User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Possibly unfree File:Cardinicaeser.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cardinicaeser.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Flying under the radar

Hi Beeb. I like it very much. I've made some additional suggestions. I think these are ideas that need some active development. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem is I can't come up with wording that is clear but doesn't come off like a threat. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Message in a bottle

I'd like somebody with a mop to observe the discussion going on at Talk:Social Democratic Party of Croatia. I'm not asking for admin action but I'd like somebody other than Balkan editors to observe it because I fear User:DIREKTOR might do what he has been doing for years, i.e. report me at ANI on distorted charges. I was not around when he drove away User:Fainites but it seems he feels comfortable resorting to his old bullying ways because he thinks no trustworthy admin is watching him. I've been around a pretty long time, I've had no such problems with anyone apart from him and I feel this is a long term problem of an abusive and destructive editor with OWN and DISRUPT issues gaming the system and getting away with it. The only reason I'm talking to you is because you do not seem to be buying his victimisation stories he consistently presents at ANI. If you are not interested in helping out or if you think this is canvassing and as such compromises my grievances please direct me to a proper person or venue because I do not wish to endure his belittling and distortions any longer. Just don't tell me to keep away from him because this is not as much my problem as it is Wikipedia's. Nobody who gets into a dispute with him trusts admins at ANI anymore so I'd rather avoid that place altogether if possible. I hope you understand. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kenai Peninsula Orchestra

Hello! Your submission of Kenai Peninsula Orchestra at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on Hulu by vintage years

Can you put MTDP on Hulu (without DVD) by vintage years because it's no place like watching and I have nothing to lose. 74.72.39.176 (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you are asking. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, is to put the old MTDP vintage years on Hulu Internet TV and it's no place like watching and I don't like new ones, I like old ones to see it I said. 74.72.39.176 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think anyone here can influence what is and is not available on Hulu I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. That's really all I can tell you because I still can't understand what it is you want or why you think I am the person to do anything about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

How to handle socks?

Hi Beeb. Remember blocking User:George SJ XXI a short while back? Well, he's back - Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington#Wellington was an Irishman (redux) - he's using IPs each day (who else would be pro-Irish @ iiNet, Perth, Australia), removing {{spa}} tags that I added, etc. Is there anything can be done? I doubt I can request a semi-block on article to prevent anon edits due to lack of edit warring (made one attempt only [1]), and seeing as his IP is dynamic, blocking one soon has no effect. And I know you're opposed to summarily shooting people like this.. ;) - seriously though, he's being evasively disruptive now, still flogging the same dead "Irish" horse. I've flagged each IP as a sock suspect, but it's hardly doing any good. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:36, 16 October 20 11 (UTC)

Subtlety is really not his strong point is it? Only thing I can think of is a rangeblock, which I unfortunately do not know how to do as it is a rather technical procedure. Maybe a post at WP:AN asking for a admin familiar with rangeblocking is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm subtle – you just don't know it – because I'm sly too. I don't suffer fools gladly though.. and this guy comes with every bell and whistle imaginable. Thanks for the info, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually meant that George isn't subtle, he's pretty much a one-trick pony. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, misread it, for some reason I thought it said "your". But you're right, he's not.. I can't understand this one-track mind of his, and total lack of self-control in accepting what is already agreed by countless historians. I hate to think how long he spends digging up trivial documents with the words "Irishman" and "Wellington" in them, just so he can synthesise his own forgone conclusion. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive246#Sockpuppetry from Blocked user, incase you feel the need to monitor the situation or comment further, as I have mentioned that you originally blocked George which he is now circumventing. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LizaMoon Though I might have relisted this if it were a high risk article such as a BLP. Wait a few months and try again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The ARS brigade strikes again... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification

I'm a little bit concerned about this.[2] Discussions are here[3] and here.[4] I was told the last time I notified someone of the sactions that it might be better inform an administrator who has a history working in the area and they can handle any notifications.[5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yo

Responded on my page, thanks for the heads up Alexandria (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Golden AFD

