content editing there. Thanks for the random spam though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Restore Turnkey Consulting

Please could you restore the following deletion:

19:38, 20 June 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted "Turnkey Consulting" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

This is a genuine company and the posting was informational. I have just signed in to edit and update this with some links to relevant content and will also highlight more on the subjects of SAP Security and GRC, which will hopefully address your concerns.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.85.170 (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that you're User:Kevin73. You'll need to clearly read notability and more importantly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is absolutely nothing about this company that is notable - it's one of a billion SAP consultants. I also expect you might have some WP:COI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Checker Fred

Checker Fred came back as "unrelated" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simulation12/Archive#Report_date_January_28_2010.2C_00:17_.28UTC.29 . Why did you block him anyway? He has an unblock request pending, and if this was just a slip, you should probably deal with it.—Kww(talk) 12:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read the conversation at both SPI cases I believe the reasoning will become abundantly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly had missed the subsequent conversation.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Forty lashes with a wet noodle for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This is to say thanks for using your admin powers to block me and ignoring my request to be unblocked, you helped me make sure I got one of these and not one of these. It was very much appreciated. Smartse (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-addiction can be a dangerous thing. I'm sure there are days my wife wishes somebody would block me. Congratulations on your degree! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

*puts hand up* I'll do it! LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta, now onto the to do list! Smartse (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Recreated page

Sorry about that, I tried inserting the page in the template and looked at the protocol how to do it but it appeared to make no difference. That article was a recreation of this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_West 77.103.80.23 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then, that's different. Page deleted, both titles salted. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome and the quick tips. Raisescale (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for 1984 ghallooghaaraa

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1984 ghallooghaaraa. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. You closed this AFD as No Consensus, then a day later another administrator just deleted it. Dream Focus 08:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, it would be very nice if you could make some comment at deletion review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at White Shadows's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning! This user functions at a sub-optimal level before their morning coffee.

Yep, that would be me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

It's a big one! You should put it on your mantle.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Aminute of your time.

I am trying to get a admin to review claims that I personally attacked someone at ani right now. I'm trying to have a admin review these attacks then comment as to the validity as I'm sure once one does they will see I have been reasonable and calm throughout. Please block me if I have violated a personal attack policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hm2k/Hell In A Bucket Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:SRFFGT

Being the suspicious person I am, I wanted you to notice that this user is inexplicably restoring the user pages of blocked sockpuppets, including CheckerFred whom you recently blocked. This user's latest contributions seem odd. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oop, well, never mind. It's been taken care of. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Closure of policy discussion

You closed my discussion of systemic bias and racism in Wikipedia's official naming policies... why? You realize that this is simply proving my contention that Wikipedia's bias is both institutional and effectively unchangable, right? Not only can the bias not be changed, it can't even be discussed. SmashTheState (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed. There was broad agreement that you are very wrong and numerous suggestions that you simply like to stir up trouble. Therefore it seemed there was nothing to be gained by continuing to have what was becoming an increasingly pointless and inflammatory argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read the conversation to make sure I was right that so far nobody has agreed with you. There were about ten users participating and none of them thought you had a valid point at all. If you want to continue beating this dead horse I suggest you open a request for comment on whatever policy it is you would like to change. Given the reaction so far it seems you are going to need to make a very compelling case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"If mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." -- John Stuart Mill SmashTheState (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, you do understand the word "consensus", right? Even Mill understood it. He wasn't even a fan of WP:SOAP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to be a community organizer with 25 years of experience, and I know what "consensus" means. Having a large group of like-minded people gang-rape a minority, then strangle any further discussion and "yawn" at any protest thereof is the precise opposite of what "consensus" means and is for. But it's par for the course in my experience of Wikipedia, and why the systemic bias working group is moribund. SmashTheState (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So now you want to argue with me about the philosophical implications of closing your discussion? Not interested. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Smash, take it somewhere else please, I am not interested in having this discussion with you and I don't want to host it either. As I said, if you really think you can get this policy changed open an WP:RFC on it. Don't waste your overblown hyperbole and theatrics on me because it's not going to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you really mean...

...to wipe out my unblock review here? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not. I've restored your remarks. Sorry about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour edit conflict! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

RFR

Please check the[request for reviewer page. Ratinator·Talk 18:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(replied at user's talk page, now blocked for canvassing and failure to control account. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

FYI: Ratinator finally confessed[15]. So the account was not compromised and it was him all along. Seems pretty clear that this is a really young kid. Anyway, I am not sure if this warrants changing the block settings from indef to a specific expiration time, but I wanted to let you know anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected all along. I restored the original 48 hour block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Username matter

Please see User talk:Alcoa#Your attention needed at WP:CHU and advise. –xeno^talk 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

replied there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ratinator and CuteMice

Hi, Beeblebrox. Ratinator's block will expire in about an hour or so, and I am hoping that he learned something from this episode and will continue to do good work on WikiProject Articles for Creation. However, I noted that the new user CuteMice had requested the rollback tool twice today (not including an additional attempt that he/she apparently self-reverted). Then I noted that CuteMice has also self-identified as a member of WikiProject Articles for Creation, and that the user's signature is essentially the same as Ratinator's sig. Given the similarity in behavior and appearance between these users, it occurs to me that Ratinator may be trying to evade his block (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that there's so little time left on it), so I thought I should probably bring it to your attention since you were the admin who originally issued the block. Sorry if this ends up being a waste of your time. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think CuteMice is Ratinator, evading the block. Their editing pattens are very similar and even their (customized) signatures look very similar. The requests for rollback are phrased in rather similar terms as well. True, the block is short, but it is fairly clear that Ratinator is a really young kid with little capacity for patience and impulse control; his talk page, particularly the reaction to the block, are quite demonstrative of that. I don't think he has enough patience to stay away from editing even for a day. Plus he really does not understand how easy it was to catch him lying or what the consequences of his actions, such as this CuteMice thing, might be. Nsk92 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call guys, it seems pretty clear that it's the same user. Ratinator re-blocked for a week, CuteMice blocked indef. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'll have to remember the "triple trout with bracketing minnows", that almost made me fall out of my chair. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But honestly, Zaphod, was there any point to that? — The Earwig ^(talk) 23:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of the trout is to let a user know they did something that was obviously completely clueless and counterproductive. This particular user clearly does not respond to subtlety, so I thought a very direct and clear message was in order in addition to the block itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help re: disruptive edits

Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in taking a side in this content dispute, but I did leave some remarks directed at both of you on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox, thought you may want to know my friend OW turned out to be a sock. Cheers,--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:CuteMice et al

I wouldn't consider it edit warring if you felt the {{Retired}} tags were inappropriate and removed them. I'd arrived at CuteMice by way of a "please delete my talkpage" speedy request (which I declined, obviously) and have no interest in the user or the tags either way. TFOWR 23:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I've pretty much run out of gas with Ratinator. I tried,but he does not seem capable of understanding most of what goes on at Wikipedia. It won't keep me up at night if his sock talk page is mis-labeled. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Hi, thank you for stopping by at the Rand Paul talk page. I was wondering if you might expand further at to the references that The Original Wikipedian is trying to add. More specifically can you state if they are RS or not. Thank you for your valuable time.--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a dedicated forum for discussing such matters at WP:RSN. I'm sure the Louisville Courier-Journal would be considered a reliable source, I'm not so sure abut the others. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20