User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

FlashTimeSD

Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. I'll stop nominating deletions until I have read up more on them, as I'm obviously not as well versed as I thought. Thanks again. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It takes time to get really familiar with all the ins and outs of the various criteria. I struggled with it myself for quite a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Solar Rocker

Quack, quack; user appeared on IRC in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and their IP is in the same range as Rat. Rat is currently unblocked, but Solar was editing on the 20th while he was still blocked. — The Earwig ^(talk) 16:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit this was a rather random thing to say, but I wanted to bring it to your attention, as you seem to have been somewhat involved with the Ratinator issue. Thanks for your time. — The Earwig ^(talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm inclined to say you are correct, but perhaps it would be good to actually take this to WP:SPI and ask for a WP:CHECKUSER to look into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Upon further review and in light of an email I received it is pretty obvious that is Ratinator again. And it does look like he technically violated WP:SOCK again, but rather than block outright I'm going to try one last time to get him into WP:ADOPT. There is definitely a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I requested adoption on my user page. Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 09:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues with this user now under discussion at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Looks like we may have some collateral damage here. Thanks for letting me know, Beeb. I'll unblock it, but if that IP acts up again, I can always reblock it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[1] --Deskana (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe it, but is there really enough there to establish a connection? Or did you do a CU? (hint, hint) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser was how I discovered that account. It's definitely him. --Deskana (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That pinches it then. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I wish things didn't have to end like this, but I have to admit I let out a sigh of relief when I saw you'd blocked him. --Deskana (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I even surprised myself with how far I pushed the bounds of AGF on this one, he certainly had enough chances to prevent this. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Slowed

So how much has Wikipedia slowed down? The Good Article project seems to be nearly inactive. It's not as much fun with fewer people. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW...

...no objection from me. TFOWR 06:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Message tags

Are editors allowed to remove message tags such as in the case of the Tahan article? Editors there keep removing the POV and other tags. I picked Tahan out of the Wikify list and did a lot of work to clean it up. I now want to wash my hands of that article but think someone should see what's going on there. Regards. Slightsmile (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Users can remove tags like that if the problem has been fixed, or if there is a consensus on the talk page that there is no problem. I don't really see either of those situations here, however, don't edit war over it, if it is being persistently removed you can request page protection or pursue dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is being persistently removed but like I said, I'm cutting my losses and not bothering with that page anymore. I don't need this. Thanks for looking into it. Slightsmile (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at deleted pages

What is the user status called when they can look at deleted pages and if so how can i get it? Kinds regards to you,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Only administrators can view deleted pages, and you have agreed not to pursue that particular user right for a while. If there is a specific deleted page you would like a copy of, there is a list at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles of users who will help out with that. Really, you need to stop trying to acquire status here, that's really not what this is all about. Concentrate on improving the encyclopedia, and if you demonstrate a good grasp of how to do that the advanced permissions and rights will follow. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ericstalin

And there are certainly Spaniards who would vote for Franco were he to come back to life. That doesn't mean I would find it an acceptable username for someone who didn't have it as their real name. Nor would Pol Pot be acceptable. You didn't seem to note that the Stalin (name) page lists only a couple of other people who have it as their first name, one guy who uses it as a pseudonym, and no one else who has it as their last names (his daughters certainly were never eager to keep using the name after his death). I found a little off-putting that the otherwise imaginatively funny '80s teen comedy Better Off Dead named its main villain Roy Stalin. I thought it was in bad taste even then.

Yes, some Russians have a soft spot for him (Hedrick Smith, in his excellent The Russians recounts the story some woman in Moscow told him about riding with a cabdriver who had a portrait of Stalin on the dashboard. She asked him why he had a picture of that "butcher". He said if he was a butcher, then she was riding with another butcher. "But he killed 20 million people!" she said. "Better he should have killed 30 million", he said. "Better he had killed you". Whereupon, I imagine, the ride ended). But Wikipedia, even the English Wikipedia, is edited by more than just Russians, it's edited by Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Ukrainians and other descendants of people dominated directly or indirectly by Stalin's Russia. How do you think they would feel about collaborating with an editor under that name?

And contrary to your understanding, opinions of Stalin were, at best, mixed in the West before the war. He had his no-omelet-without-broken-eggs apologists, but he had critics who saw him as he is seen now (One, Lady Nancy Astor, is supposed to have actually asked him during a visit to Moscow: "Mr. Stalin, when are you going to stop killing people?" to which he replied "When it is no longer necessary").

So I do not feel any reservation about suggesting that user rethink the choice of name. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, you have made a very good case for why you don't like this name. Like I said, I'm no fan of the man either, but your "discussion request" was a statement of your opinion of Stalin, not a statement of Wikipedia policy. It seems we are at an impasse on this matter, I think it may be time to utilize the oft-overlooked option of WP:RFCN. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that why I don't like the name is that it has the strong potential to produce disruption and impair editors'ability to work harmoniously. Nevertheless, I think RFCN is a good option; however I usually think that route works best when the user with the suspect name is able and willing to take part. Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You have Mail :-)

Sent you an email -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 07:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Read and  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mohsen Emadi

Hi Beeblebrox, I nominated this article for deletion, and after a long debate it was deleted, and again it was restored. Now, I surprised when I see that you just kept it. Honesty I don't have any personal interest here, despite being the subject of many personal attacks by the creator of the article like this. Could you explain me why the article should be kept? Thank you.Farhikht (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on the article itself, my task was interpreting the result of the debate. There was a debate at deletion review which you can see here :Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 15, that resulted in a decision to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsen Emadi (2nd nomination) for another week in order to seek a clearer consensus on the issue. There was little to no significant participation in the relisted debate, so I closed it with a result of "no consensus." As the original nominator you probably should have been informed about the deletion review and subsequent relist by the the user who opened the DRV. My suggestion to you if you still feel this should be deleted is to wait a while, at least a month or two, and renominate it if the issues that led to the first deletion nomination are not fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that my nomination was not refuted and after all the creator couldn't find any source for the article. And when the discussion was relisted, 2 users voted, and both were in favor of "Delete". Otherwise, how do you read this 2 comments?