Your tone is getting pretty hostile and inflammatory, bordering on personal attacks, and I request that you desist. On my talk page you spoke of my "ridiculous hyperbole.." which can't be "intended to be helpful".(a clear accusation of bad faith). If I question your assertions, then I wasn't "able to understand them." (a clear attack on my intelligence). Then follows more similar comments. The article made a weak but perhaps adequate argument for notability, had the refs been independent and from reliable sources. You vaguely complained about the newspapers, without specifically identifying the Oak Park ones as your target. There were complaints about socks, without any link to a discussion page explicating the situation. One apparently innocent editor was labelled a sock by someone in that discussion, apparently without good grounds. You asserted he had written the articles about himself under pseudonyms without providing any link to any evidence.When you already know where such a discussion has taken place, and you are the AFD nominator, please provide a link rather than merely asserting it is so. I will say it one more time: your "mentioning" that a newspaper is not a RS is not proof. If there is a discussion page somewhere which casts doubt on one or more of the newspaper sources. please link to it. I !voted to delete the article you nominated for deletion. I agree that I would have done far better to ask which papers you were referring to. Edison (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You ask that I desist when my message on your talk page indicated that I did not wish to discuss this further. You call my tone hostile and inflammatory when you have characterized my arguments as asinine and compared an SPI that uncovered over a dozen socks and cleared one user of any wrongdoing to the Salem witch trials. Way to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have struck out any mention of Salem and any use of "asinine"in the AFD. Edison (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kenai Peninsula Orchestra

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi Beeblebrox. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed, after which {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close were created. There is a discussion regarding non-admin closures of non-AfDs at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Beeblebrox/Archive 23! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

File:Cardinicaeser.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cardinicaeser.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

this is just one reason a lot of Alaskan houses are shoeless zones

Just wanted to let you know that I noticed you've uploaded a lot of lovely/useful photos of Alaska here at Wikipedia, and I'm copying them over to Commons so they can be more widely used. I love Alaska (though almost all my time there has been spent around Fairbanks/North Pole, including two winters). Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 00:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been slogging through them all periodically over the last year, but I never really finished the job, so have at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I just copied that moose scat photo over a little while ago. Never knew Commons had a category for "animal feces". :) Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, finished moving over all your user-created photos - thanks again! FYI, it looks like the source link on those fire images is dead - I only tagged the one orphaned one, but don't be surprised if the others get tagged eventually. If you can find an archive link or something, let me know - we can move them to Commons and I have license review privileges there. I highly recommend this process for all images not user-created. Kelly ^hi! 02:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi P on vandalised article

Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

About the locked page

Consensus on Beatrice Rosen's talk page was that since IMDB says 1977, and there are no other sources, then the year 1977 should be used. So the last version before the lock was actually correct. --ConCelFan (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. It was changed so many times I got a bit confused myself... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This will finally end the war between random people who don't care about sources and users that do, on that page :) --ConCelFan (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is wrong: IMDB has the wrong DOB (it often has incorrect info) and it will be corrected soon. In process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanatascha (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The important thing is that this needs to be discussed on the talk page and not be the subject of further edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This user Beanatascha participated in the edit war over the page since 2009. The user has actively ignored any admin warnings and refused to provide any sources to back up the data. In fact, if it was not for the history of edit war, the user would not have been able to make the changes now, that the page is locked (I can't, being the new user). Some actions have to be made towards the user, otherwise the user will continue to engage in edit war. Plus, the page should be reverted. Thanks for understanding. --ConCelFan (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. My only involvement here was protecting the page. Page protection is not part of the dispute resolution process, it is merely an administrative action, in this case used to stop edit warring and prod the warring users to discuss the issue instead. I still don't see any any attempt by either of you or anyone else to discuss this on the article talk page within the past year. I suggest you start trying to actually resolve this through some process other than edit warring, which can lead to all participants being blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

My bad, as a new user, don't know the full rules :( Shall proceed to the talk page. --ConCelFan (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother but what should I do if no one responds? How much should I wait? --ConCelFan (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's disappointing that nobody has bothered to engage in discussion with you. Kinda hard to form a consensus when the other users involved won't talk. I would suggest that it is time to try and get more users involved so that a consensus may become clear, using WP:RFC or some other form of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if I bother you that much. It's just that I don't know all the rules so your help is really appreciated. I will definitely follow your advices. --ConCelFan (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not bothering me at all, I'm happy to help. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dallas, TX page request

I want to thank you for responding to my request earlier to lock the Dallas, TX page due to some editing differences.

But did you see my response to your action where I pointed out the version of the page to be locked is different than what is locked now?

I spent a huge amount of time updating the Dallas, TX page to only have it completely wiped away by an individual before discussing it with me!

Could you please restore it to the last version of my text (that specific version would be under 72.181.192.12), so I can then work with the other person to hopefully reach a consensus on the few items that they actually disagree with?

Thank you again! Dallasborn&bred (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

When issuing protection to stop an edit war it is important not to take a side in the conflict. See WP:WRONG. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Node Pole

I noticed by chance on my watchlist just now that you blocked The Node Pole a day or so ago. Without knowing that, I rejected a submission 'The Node Pole' at AfC today. Perhaps they're up to some tricks. Thought you should know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears they submitted it before they were blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion by indef blocked George SJ XXI

On 2 September 2011, you indef blocked George SJ XXI, including his talkpage, for persistant disruptive behaviour. I've just come back from a months holiday and noted that he has engaged in using multiple socks and also made an attempt to create another user account as GSJ XX1. Also See:- Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_George_SJ_XXI. for Block evasion. This is quite evident on the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington's Talkpage, where his disruptive Tendentious editing, has prompted discussions by mostly unaware editors. Would it be possible to consider a targeted range block on his IP's to further curtail his disruption. I know that is pretty severe but his actions seem to merit it? Richard Harvey (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be in order, but rangeblocking is a very technical procedure that I know nothing about. Maybe ask at WP:AN. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Sockpuppetry from Blocked user – was already requested and refused due to logical reasons. I'm not sure what he's is up to, or if he's simply content now he believes that he "got his own way", in a limited neutral fashion. I find it very unusual and not a little suspicious that he suddenly flattered me for my "leadership" values.. addlepated though he may seem, given my earlier hostility towards him. I do not, however, have the time nor patience to meet any request to push an article through the turmoil of a FAR. Not sure why he even directly asked me, instead of his more obvious supporter, Mr Mophon, to undertake the task. Clearly he thinks I have a pro-British bias, so it's a bit like me asking a German patriot to write about Winston Churchill at FA standard. The mind boggles! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

Beeb, I see you only looked at the latest instance of vandalism but not the others. This is stuff that required other admins to oversight it right off the servers. Two of those were in recent months. If Jimbo thought it was necessary to semi-protect for a year back in May of 2010, the normal escalation would go to 2 years. Well, I am just saving time in 2 years and requesting indef. This isn't this page's first trip to protection land. In January 2009, the page was protected for 2 months. Before that it was 6 weeks in March 2006. This is a pretty easy pattern of vandalism, BLP problems and abuse of the page. If Jimbo thought it was enough, two other admins thought it was enough and admins thought it was enough to oversight just recently, why isn't it enough to indefinitely semi-protect the page now? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to be clear that this was not a snap decision and I did look into the page history, including the suppressed material. The overall ratio of outright vandalism -vs- other edits is not all that high. I can't get into the details of the suppressed material but I will say it is borderline at best as far as qualifying for such drastic action. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The one suppressed content I know about, I reported it. The reason there wasn't any vandalism from May 2010 to May 2011, protection was in place. So looks can be deceiving in this case. But since May 2011, just 6 months ago, there have been 16 instances of vandalism. From September 15, it has almost been every edit (with the reverts being the edits in between) and three oversights or RevDels (missed the third oversight/RevDel earlier). I think that is a pretty good case for page protection, especially with previous page protections (2 months, 6 months, 1 year) and an indefinite page move protection, which was put in place on June 21 (just found that one). That page move protection, that was after the 1 year semi-protection. Of the 205 anon edits since the page was created in 2005, there have been 59 that were remotely constructive to actually constructive. The rest of those, vandalism. That's only 28% good anon edits. Since May 17, 2011, of the 21 anon edits that were made (the first one after protection lapsed was vandalism) only 6 (!) were constructive. Another 28% for the anons when it comes to good edits. That's a big fat "F" no matter where you live. You gotta admit, when you look at it like that, indef semi-protection is the way to go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute at Advaita Vedanta

I think you might have misinterpreted something at Advaita Vedanta. This is not a conent dispute. Ramanatruth is a fundamentalist Hindu inserting statements that the Bhagavad Gita dates from 3000 BCE etc. Thats why they erased the Buddhist influence section, which was there for a while. You can't discuss this issue with such a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.115.251 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How can you know that if you have not tried? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I know? His name is "Ramanatruth". He has section blanked repeatedly verbatim quotes from academic authors, and even NOW is proposing additional irrelevant Ramana crap. 72.92.2.155 (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, you have to at least try discussion. This is how Wikipedia works. I would have thought my post on the article talk page [6] made that abundantly clear. Disagreeing with someone is not a free pass to edit war with them. Even having consensus on your side does not exempt you. The only exemption is for reverting blatant vandalism, which this is not. Now, if a consensus develops on the talk page that their edits are not appropriate and they continue to add the same material anyway, they can be blocked or topic banned from the page, but no such consensus is yet evident and both of you need to understand that edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Hi, when you full protected Justin Bieber you accidentally removed the move protection. So can you add it back? Thanks--Breawycker (talk to me!) 14:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to move the page and got this message: " This page has been locked in accordance with the protection policy so that only those with administrative rights can move it." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning policy