• Comment - a classic example of how ISBN numbers are used as bookselling tools on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Only 4 Gbooks hits, 2 of which are from Books, LLC, which seems to publish copies of Wikipedia articles. Edward321 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's clear that the article should be deleted. If you don't think so, I try another DRV.Farhikht (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback taken off me

User now blocked for six months for incompetence

Hi there beeblebrox.If i promise not to even mention adminship for another year,would you please give me back my rollback and reviewer rights.Wikipedia is my life and without rollback i don't know what i will do for the next 5 weeks.Please.From callum,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Actions speak louder than words. We've already seen what a promise from you is worth. Work without rollback for a while and you can re-apply for it through the normal channels. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Please can you give me rollback rights back.How about this.If i make the following statement.If i ask to be an administrator in the rest of 2010 and early 2011,you can ban me indefinitely.I will really miss not having rollback.Now i know the consequences,i will be a lot more careful. Stop begging, you're embarrassing yourself. It's not just the adminship thing, it's your unwillingness to follow the advice that more experienced editors have given you and your apparent inability to comprehend many of our policies. Rollback is for trusted users, and that is not you at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I was under the impression that reviewer rights were supposed to be very hard to remove. We had an RfC a few months ago which ended up adding to Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Reviewing the statement "The permission is removed at the request of the user, the community, or the arbitration committee," with the implication that individual administrators could not remove it unless an open discussion showed that the user was abusing it. I have no opinion on rollback as Im not familiar with this user. —Soap— 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Soap, if I may be so bold, please check this section I added to Gobbleswoggler's talk page yesterday, regarding four recent edits in which GS removed the {{New unreviewed article}} tag from articles. I make no comment on what the community's expectation was or is regarding granting and removal of the reviewer right (I can see both sides of the issue) but I heartily endorse this specific removal. I doubt it will be hard to find a real consensus in support of it if such is requested.  Frank  |  talk  20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I admit I had missed that detail about removal of reviewer rights. Seems like pretty bad policy that any admin can grant it on a whim and it takes a discussion or ArbCom to take it away. Seeing as this is fairly new territory and policies are supposed to describe practice instead of dictate it, I don't feel particularly inclined to re-instate the user right given that the sentence right before the part about removing it says "They are expected to have a reasonable editing history, know what is and what is not vandalism, and be familiar with basic content policies." That obviously does not apply to Gobble. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Was there misuse of reviewer rights? Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I never said there was, and frankly I haven't checked. This is a user right that involves using judgement to determine what is and is not vandalism. It is painfully obvious that Gobble does not posses the judgement needed to make such decisions. He's just been asked again to explain yet another flawed vandalism reversion. Taking away these user rights was a softer option than blocking him outright for gross incompetence, but that option is still on the table as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC) You should not remove his reviewer right according to guidelines, this would be especially true if he has not misused it in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Already asked and answered above. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC) And see my comment to Soap, above, which does show incorrect review of new articles, which I wrote to GS about yesterday.  Frank  |  talk  21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, but that is not a misuse of the reviewer rights that have been removed from him, is it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Hi there again beeblebrox.I have come to the decision to just revert vandalism that i am absolutely certain on and only tag pages that i am certain on.I am deeply sorry for any disruption i have caused.I don't want to be blocked so i will stop asking to be an administrator.Once again,sorry for any inconvenience i have caused.All the best beeblebrox,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I think you should stop doing reversion altogether. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a good edit, a clumsy but made in good faith edit, and vandalism. That's exactly why I've been revoking your user rights. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Removal of reviewer rights requires community support. This is especially correct as you can not show he has misused those rights. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC) That's a real nice broken record you've got there. You want to discuss this further join me over at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes where I have opened a discussion about closing this particularly short-sighted loophole in the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I think this is an excellent example of what WP:IAR is for - the new rules regarding reviewership say that community support is needed for the removal of reviewer rights, and the spirit of IAR says to me that such a thing can be done if there is a clear probability that the community would support the removal, which I think it would. And as rules reflect what the community thinks and does, rather than dictate it, I think at this early stage a bold removal of rights is exactly the right thing to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I'm, in principle, in favour of the rule preventing any single admin from removing this flag, and requiring a community discussion or an ARBCOM decision, if the user doesn't agree with this removal; but, in my opinion, the spirit of the rule is to prevent retaliatory removals or removals only justified by one mild error. At least, that's how I interpret it. In this case I'm perfectly fine with Beeblebrox's choice to IAR and I endorse his actions. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, these comments in support and indeed Beeblebox's actions are respected and as the pending has been in action a month now there clearly is more understanding of its usage and I agree if the pending is extended then this is something to come back and discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, and to reply to Gobbleswoggler's comment that "Wikipedia is my life". I think that is the core of the problem - Wikipedia should not be anyone's *life*, especially not a 12-year-old's. It shows a serious lack of perspective, and I'd suggest you go do other stuff too, and dip into Wikipedia a lot less often than you are currently doing. (Because, seriously, if you don't start listening to what the adults here are telling you, you'll end up not being able to dip into it at all). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (ec)Gobbleswoggler really should stop asking to be an administrator for now. Grovelling, I mean. Pick yourself up off of the floor, man! If Rollback and Reviewer have both been taken away, the "bit" might not be for you just yet. Edit without those tools for awhile, and be patient until you can get them back... Doc9871 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Hi there beeblebrox,gobbleswoggler here.I will take your comments on in a positive way,Your comments have really made me think and have actually taught me a few things i didnt' actually know.As you could tell 2 or 3 months ago I worked on footballers appearances and goals.But been as it hasn't been the football season.I just wanted to know one thing.Is there a chance i will get rollback in the near future?All the best to you in the future,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Once you have edited for a while without rollback and demonstrated that you can tell what is vandalism and what is not you can apply for rollback in the normal manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mohsen Emadi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mohsen Emadi. 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. Farhikht (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 17:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lillian August Designs, Inc.

Article you deleted has just been re created. Mo ainm~Talk 21:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-deleted, user warned. Thanks for the tip. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They haven't listened article is back again :( Mo ainm~Talk 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping in case you missed the above note. Mo ainm~Talk 22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was giving them a moment since they added a hangon and made some minor changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

More than enough?