Because your edit summary overflowed there I couldn't read the rest of it.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The basic gist was that talk page revocation is not automatic, even with a banned user. It is done on a case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

History of Firefox

I believe the content dispute on this article has already ended. Those reverting were holding off the update until Firefox 8 was officially released, which happened today. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/8.0/releasenotes/ - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Revert warring was still ongoing less than an hour before protection was applied. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this page should be unprotected. The editing dispute was that Firefox 8 wasn't officially released yet. It was only released hours ago. Rpvt (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Hi - the BLP is about to be unprotected - have you read the discussion on the BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Justin_Bieber - and the related edit request on Talk:Justin Bieber? If your active would you consider either actioning the edit request or passing a related comment in the discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP has been constantly backlogged for the past two weeks. I have been working with protections in a purely administrative capacity, the workload is such that I don't have the time to get involved in actually resolving the disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, no worries. - thanks for your work there. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ronald Ryan

Thanks for semi-protecting Ronald Ryan yesterday. I saw that you declined the accompanying request to semi-protect the talk page because there hadn't been much disruptive editing there, which was true enough at that stage.

The reason I requested semi-protection for the talk page was pre-emptive. From past experience with this user, she's obsessed with Ronald Ryan and more than a little unhinged; I was pretty certain that as soon as the article was protected she'd start spamming the talk page, which she's now done. In the last 18 hours since you semi-ed the article, she's made three further edits [7] [8] [9].

All three of those edits also accuse myself and User:Purrum of "editing under various bogus IP's". She's made this accusation before (not long after she was caught out using an IP anonymizer service to evade her block...) and I invited her to refer me to SPI if she believed it. I'm not sure why she has such a hate for Purrum; he hasn't even touched the article in well over a year.

I appreciate that semi-protecting a talk page is a fairly drastic step, but I believe she's going to continue hammering the talk page as long as she can. From these two edits, she seems to be taking the attitude that if she can't stop her edits from being reverted, she can at least force it into the article history. Would you be able to keep an eye on the talk page over the next couple of days and see whether you think semi-protection becomes appropriate?

(I wasn't sure whether to take this here or go back to requests for protection, but I figured it'd be better to talk to the admin who declined my earlier request rather than shopping around.)

Cheers - --GenericBob (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We pretty much are not allowed to apply protection preemptively. Now that a problem is manifesting that's a different story. I appreciate that the issue here appears to be an WP:LTA case, I've dealt with a few of them myself over the years and am aware of how frustrating it can be to deal with them. I'll add the page to my watchlist and see if it keeps up. 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't been aware of WP:LTA - sounds like it might be worth my writing up something there, to avoid clogging up the article's talk page further. --GenericBob (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent content dispute on Pitesti

Dude, I'm 'honored' that I managed to cause so many problems that a page needed to be protected from me, but seriously you don't have to go through all that trouble. I mean, was I really doing vandalism over there? ಠ_ಠ

Why would I vandalize a page that I like and where I contributed with many pictures over the years. I swapped a picture based on the fact that it contained misleading information about a certain street being the historic quarter of the city, which is ridiculous because that's just a normal street. And I swapped it with a picture which includes 2 real monuments of the city. The only problem is that I removed the picture from the whole article, without realizing that! So Biruitorul, instead of telling me that I'm a idiot and that I'm removing my own picture from the whole page, he said reverting vandalism. And I thought he's removing my edit for no reason so I reverted the page over and over, cause I wasn't really vandalizing. I realized what he was doing only when Dahn told me, and I stopped.

Also, I don't know if you're of a higher authority or not, but I would like to complain about the fact that normal people find it very difficult and stressful to edit pictures on Wikipedia. Every single time I wanted to do something there were problems. On one hand you're complaining that you don't have enough pictures for your articles. But when someone offers you pictures he's faced with a huge wall of useless rules and regulations. It sucks beyond belief! And that's not really a small deadlock but a huge wall of China preventing normal users to make small but important edits. I faced incredible difficulty even editing the region where I live in and know well enough to make relevant points of view. Then again, what really is your goal?(as a team) To keep people from editing Wikipedia and making it a better source of information? Congrats, you're really good at it. ;)

(Draegenz (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

• You seem to have rather missed the point of the page protection, which I already explained at Talk:Pitești. It's not just you who is prevented from editing, the page is locked from all edits in an attempt to force a discussion of these issues and stop the revert warring that was going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll go to that page. (Draegenz (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at User talk:DeltaQuad/DQB.
Message added 02:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (t) (e) 02:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance parameter in WikiProject Biography

FYI... You recently added the "importance" parameter to WikiProject Biography banners. Importance and priority are no longer supported in the banner. They have been replace by musician-priority, a&e-priority, etc. See Template:WikiProject Biography for documentation. Bgwhite (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Diffs? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm talking about most of the time, especially now. Sorry, I got the wrong editor. Clicked on your talk page instead of the editor above in an article's history. Do you happen to have a trout? Bgwhite (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you so easily admitted an error I think we can skip the slapping with a wet fish. I accidently blocked the wrong user once, soiling their previously empty block log. Now that will make you feel stupid. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

RfA

I'm trying very hard to stay cool and not get involved in the virtual bar room that WT:RfA is, but that was a brilliant message you just dropped there :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I hardly ever comment there anymore, it is such a waste of time, but I couldn't help but point out the huge flaws in the "term limits" idea being proposed for the 10,000th time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For the bad news

I'm sorry that I did the bad news for what I did. I always ask for protection of articles that have only been vandalized for a few times. You have already saw a lot of unhealthy focus what you saw me in late October. I have a lack of understanding of the relevant policy, and try to continue to make them. I will try to make stop making reports, but I will check to see if protection is warranted first for example like a massive edit war is going on or severe vandalism by IP users.

Also, I will stop trying to rush my RfA early and continue to improve Wikipedia well and smoothly as I can (such as GA, FA and DYK). I will try to slow it down and take the time to understand the intent behind the policies when patrolling new pages and taking other actions that can effect others' work and also to despite the instructions not to do so. I will be careful when I'm requesting a RPP request and I will understand how it will work.

I will be more concerned with acquire experience at actually editing Wikipedia and showing the capacity to learn from your mistakes and listen to honest, constructive criticism when it is offered. I know that this is not a "level up" that you get when you collect enough tokens or a trophy.

Thank you for reading this notice. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, way to just spit back out the advice that has been given to you without showing the slightest understanding of it. This remark is so out of context and nonsensical I hardly know where to begin. I assume it is in response this comment but how anything you've said here relates to that discussion is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I was confused with it. I'm hardly understanding it. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see that. Forgive my bluntness, but I get the feeling English is not your native language and you do not grasp it adequately to be able to contribute constructively to conversations here. There's nothing wrong with that, I only speak English and would be totally unable to do anything at all on any other Wikipedia project. The difference is that I'm not trying to do that, and I have no hopes of becoming an administrator on a project where I don't even understand the context of a simple conversation. A look at your contributions to discussion pages and noticeboards reveals many edits like the one you recently left at WP:AN. Remarks that add nothing to the conversation and basically repeat what has already been said. In case you were unaware, there is an alternate project called the Simple English Wikipedia that is specifically for people like yourself who have trouble with the English language. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the notice. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

AFD close

Rationale here? causa sui (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article had been around for six years. As you can see form the discussion during this AFD all of one source was located. Therefore the argument that the article subject is not notable is given a clear advantage despite the low level of participation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with a problematic user

Hello, I don`t know if you remember but I asked for help at page protection page about the Michael the Brave article where it resulted as full page protection. The protection is expiring today and in spite of the break in editing the problems continue. According to the image:Difficult editor - flow chart.png , I have come to the "report then to an administrator" solution. I will try to explain in short lines what happened:

• 1) First this user expressed a strong personal opinion about this subject and modified the article according to that. Diffs of changes: 1;2; 3; 4.
• 2) Afterwards I tried to explain, after the first edit on the talk page and providing sources 1 , when he simply ignored and I informed him several times not to use the talk page as a forum and to concentrate on the problem [10].
• 3) Then he started to talk about the "truth". 1 and simply ignored all wikipedia policies mentioned.
• 4) After all this the personal attacks started ( 1; [11]; 3) even if I shoved good faith.