It was probably inevitable, but...isn't 6 months a bit more than enough? Personally I think any amount of time that got his attention would have been enough the first time, but...opinions may differ. I get that. Still - regardless of the time, I had issued him a specific note saying that the potential for blocking was there, and you blocked only 6 minutes later. I'm not complaining (really!), I'm not asking you to change it (we'll see what the reaction is), and definitely not accusing you of stepping on my toes. But...6 months?  Frank  |  talk  22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we have different perspectives on this. My initial instinct was to go for indef, or maybe a year. Gobble obviously can't take a hint. Or fifteen or twenty hints. He has been a net negative and a time sink for several users the past few weeks, and instead of improving he seems to find new things to screw up on an almost daily basis. I think both he and the project would benefit from an extended break from his cluelessness and inability/unwillingness to follow advice given in good faith. You'll have to forgive me though, it completely slipped my mind that you were also an admin, I thought I was the only one involved and thus the only one who would actually be able to issue a block. Didn't mean to step on your toes, I just wanted to put an end to the endless disruption this user has been causing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably 99.9% true, although he may not feel he is going to benefit. To reiterate, I'm not asking for any action. If a discussion winds up needing to be had, it will become clear soon enough. Re your second point; regardless of my admin status, I guess my point to you was he could have been given a few minutes (or ideally until his next edit) to absorb the reality that someone specifically told him he might be blocked. Nevertheless, no toe-stepping is inferred on my part.  Frank  |  talk  22:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Over on my Talk page I'd suggested going to ANI to propose a community ban, but I have to admit it was out of desperation - given that he hasn't listened to a single word anyone has said so far, I doubt it would have worked. What's the best duration for a block? Well, he's very young and is not going to change until he is significantly more mature, so even six years might not be enough. I don't like the idea of being hard on a young kid, but something absolutely had to be done to stop the damage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always a shame when we have to boot someone who is incapable of helping despite wanting to. I have the same problem in the real world, where I sometimes have to tell people that I actually know, and right to their face, that they are not preforming their job satisfactorily and they are being let go. I have had to do this with people who were my close personal friends but just couldn't grasp some of the finer points of our job. Sometimes they cry, sometimes they lash out at you or their co-workers, sometimes they accept it and go home. One guy got drunk and stole my car. Now that's really not a fun day for anyone involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear...

... regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DualLiner. Should I have tagged it as spam (I had already done so once, and it was recreated) simply because of the author of the page? The content this time around, while unnotable and insignificant, wasn't promotional in tone. Can we lean to G11 here because the intent was clearly spam? I don't usually do that, because not all admins honor it. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 15:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What is spam can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder. While the second version was better than the first, it's pretty clear that the intent here was to promote. As you say though, that approach will not work in every case. Sorry if that seems like a non-answer, due to the variable nature of attempts to use Wikipedia for advertising it's nearly impossible to have hard and fast rules about what is and is not spam. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is spam, about that I'm sure. But hell, I don't even really know what's in that!! As for the article, I was just curious; I'd rather not create an AfD if something will get speedied right away. Whatever, not a big deal. — Timneu22 · talk 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

Did you mean to protect this? It seems to have been protected for about 3 hours. Noloop (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where your getting that, it looks to me to have been protected for the last five days. Hopefully that was enough time to find some consensus and end the multi-page edit war. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Had it confused with Historicity of Jesus. Sorry. Noloop (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Easy to do. I protected that one as well, but after another request at RPP I agreed to reduce the time frame. At a glance it looks the article is still being edited heavily, but I'm not sure I see any serious problems right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Supercentenarian articles

Greetings,

Regarding the "redirect" of the J. Reeta Jones article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Reeta_Jones

It has been established custom to merge borderline-notable supercentenarian biographies to their pertinent ethnic/national article, such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spanish_supercentenarians

In this case, the List of American supercentenarians is a better redirect or merge, as it includes persons after they pass away AND these lists include biographical material.

As it stands, J. Reeta Jones is still alive, and is now the oldest living resident of North Carolina (she moved). Nyleptha Roberts of Tennessee died in May, age 112.Ryoung122 03:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All I did was close the AFD based on the consensus there. If there is a better target for the redirect feel free to retarget it. Oddly I was not aware of the precedent for targeting redirects of borderline-notable supercentenarian biographies, don't know how I could've missed that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Twinkle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Beeblerox,

I have apologised to that user, I posted the message to the incorrect user, I do realise that I misused Twinkle, I wanted to revert as many things as possible in order to reapply for a rollback rights review. I do realise I went crazy mad but did before in my first fourty Twinkle edits understand and utilise properly. May I please request humbly whether you would please be able to reinstate my priviliges to Twinkle and I 'give you my word' that I will utilise something that is not to be abused and be taken as a gimmick properly and fully understand that if you reinstate my priviliges back to me, the risk to me, the fact that I am responsible for my editing and the fact that I could be further blocked from even editing Wikipedia. I also understand to take time and care and that there is no rush when using twinkle and editing and should not rush to get rollback rights, I should show that I can do a good job, instead of making a high number of Twinkle edits. I hope that you will change your mind on this matter, something that is very important to me.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards,

--HelpingHandTalk 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you acknowledge the problem and are willing to alter your behavior, but it is too soon to gauge whether this will be a lasting change. Don't get all hung up on acquiring new user rights, that's really not what Wikipedia is all about. Once you have demonstrated that you have the judgement to do responsibly make the kind of edits that twinkle automates for you I'd be happy to remove you from the blacklist. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How many edits would you like me to make without Twinkle.

--HelpingHandTalk 08:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a sheer number of edits, what's needed is some indication that you are able to take it slow and make sure edits really are vandalism before reverting and warning. You seem to be doing ok so far using WP:LUPIN, keep that up for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Number 1, you never did mention to me about a adoption system and for your information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arbitrarily0#Request_for_adoption --HelpingHandTalk 16:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's good that you are seeking adoption, although that discussion seems a bit stale. You apparently forgot or did not notice when I mentioned it before [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It was, 'I decided not to notice. Anyway please have a look at my contribs is it any better?--HelpingHandTalk 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So, when you said before that I never mentioned it before that was... what? Not that I don't believe you have deliberately ignored good advice in your quest to gain status here, like by trying again to get Twinkle re-instated so soon. Pestering me about it every day or two is the least likely path to getting off the blacklist, as is continuing to try and end run that decision by requesting rollback. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way please stop refactoring my talk page to keep this thread at the bottom. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, I believe you refactored my talk page see link: Link to where Beeblebrox refactored my talk page.

--HelpingHandTalk 10:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hmmm, looks like a bit of reformatting. Not refractoring. Your text wasn't edited but a header was added for better visibility. Jarkeld (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that wasn't Beeblebrox refactoring anything he shouldn't, that was him amending his own comments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See, these petty attempts to wiki-lawyer and obfuscate with double talk and half truths are not advancing your cause. You have been asked to demonstrate some patience and some WP:COMPETENCE, and have instead demonstrated to my satisfaction that you do not posses either of these qualities. When you have managed to focus on improving the encyclopediafor a significant period of time (like way longer than a couple of days) instead of status seeking and flimsy arguments about who did what on a talk page get back to me. Until such time any further messages from you will be removed without being read. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ted Stevens talk page

Hi. I'm not sure whether my comment got caught in an edit conflict, or whether it was intentionally deleted. I reverted the talk page to restore my latest comment (simply reporting what was being reported as to the date of death), and in doing so, apparently deleted your contribution which came not longer after mine. My apologies. However, if you did intend to delete my comment, would you mind explaining why? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That would most likely be the result of an edit conflict, I did not intentionally remove any comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That appears to have been the case. Someone else has restored both of our comments. Sorry for the confusion. I guess that happens when so many people are working on something at once. Best, JTRH (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

tb

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

- Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:User_talk:Itsbydesign

I've unblocked the user, as admin X! notes that they are potentially inactive till Jan 2011, thus with no evidence and an inconclusive SPI I felt the block should be lifted. I left my full rationale for the unblock at User_talk:X!#User_requesting_unblock.. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Alaska

Hi. I saw this. Last time I looked, Alaska was the only US state where airplane fatalities were more than car fatalities, if I recall correctly. Love to go there some time. --John (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I used to tell people all the time how great it is here. Then I lived here for a while and I really got it™. Now I tell people how horrible it is that every time I come out of my igloo a polar bear has killed all my sled dogs... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I only really know it from my interest in aviation and from watching Northern Exposure. Is it really like that show, if you saw it? --John (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of it, like moose walking right through the middle of town, is accurate. Most of the rest of it, not so much. Although the town where I live is a bit bigger than the fictional town in the show. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

GCPC

Can you cut and paste the content of GCPC to my page, it was deleted before I even saw what the content was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Could you explain what's going on here? I removed all the redlinks per WP:DABRL and it was speedied, and now User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has recreated it. It no longer has redlinks, because he's created redirects for some of the links simply to preserve them. For example, Grain Crude Protein Concentration has been created purely so that that is not a redlink, but itself just redirects to grain which redirects somewhere else. And is it valid to list things like "Green Cross Patient Cooperative of Seattle, Washington" on a DAB page? Surely, they are just for things we have articles on? Thanks, Chris (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(replied at AFD Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

Comment on my page

Hello there, thanks for commenting on my page. In response to your comment, I was just replying to the user in Russian as a response to his earlier never-ending reverts [3]. But you're right, I should have kept my replies in English. In the reverts, he tried to undermine the reality depicted in the picture captioning the cemetery in the picture as "abandoned cemetery" when in fact the cemetery is in the occupied territory of Azerbaijan and has been looted, destroyed (grave stones vandalized) and burned (obvious signs of arson). The burning of Agdam by Armenian troops in the past few years have been in the news. So this once again confirms the reality.

On his talk page I tell him: I think you should take a look at the picture of the cemetery on page Agdam. I reckon signs of vandalism and arson are quite obvious.

And he replies: On your photo it is clear that the cemetery is QUITE ALRIGHT. Just a regular abandoned cemetery. All gravestones are COMPLETE. Maybe you're disturbed by the burned grass? The grass in all Karabakh regularly burns (which is untrue - my comment) and you are aware. You try to present fake facts. Your reverts are wrong. It is time you stop.

And I reply to him: It's not the first time I heard that. It is very clearly seen how everything is indestructive state rather than abandoned. Grass, woods, plains burned for quite some time and not in all Karabakh but specifically in Agdam district. All of this was in the news. Here is a recent one [4], [5], [6], [7]. You can also use translate.google.com for translations. Apart from that, he kept on vandalizing the pages changing the official information. The comment from the administrator on his talk page is correct.  Anastasia  04:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I did try Google translate but it is not very good with Russian sometimes. Thanks for providing those. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cherrytree Sessions (Lady Gaga EP)

Could you unprotect this so that it can be redirected to The Cherrytree Sessions, which I have recreated now that the subject meets notability criteria? Thank you. –Chase (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mailbox

Please check it.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I already took care of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be...

...mad about "tit" because they're so nice LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be making an absurd number of absurd typos lately, and I never catch the ones in edit summaries until it's too late. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

After the fun yesterday - which stupidly continued into today, I needed that typo-instigated laugh. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, yeah, you have fun with that. I've just had three long sagas with clueless editors that all ended in blocks after ages of discussion, attempts at mentoring, and so forth. I surprised myself with how far I stretched AGF with those three. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember all 3 of those ... um ... editors. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Related to that "fun" of mine ... I'm more than a little p'd about the copy/paste from my talkpage to theirs - plus the addition of the NPA I had removed multiple times from my own talkpage. Any clue that you might like to apply - based also upon their ANI update today? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Point still stands.

By packing it in, he's doing exactly what the other guy wants. I'm not going to waste time with flowery prose: The other guy got what he was looking for and PMDrive gave it to him. Equally classy. This is someone who can't even deal with the fact that someone is taunting him on outside websites.

If that's all it takes for him to pack it in, then Wikipedia has lost nothing.

On the other hand, if he can grow himself some spinal structure and just ignore the little creep, that would be good, too. My primary interest is in not letting him let the other guy win. HalfShadow 23:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

None of that comes anywhere close to exempting you from WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• There you are. Sometimes you just have to give 'em a good solid kick and tell them they're being dumb. It might be rude, but it works. HalfShadow 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

it was funny, and probably the right thing to do--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Homer, Alaska

Thanks for your comments on my photos from Homer. I actually live in Anchorage, but have always enjoyed coming down to Homer. This was my third trip down and I leave later this morning. That editor that asked for the pictures sure wants a lot of them. LOL. I wonder how many people feel that editor kind of has a sense of entitlement when it comes to her requests. Oh well, its all good. Again, thanks for your kind words. AlaskaMike (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Poker Career

I don't know; I think that was a valid entry for lame edit wars. I mean seriously, no one thought of combining the words. It made me laugh in any case, so thanks for that. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I wanted to thank you for everything and i assure you that i will never screw up again and you have my word on that. I also wanted to ask you if you could help me change my user name because i want to leave the troubled past behind. Thank you and cheers. Mario1987 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can change your username by either requesting a new username at WP:CHU or by creating a new account. If you choose to let a bureaucrat do it for you under your current username, your whole editing history will be transferred over to your new username. If you create a new account, you'll have a clean, new account with no history at all. Or maybe you just want to have your username changed? /HeyMid (contributions) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, since Beeblebrox is not a bureaucrat, he can't change your username. Like I said, ask for a new username at WP:CHU or create a new account. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHU/SIMPLE is supposedly easier to use. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks allready done it. BineMai 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Category additions