I understand that this is a new user (and I explained several times wikipedia policies) but I am really puzzled how to react on this kind of behavior. I talked with another user on my talk page regarding this matter and we have reached an agreement immediately [12]. I noticed that there is no progress with User:KIENGIR therefore I am asking for your help and advice. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that this can`t be considered as a content dispute because I have presented 5 sources that supports this claim while the other user relies barely on his personal opinion [13]. Adrian (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say the ball is in his court at this point. He's been warned about personal attacks, and it looks like another admin has taken some notice of him already. I've watchlisted the article and his talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, as predicted, nothing has changed [14]. Further personal attacks and of course the need to "correct" the article to reflect , I quote, These facts has no direct connection to my personal opinion, since these were facts long before I was born... Adrian (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review

You closed an AfD with the argument "The amount of uninformed/off topic material from both camps in this discussion makes it well-nigh impossible to draw any firm conclusions from it". Since almost all the off topic content I wrote was about sock/meat puppetry, SPA and an apologize for a supposed mistake I made in the request, I have a couple of questions:

• Is it possible to open another AfD in which I'll write no off-topic content at all?
• What should I do when I see multiple SPA users writing the same sentences? Should I notify it somewhere else, not in the AfD?
• What should I do if these users write off topic content which may discredit the AfD like this one? Can I rely that the admin who reviews it won't care at all about this off topics?
• What should I do to ask for sources when the other user not only does not provide them but, he also removes the tags? 1 2 3 4 5

Thank you for your answer, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

One more. By the way, most of this article is just a direct translation of this (with the copyright sign, I suppose it is a copyright violation, but I'm not very familiar with it...).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is possible to open another AFD. However, experience suggests that in a case like this it is advisable to wait a while before re-nominating lest the exact same issues crop up again.
• Usually is is considered sufficient to tag SPA comments with the {{spa}} tag the first time they comment. In at least one case this label seems to have been applied to a user who was simply new and had not made many edits yet. It's best to be careful when tagging such users so as not to simply go biting everyone.
• The best thing to do with an off topic remark is to ignore it
• As far as the asking for sources, you of course have every right to ask that sources be provided to verify any contested statement. If the tags are removed without the sources being added, you should first try discussion on the talk page. If that fails you may need to pursue [[WP:DR|dispute resolution.

Hope this helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your answer. Just for your information: 1 and 2. I find a bit annoying that a user with this disruptive behaviour accomplished to maintain his article, but well, I'll try again in a couple of days...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Developed country

You screwed up on the protection; the move expiry is before the edit expiry. Mind fixing that, or at least setting the move expiry to indef? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see any point to that. Move waring hasn't been a problem, I hadn't meant to modify move protection at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DeusM AfD

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

Hi,

I am the creator of the DeusM article. I see you closed the AfD discussion with a decision to delete. I have no doubt that you fully understand that consensus doesn't proceed by headcount, but I am deeply concerned that the apparent consensus here got in the way of the facts.

There is also a significant procedural problem with this debate, which is that the proposer did not make any specific case for deletion ("I originally nominated the article for CSD as C7, G11. The nominator closed my CSD as not appropriate, and moved to AFD. The reasoning should have been moved over as well, but was not. So the reason is "notability, advert" I guess. Gaijin42 (talk)"). In other words, Gaijin42 didn't specify his/her specific problems with sources (nobody seemed to think the article was "Advertising or other spam without relevant content ...").

It was hard, therefore, to know what needed to be defended. The fact remains, that for all the IDONTLIKEIT arguments, it remains unchallenged that the subject of the article had independent coverage in three, independent, national sources. The owners of each of the sources are identified in the discussion, confirming independence. This seems to me so obviously to satisfy WP:NOTE that I'd request you to take a look -- if you haven't already -- at the actual sources. The "only argument" was that the sources were "probably" based on press releases. This suggests that participating editors did not read the sources, each of which contained entirely different content, and were based on interviews. Nobody has produced or linked to a press release containing any of this text or any of the interview material.

Note that only five editors (repeatedly) supported deletion. A small sample, self-selected I'd suggest based on a dislike for articles about businesses or about marketing (maybe unfair, but it's a slender consensus).

I may, of course, consider asking for Deletion Review, based on the procedural point.