It would probably be a good idea to wait for the AN discussion (and likely-inevitable CFD) to run its course before adding this to users' pages. –xeno^talk 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't think everyone would get so upset about this. As has been pointed out, we already list them, and I think getting unbanned is usually no easy task and actually reflects positively on most users who manage it, but apparently others don't see it that way. I have an interest in seeing what happens to users who managed to get indef blocks and bans removed, as it seems that a lot of them kind of go away after they "win" their battle to be unblocked, and this was only intended to aid in tracking who stayed, who left, and who went and got themselves banned again. But your right, it looks like this is going to be at CFD very soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not upset, and I don't think it was your intent to start a shitstorm, or even to brand users with a scarlet letter. As indicated at WP:AN, I just think you haven't fully thought this through. –xeno^talk 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I came here to give notice that I was going to CfD it. While I know that there might be a useful discussion at AN, I thought perhaps a CfD would get a wider range of views (specifically, non admin). As it is, I will not do so until the discussion at AN concludes - there is no point in having two debates ongoing. The other reason for coming here was to advise that there is no personal point in my disliking the category; I am of the mind that you always act in what you believe to be the best for the project, and I just happen to disagree with the specific in this matter. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, based on the reception of the category thus far I've partially vacated it (except for those users including it with the template) with a note to the users that the category may be available as an opt-in category at a later date. –xeno^talk 00:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, a few other users have made some assumptions of bad faith on my part in the various discussions despite the fact that I have endeavored at every turn to make it clear what was intended and the fact that I invited input pretty much instantly after creating the cat and the template. It's hard not feel personally attacked when you see remarks like "I think Beeblebrox got too "over-excited" when he unblocked the user, and thought this was a fun idea. " or "This unsavoury and mean spirited category can only serve to create division and ill will." Oh well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think either of those !votes needed to be worded in that manner. (For what it's worth I was more referring to the reception of the category from banned users themselves, 2 to 1 disfavoured in early exit polls =) –xeno^talk 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I'm not in any way annoyed, here. But this and the list are not good things. There are other, official, places such things are documented. I'll not be keeping the category or template for long. No sure which way Xeno is counting me, above; I've not gone and looked at what the others are saying. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Formerly banned users

Category:Formerly banned users, 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. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unbanned

Template:Unbanned has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. /HeyMid (contributions) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Self requested block

Could you please block me for a year? Thank you Sodam Yat (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, please make that two years. Again, thank you Sodam Yat (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You do seem to meet my criteria, but since this by far the longest request I have received so far I would like you to re-confirm that you have read the conditions and understand that you will be hardblocked and not able to appeal the block or otherwise edit your talk page or use Wikipedia email for the entire two years. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand that I'll be hardblocked for a period of two years, unable to use my talk page or e-mail. Thank you for making sure, though. It reinforces the respect I have for you. See you in two years... Sodam Yat (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand vs. CSS

You might find this amusing.[8]. I noticed your new category, looked at the page involved, noticed that the page had text off the edge, and fixed the HTML code to not use absolute positioning, pulling the message back onto the text pane. Δ (talk · contribs) didn't like that. I can see his desire to de-emphasize his block history, but pushing it off the edge of the page was a unique approach. It's probably more ineptitude than malice, given his track record of mediocre 'bot programming. I won't pursue the issue. --John Nagle (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Southwestern Bell => Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

If you think anybody would need a discussion about moving the article to its true lemma Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (and turn Southwestern Bell into a WP:D for both Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell Corporation), just put a {{hangon}} onto Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. --Jhartmann (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In a word, no. The hangon tag is used if the page's creator objects to the deletion. I was reviewing the nomination in my capacity as an administrator and declined it, although you do not have to be an admin to decline a speedy anyway. You reverted me and now another admin has declined it again. So, please don't add it again. Pursue a discussion on the talk page and/or list it requested moves instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick Witted

Mind checking the user's other contribs? Olimar the Skunk is obviously made up and it's been around here since March. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Was just noticing that their talk page now redirects there as well, that's not cool. I take a look around. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And now I've deleted pretty much everything they have ever contributed because it was all a bunch of nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:FYI

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at TomStar81's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

List of airlines in Alaska

Re your removal of redlinked / deleted entries - wouldn't it be better to list them and have a ref that they exist (if a deleted article). Other redlinks should remain to encourage article creation, should they not? Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If they were deleted via AFD, then there is a consensus that they were not a notable airline. However upon taking a closer look at least one of the entries I removed did have a ref, so I'll restore that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion via AfD means that the airline is not notable enought to sustain an article. It does not mean that the airline isn't notable enough to be mentioned in an area-specific list of airlines. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is how we define "airline" in a state with literally hundreds of small air carriers. Generally local air taxi or flightseeing operations are not considered airlines. I have tried numerous times over the past two years to refine the definition of "airline" and this is the only statement one could make that reflects a consensus of those discussions, most if not all of which you participated in as well. If it's not really an airline, it shouldn't be on the list of airlines. The only other alternative is to list every single one of the several hundred air operations in Alaska, which would violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Arctic Thunder Air Show image tweak

{{helpme}} Need someone with good formatting skills to help with this. I've got an image in the infobox, but the box is bigger than the image. What I'm trying to achieve is to not shrink the picture down to where you can't tell what it is while at the same time reducing the extra-large infobox. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Template:Infobox Airshow is naturally that big. So, I made the template smaller. —fetch·comms 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

huh. OK, works for me, thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride

Just letting you know, you put your oppose in the neutral section. Aiken ♫ 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DOH! I was getting repeated edit conflicts, guess I got in too much of a hurry... Thanks for the tip! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Aviation in Alaska

Category:Aviation in Alaska, 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. Pichpich (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

user:Penroseabc

I have no ojection to an unblock. With a little luck he may have got the message. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll let him loose and we'll see where it goes... Thanks for the reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IP block

Can you hide the visibility of the Special:Contributions/134.76.247.2 please. Would prefer not to check out the site mentioned and the other one looks less than pleasant. It was the same on Commons - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard william Aguirre

This is a request to have the page for Richard William Aguirre published. It was removed during the 2010 Democratic Primary for political reasons. Richard William Aguirre was the runner up to Jerry Brown in the 2010 California Democratic Gubernatorial Primary, and a very popular California political figure. He has over 200,000 followers on twitter, and hundreds of articles written about him. Please advise on how to have this page restored to published. Thank you. Sdpolitics (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a few issues here. First, please add new messages at the bottom of talk pages, it's only happenstance that I even saw this as I was looking back at an old thread near the top. Now for the article itself, it was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard William Aguirre (2nd nomination) and that decision was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 27. It was recreated at some point and again discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard William Aguirre (3rd nomination) which closed with a result to redirect it to California gubernatorial election, 2010. With all that discussion behind it you are going to need to make a pretty compelling case to split it back off into a separate article. How many fans he has on Twitter is not going to be considered. I see you had this userfied at some point but it is now a redirect as well. I suggest you edit User:Sdpolitics/Richard William Aguirre into an appropriate article that cites multiple reliable sources and when you are done propose at Talk:California gubernatorial election, 2010 that it be split off again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Freakshownerd