Thanks for your time.WebHorizon (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

The procedural objection I don't see as an issue, this looks like a pretty thorough discussion to me despite the way it was handled. Your remarks seem to repeatedly acknowledge that there was a consensus to delete. So, what do you think I should have done? I can't very well just come in and say that I see a consensus but it is wrong and I'm going to ignore it. If you would like I can WP:USERFY the deleted article so that you can try and address the issues identified at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I think you answered your own question: "If an AfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion." The administrator does have discretion to ignore "keeps" or "deletes" which are not policy based (many examples here, like articles which use press resources are not reliable sources (??) and a "this business will be considered worthy of mention 500 years from now" (???). This is why I hoped you would find time to take a look at the actual arguments. I would be grateful if you would USERFY: thanks.WebHorizon (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

Userfied at User:WebHorizon/DeusM. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.WebHorizon (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

Courtesy notification of Deletion Review based on procedure and policy.WebHorizon (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

Please don't take the deletion review personally. I am just trying to establish the parameters of policy so that I can determine what articles are worth creating in future. When an article has significant coverage in three independent sources, and gets deleted even though nobody is bold enough to deny that that is - quite plainly - the case, it's a warning to me that deletionism instincts on a subject like Internet marketing may well overrule even a core policy like WP:NOTE. I am honestly amazed that nobody will confront this face to face at the deletion review.WebHorizon (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

Don't take it personally that you suggested that after 2+ years of adminship I don't understand the basic procedure for closing an AFD? You obviously have developed a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this issue. You don't like what people are saying, so you pretend they haven't answered your questions. That's your problem, not mine. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember WP:CIVIL. I didn't say you didn't understand anything - I just quoted back at you from the link you posted. I would give anything if someone could point out where someone explains why three independent sources aren't enough to make an article notable.WebHorizon (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

Bullshit. You said " The closing administrator did not understand his/her obligation to distinguish policy-based consensus from mere headcount of keeps/deletes." [15] The rest of your comment is more of your refusal to get the point no matter how many times it is explained to you and not worthy of a response. Since you are just repeating the same arguments and now adding straight up lies to the mix I'll have to ask you to stop posting here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2011 (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.

recent AfD closure

Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom: can you please show me where in policy we have an exception for notability requirements for "lists of articles"? Perhaps I am simply unaware of said policy or guideline. Please note that my objection was not to the name--it was to the fact that, to me, it is ridiculous (note I'm not calling any editor ridiculous--I'm calling the perpetuation of duplicated systems ridiculous) to have 17 different ways to group various topics. I can live with the duplication of lists and categories. I can even handle outline articles, if mostly because they exist at the fringes of WP and rarely interfere with how it is organized. Portals, I think, are bad, because they provide a barely watched fringe page that can be used for POV pushing merely by its layout and designation of some articles being more "important" than others (independent of the judgement of others including relevant Wikiprojects). But I do not see any justification for an article that does nothing more than list other articles. And despite the "consensus" appearing to favor keeping the article, I don't see a single policy compliant keep !vote, because our notability requirements tell us that list articles are not exempt from WP:N. If someone wants to make that an outline, then quite a bit more work needs to be done than simply changing the name--so much more work that I don't see the justification in keeping this instead of starting from scratch.

As I said in my screed on the AfD page, Wikipedia needs to pull its act together and not just let everyone who wants to create some new functionality do so. A real encyclopedia typically has an index. It may also have a secondary glossary, though that's fairly uncommon. An electronic encyclopedia adds hyperlinks and a search box. Who is being served by the proliferation of organizational formats, and the associate maintenance required to keep up everyone (or, more likely, the associated failure in indexing when one or more stops being updated, or, worse yet, become a tool for improper editing)? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is of course possible that I have mildly misinterpreted the reasoning behind your nomination, but even if that is the case there is still not a consensus to delete the article. For a list article to be kept the overall topic must be notable. Surely the topic of local governments in the UK is a notable topic, so I do see some basis in policy for the keep position. Many of our "list" articles are lists of other articles, and I am not aware of any policy or guideline that states that they should not be. "Who is being served by it?" is generally considered an argument to avoid.As it happens I shae your opinion of portals, but that is neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if we had an article titled, "List of branches of the UK government", that would be probably be notable, as would "List of current member of the UK parliament" (I actually presume that exists under some name or another). But this isn't a list of topics about the UK government--it's a list of articles about the UK government. That is fundamentally, critically different. The first is clearly acceptable per policy. While articles of the second type do exist, as far as I can tell, no policy or guideline justifies them. I was seriously shocked to see anyone vote keep in this AfD, because it seems so obvious to me that this is a fundamental break in how Wikipedia works. One might even go so far as to call this "Wikipedia-cruft". Can I create an article "List of Lists of articles about the UK government?" How about "List of articles that are linked to articles about the UK government?" In all of these cases (including the one at AfD), the problem lies in the fact that the subject of the article itself is not the UK government, but a Wikipedia artifice laid on top of the subject of the UK government. At the moment I'm strongly tempted to take this to DRV, though it's probably a waste of everyone's time since almost everyone will look only at the notion of "consensus" without looking at the requirement that consensus has to match policies. Again, I freely admit that maybe there is a policy or guideline that allows/recommends for the creation of Index-cruft, which would put my concerns to rest even though I disagree. I'll have to wait and think about whether DRV is worthwhile. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrian, we have hundreds of such articles: we have lately been changing their name to either Outline of Subject X, for ones arranged systematically or Index of Subject X articles, for the ones arranged alphabetically. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Brakeman (programming tool)