I'm going to be out on a camping and canoeing trip till approximately next Tuesday, so whatever shouting match/dramafest breaks out over this block is going to have to go on without me. I already said everything I have to say about it anyway, just leaving this as a placeholder in case it goes to ANI as predicted at the SPI case. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, its a brave move and one which I support, have a enjoyable travels. Should you add a template to his talkpage informing him? Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying Group F page protection

Hello there. I just wanted to discuss the full protection of the Group F page that you imposed after an IP user requested it. I think that your action might have been a little... harsh.
IP users adding live scores is a staple of the international football pages, and has been for all the years that I've been on Wikipedia. Someone always does it for at least one of the group pages on every matchday, and all the establishes users revert it and that person either gives up or the matches finish anyway. It's not really edit warring, so much as reverting a minor form of vandalism which is factually correct but against wiki's rules.
In any case, the very definition of this live score "edit warring" is that it only happens during matches. Once the matches are over, the page is updated to record the match results and scorers and there is no further issue. Updating scores after matches is very much the raison d'être of the page. What it seems you have done is to take a guaranteeably temporary minor 1-IP edit conflict and extended it to completely shut down a page on it's opening weekend. I would suggest that this is bit of an overreaction.
Semi-protection would have been more appropriate, but there are many useful IP edits on the football pages over a matchday and it would be unfair to block these users over a point of technicality which lasted 8 edits over a period of an hour. In any case, full protection stops absolutely everyone involved making any changes to a page for a currently active event; a page which is one of at least 10 that will have exactly the same potential minor issue at least twice over the next 6 days. If you feel that all these pages should be semi-protected for the next 7 days then that would technically be helpful, but as it would be against the spirit of Wikipedia I would not even feel comfortable about asking for that. I would simply ask that you remove protection from the page so that users can continue updating it.
Thank you. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. The current status prevents readers from getting accurate and updated information. Is that what Wikipedia for?--Nitsansh (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, no that is not what Wikipedia is for. This is not a newspaper or ESPN, it's an encyclopedia. Edit warring is not acceptable no matter the reason. Technically I could have blocked both the ip and Aheyfromhome for edit warring (it's literally impossible for one user to edit war despite your claim to the contrary) and of course adding semi protection would give the Ahey the upper hand in the edit war, so really this was the only "soft" option left.Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the game is apparently over for now I have lifted the protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you imply that there's no room for any article on current sports events in WP? This could be a reason for deletion of thousands of such pages. You may be surprised, but I often find WP a more useful source than any sports news website... the way many of these pages are edited and formatted in WP gives much more information on sports events, whether they are past, present or future. If you're going to suggest deletion of such pages, I will be strongly against it, and I guess I won't be alone...--Nitsansh (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

With due respect... It appears to me that you went by the rulebook and didn't examine the facts thoroughly... 2 days are by no means a "fairly short time" when a match that lasts less than 2 hours is concerned...--Nitsansh (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I was proposing deletion of anything, I never said anything of the kind. Thank you for admitting I went by the rules, which require me to be an expert on the protection policy, not the subject matter of the article on which protection is being requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I apparently misunderstood the phrase "To be blunt, no that is not what Wikipedia is for", so I appologize for those remarks. As an expert of the rules, which I admit I'm not... what do you suggest an editor should do in case that he sees an editor repeatedly makes edits that are against the consensus of this type of articles, without getting into an edit war that may lead to full protection? I don't think preventing any edits is the solution for this, as it freezes the article in an out-of-date (or more precisely, out-of-time) version for too long. These situations are quite frequent in sport events articles and I don't recall full-protection being imposed in other cases.--Nitsansh (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the point to any of it. Wikipedia is really not the best place to look for up-to-the-minute sporting information. So, while I don't see any need to update scores on a moment-by-moment basis, I also don't see any harm in just ignoring it until the game is over and then updating with a reliable source once the final score is in. The only other option I guess would be to request pending changes protection for the times the game is scheduled for, once an edit war is already underway full protection is pretty much the only tool left on the shelf. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pending Changes could be an appropriate solution for these cases. What is the process of requesting PC? Is it a time-related solution, IE it can be set for specific dates and times? (for example Sep 14 from 8.45 to 10.45 PM). BTW: What are the criteria for the status of reviewer and how does a user becomes one?--Nitsansh (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Click here for information pending changes and here for information on reviewing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you were very helpful. --Nitsansh (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, new Oversighter

Congratulations, your Oversight rights are activated and ready for use.

Before use, please ensure you are familiar with our Oversight policy and our privacy policy

The list administrator for Oversight-l has been informed of your new status and will allow you to join the list.

If you use IRC, please contact an op for access to #wikimedia-privacy. Your local project may have its own oversight channel also, but heck if I know what it'd be!

Again, congratulations. Kylu (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish people

Hello, there are some links about Turks, Turkish people meanings below,

→ From the official site of Turkish Language Association (tr: Türk Dil Kurumu) What does Türk mean?

→ Here is the Microsoft translated link of the related page above; Microsoft translation

For reasons already explained, I declare that changes made by Justin84 are inadmissible changes on en.wikipedia project and such edits can even be counted as a policy misuse._(NPOV) To your attention. Thank you. —CnkALTDS 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know or care about the details of the actual content dispute. My only involvement was protecting the page to stop edit warring. "Policy misuse" is not a listed exemption to the policy on edit warring. Again I suggest you pursue some form of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Al rite, thought that you were gonna care the content dispute. I do know about the policy you mentioned on your message. Thank you anyways. Happy editing! —CnkALTDS 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Climate Group

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Eamondevalera2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hi, I left a message for you about the Climate Group entry on my talk page.

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Eamondevalera2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your inputs. I think the Climate Group is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. I'll take another crack at it - things have also changed with the Group since I last attempted to edit the page to make a more appropriate entry, so I may just start again, but this time I will work from a document that I save in a separate place in case the PR people change it again, and if they persist I shall as you suggested seek dispute resolution or page protection, as I have in the past asked the people to join in the discussion but they have not done so (they just make changes and run away!).

Deja vu all over again

Does this look familiar? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty funny Ron, because you forgot to sign this. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

oh, and yes, it looks very familiar. After yet another loooong discussion on the subject we came up with.... no new guideline specifically for airlines, yet folks still insist on making them up out of thin air. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, the newer conversation was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course when I !voted "delete" in the third AFD for Alaska seaplane I was applying what I call the "Pluto test". It was unlikely that it passed WP:CORP so the only question left was "is it unique". (yes I know that's not a guideline) Example, a man with two noses might be notable if he's the only person (or one of few) in the world who has two noses but not if they're millions of people with two noses. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps wrong interpretation

Hi. Wrt your message here, a Saint is different from a Hindu saint. A Hindu saint (or Sant) is any "good person". There are notable Hindu saints. But a Hindu saint, in general, is in no way a qualification of notability. I request you to kindly re consider your decision to decline the speedy, or leave a note on my talk page on why I should extend deletion discussions beyond a CSD and involve many more editors effort and time to consider this article. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid deletion by that criterion the article does not have to prove notability, just make some sort of claim of notability. You can use WP:PROD if you are so very concerned about using up other users time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's basically the issue of interpreting any individual's biography where the claim is of his being a Hindu 'sant'. Culturally, I wouldn't consider a claim of being a Hindu saint as being a claim of notability, though I would consider a claim of being a saint as being a claim of notability. But that's, as I mentioned, culturally speaking. Irrespective of the fact that I do believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of this claim of notability, I would prod the article. Thanks for the reply and best regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

[ps: I additionally corrected an internal link you had put in the article which was not appropriately directed. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)]

• Hi Beeblebrox. I have placed a query at the Village Pump for getting other editors' inputs for my future assistance on the notability claim of Hindu saints. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your views on the Village Pump discussions. As per your guidance, I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:CSD too. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

note

I saw the little exchange on FisherQueen's talk page, which was on my watch list for reasons I don't recall now. Buddy asked him pretty much the same question he asked me. I've already been yelled at today on the ref desk talk page about it. If you would like to get further into the issue of how to deal with LC's socks, please go to the ref desk talk page. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

List of people killed by dogs in the United States

Hi! When the first closure discussion completed, I copied the closure discussion to the talk page since I'd seen that done on a different article, and then submitted a request to rename (move) the article as I had proposed in the first closure discussion. The admin who re-opened the closure discussion didn't post a notice on the article or its talk page that the discussion had been re-opened, so I didn't think anything unusual had happened when the page was subsequently moved (I assumed it had been done by an admin). I put the archival notice around the move discussion after the page moved but didn't realize the closure discussion had been re-opened. When I realized the discussion had been re-opened but then closed again with a different result, I copied the new closure discussion and replaced the original closure discussion on the talk page. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion. Astro$01 (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no real harm done. There was some sloppy admin work on that first close, and the rename discussion was a little rushed, but if there are strong objections to it it can always be reversed later. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Runway Show

Hey why im a been flag for my article once again ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckhartjimenez (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Non-notable and it's only source was its own website. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL

LeftyLarry7687 (talk · contribs) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

heh

Good one. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a roll... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One World Children's Fund

Could you take a look at this article? It cites only one independent source, and the rest are really just external links. The only reason I haven't tagged this article for deletion is that it claims to be a charity. --Confession0791 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to talk to them, but as you can see it didn't turn out too well and the article is now at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of an AFDed article

You were the admin who closed and deleted Chimes Aviation Academy after it's AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimes Aviation Academy. It has now been recreated using apparently copyrighted text, as taged by a bot. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it ha already been dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Triton Rocker

I just reverted to your last unblock denial and protected the page for the duration of the block. Triton can ping me through email if he wants that undone earlier.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou

For this posting, I'd had a pretty bad day but it still made me laugh quite a lot :) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes when something is getting that absurd the only course of action is to get more absurd. Glad you enjoyed it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Freakshownerd Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

user name

What's your opinion of a user ID called Necro Butcher (Peace Be Upon Him) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Is this some obscure (to me) pop culture reference? Or is it a slam of Muhammad? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It definitely strikes me as a name designed to offend Muslims, whether it is a pop-culture reference or not. However, I am a bad judge of what is a blockable offense in that area as I enjoy making fun of organized religion myself. Not that I actually find this name funny, it's just weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ask before turning it in. And I don't have problems making fun of anything, but there's a time and place (not that I always get that time and place right). But wikipedia isn't necessarily it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem needlessly insulting to Muslims, I guess the question is whether to go to UAA or add {{uw-username}} to their page. Often just asking them to change it is enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked him to explain it. We'll see what happens. The mental picture I get from that ID is someone hacking someone else to death. And then the morbid side really kicks in, with the victim's tombstone, as per a very old joke, reading: "Rest in Pieces". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

After looking over some edits I wonder if the username is really the only problem. He seems quite fixated on making sure anything that was remixed for the Dancemania Speed series has a link in it's article. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look at any of his edits, only the overall contrib list, which all or most seemed music related. If he's posting a spam link, that could be double trouble (for him). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to all be internal linking anyway. I've got this sudden urge for lamb chops, rare... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's all internal linking, the other problem might be reliable sourcing. But we'll see. Lamb chops? I rarely order thm. But when I do, I'm sure to get Hush Puppies on the side, and try not to get a Charley Horse dashing to the restaurant. :) [Speaking of obscure references.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the explanation: User talk:Necro Butcher (Peace Be Upon Him)

He says it has do with a wrestler or something, and it's a temporary account because he's on a different PC and doesn't recall the password to his primary account (what he'll do when he gets logged out someday is anyone's guess). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Moose

I noticed you archived Talk:Moose on May 29th but I can't find a link to the archive on that page. Am I blind? Weetoddid (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I always thought adding archive links to {{talkheader}} was a bad idea for exactly this reason, they are very easy to miss, whereas {{archives}} is hard to miss. Anyway, they are linked near the top of the page, latest archive is Talk:Moose/Archive 2. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Thanks for that. I do care. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack Thompson's disbarred

How abut we come to a compromise with anon troll "...far too stupid poopy head to understand he's been disbarred"? MartinSFSA (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Avera and Inward

I'm sorry, but why did this initial attempt not have enough context? I explained that these were feudal duties, said what sort of duties they were, categorised them under Feudal duties, gave a reference supporting the content and an edit comment "More needed". I really don't see what more I should have done, short of coming back to add more content, which I was going to do but find it's all deleted. I really don't think this is the sort of welcome you want to be giving people. Avera Inward (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary that it "needs more" was a bit of an understatement. The previous version of the article was "Avera' and Inward (or Inguard) are feudal services on a royal demesne connected with carrying items by horse," A single sentence that does not make sense to the average reader. It sat in this state for about 55 minutes before being deleted. Context needs to be established in the actual article text, you can't just post something that means essentially nothing to someone unfamiliar with feudal duties. As all that was lost was one unclear sentence it does not strike me as a particularly big loss for the project. Many new users rush into creating new articles before they are fully aware of our policies and the criteria for speedy deletion, and unfortunately the deletion of a user's first contributions is often the result. Frankly I can't make any real sense out of the current version of the article either. Nowhere is it explained what feudal duties or feudal services actually are, and those of us that are not familiar with the intimate details of English feudalism would be hard pressed to decipher any meaning at all in the article. Placing it in a category without explaining the meaning of the category does nothing to rectify this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think you're saying that you don't know what feudal duties or feudal services are and that that's my fault and so I should be given less than an hour to do better. "One unclear sentence" is untrue and insulting. Did you notice that the article was placed in the correct category and had a reference available on Google books? I look forward to your deletion of Quantaloid, Chelodes, Slifting, articles which might seem equally obscure. Did it occur to anyone to say "Welcome, thanks for your article, I didn't quite understand it. could you expand it please"? No, just a hearty kick in the teeth. What a welcome -- I doubt I'll bother to come back. Avera Inward (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are making way too big of a deal about this. The article as originally posted lacked sufficient context to identify the subject, it therefore failed to meet our minimum standards for inclusion. As I said before, context must be established in the article text so that readers know what the article is about. This is a completely separate issue from sourcing or categorization. Notice that, despite what you seem to be implying, these are criticisms of the article not criticisms of you as a person. Things get edited, merged, split in two, completely rewritten, and so forth constantly on Wikipedia. Nobody kicked you in the teeth, you were in fact welcomed, and a notice was placed on your talk page explaining what the problem was with the article. If you had asked, I am almost always willing to provide copies of deleted articles to anyone who asks for them as long as they do not contain copyright violations. Since the article was not protected from being recreated it was simple matter for you to start over, which you did and the article is still there at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Plausible search term

This redirect is close to outing if it is a real name which is denied and disputed, there are claims that it originates from its uncited addition to this wikipedia and if it is presently restricted from the article then imo we should not support keeping the redirect, would you please reconsider? Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it reconsidering really since it was only nominated as a broken redirect, which it obviously is not, and none of this other stuff was mentioned at all. In the future consider using {{db-reason}}, which allows you to fill in your own reasons for speedy deletion in a case where it does not fit any of the existing criteria. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, appreciated, in future I will use db-reason, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 16 September 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. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously.

<eyeroll>.

Point, click, and block.

You DON'T intimidate me by threatening to block me.

DO IT ALREADY and SHOVE IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.66.109 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to intimidate you, I was trying to help you understand that you were taking the wrong approach and it would not lead to the article saying what you wanted it to say. Since you are obviously not receptive to that message I have granted your request to be blocked. Obviously, returning to that same editing pattern after the block expires will lead to you being reblocked for a longer period of time, and probably prolonged protection of the article as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision History

Could you hide the revision history for Jennette McCurdy for a couple of events? Her page is increasingly attacked by vandals. Thanks. --Confession0791 ^talk 22:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It mostly looks like fairly standard juvenile vandalism to me. I've protected the page for while to try and discourage the vandals. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

An article is not considered to be properly categorized if it has a stub template but no real content categories, because the stub template is meant to be removed from the article once it's expanded beyond stub length. The rule is that an article is considered uncategorized if it doesn't have at least one non-stub category on it in addition to any temporary stub categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to that rule? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized: Articles with only stub categories still need to be included in non-stub categories.

What I should point out that there is a separate template, {{uncategorized stub}}, that's designed for when an article has a stub template but no real content categories — however, at present the Uncategorized Articles list, where I've been trying virtually singlehandedly to control and whittle down a backlog that stood at over 42,000 articles two months ago and is still persistently stuck at over 20,000, fails to recognize that template when distinguishing between "tagged" and "untagged" articles. I've already asked the maintainer of that list to update his programming so that {{uncategorized stub}} counts as being tagged — but until he actually does so, using {{uncategorized}} is the only way to keep an article from reappearing on that list again the next day.

But the important thing to remember is that stub templates add articles to maintenance categories from which they will eventually be removed; they don't count as content categories any more than Category:Wikipedia articles needing context would, because their primary purpose isn't the end user. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I figured anyone who managed to fix up the article so that it was no longer a stub would know to change it to a normal content category. I'll just keep plugging away adding content categories in that case. I do have one other question though, does AWB have to add all that whitespace when adding a tag? I'm using HotCat to add categories and remove the uncategorized tag but it doesn't do anything about all the whitespace. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think AWB and HotCat don't always work together very well when it comes to that — in my experience, the combination of the two of them making successive edits does sometimes exacerbate the amount of whitespace that results. AWB usually only adds one or two lines on each side of the template, which isn't particularly extreme by itself — but for reasons I haven't quite been able to identify, HotCat sometimes (not always) throws the new category at the very bottom of the page below the interlangs instead of putting it right where the template was, and then replaces the template with yet another blank line instead of pulling the stuff below the template up a line or two.

I do try to correct the whitespace whenever I can, though, but AWB's edit window can also a bit deceptive at times as to how much whitespace is going to be there when you look at the page afterward. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Minorville, Florida

Regarding the article Minorville, Florida; 1)It's not for a road, but is actually for a section of Ocoee, Florida. 2)The creator of the aritcle did have some sources and additional material, but he put them on the talk page in an unorganized manner. 3)I've actually read about Minorville in other locations. I'll try to find out if I saw it where I think I did, but even if I didn't the article would probably be better off being merged into Ocoee. ----DanTD (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically the same answer as below, if you can find sources to support the content that's great. If the project would be better served by merging it that's fine with me too. I've undertaken a rather gargantuan task that will probably never be done so I won't be real involved in the follow up on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Page header

Deletion of this article, without debate, or a chance to fix it, would result in many broken redirects. So I removed your prod. Can we discuss it here? Bearian (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. Page footer probably should be merged into it, too. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been slogging my way through some of the tens of thousands of uncategorized articles and trying to categorize them. In the process I have come across quite a number of unsourced stubs that have been that way for five or six years, and have been prodding them. However, I would imagine this could be sourced if somebody would bother to do it, that would address my concerns. The merger is a fine idea as well, and would probably make it easier to source both topics. Understand that as I am sorting through thousands of articles I won't be doing this follow up myself, but I'm ok with you removing the prod if you intend to fix the problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Dutch foredrummers hurricane season

Thanks for catching that. I deleted the article, since it was an obvious hoax. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty sure it was as soon as I saw it, but I've been wrong before, so I went in search of experts. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20