What does it mean to "userify"? If it's something like moving the article to my user space, then how this can be done (article was deleted)? Thanks. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should have linked that term. See WP:USERFY. Administrators can restore deleted articles. Let me know if you'd like this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes please - I will continue to work on this article. Thanks! Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Page is at User:Kravietz/Brakeman (programming tool). Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Staying true to form ==

The IP editor you blocked in the Westies article immediately came back and made the same revert [16]. Then he turned around and went to the talk page and.....well.......[17]. He's not going to comply. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Appears this issue has gone

Stale

. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. He did it again today [18]. He is also editing under the account User:ForceRecon84 and using the article talk page and my talk page to harrass RepublicanJacobite. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

neo-geo Picture

Hi I saw you uploaded a neo-geo cab picture. I'm trying to develop french neo-geo mvs article and i'm looking for pictures to illustrate it. If you still have your neo-geo cab, is it possible for you to upload pictures ?

what would be nice : front side with shot of the coin door, and the insert memory card area. a a shot really nearby butoon to show buttons and joysktiskcs. It it possible to take a picture (or some) of your mvs board without the crate that we can see components

Thanks before, and best regards --Arcade Padawan (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just got back in town and may be able to help with some of this soon. However I won't be able to provide a shot of the sticks and buttons, per this discussion. My NeoGeo is custom painted and the painting contains trademarked characters and weapons from Meal Slug. In case you haven't seen them, I have also uploaded File:Neogeocart.JPG and File:Neogeoguts.JPG, which are both on Commons and may be reused elsewhere. I can probably get some other useful shots such as you requested as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes i already used one of your pics, but i crooped it that it only shows the mvs system (i gave you copyright, the pic is on commons).

OK, all shoots you can take are wellcome, upload what you can.

I will try to add your neogeo cart --Arcade Padawan (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BigzMMA and Civility

Hello, you were recently involved in declining a unblock request by User:BigzMMA with regard to civility and personal attacks. I wish to draw your attention to a specific thread on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard entitled WP:MMANOT, WT:MMANOT. BigzMMA has been making remarks about the other user in the dispute (User:Papaursa) and was warned to ceace making the attacks. A short time ago they made yet annother personal attack and I told them straight out they needed to strike their personal attacks from their latest posting, gave a 1 hour deadline prior to involving an administrator, and dropped a talk page notice on their talk page. As it's now been over 2 hours (I decided to be reasonable), I request that you please evaluate BigzMMA's statements and comment at their talk page. I am also posting this to the talk pages of other administrators who have dealt with BigzMMA before to form a consensus on how to improve the inter-editor communcation. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that's now been referred elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Block of North Koreans on the board

Hello, Beeblebrox. I have just done something that I have never done before, namely over-ride another admin's block with a different block. You blocked North Koreans on the board with a username block. However, I was very unhappy with a block that invited the user to continue to edit ("Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username.") for a user whose only edits were vandalism. I have replaced the block with a vandalism only block. If you strongly disagree then please restore your original block: I will not regard it as wheel warring, and I will not make any objection. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I strongly disagree with it, but it does seem rather pointless to modify a block 19 days later just to change the reason, especially in light of the facts that they made exactly two edits, were never warned for vandalism as is normally done for a vandalism block, and have not appealed my block. Even if I had hardblocked them, the autoblock would be long expired by now so I'm unclear on why this was so upsetting to you, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid somehow I failed to notice that the block was 19 days old: I thought it was a new block. How on earth I made that mistake I can't imagine. Under the circumstances I agree that what I did was completely pointless. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Porchcorpter MfDs

Was there a reason you didn't discuss the pages with him first, just taking them straight to MfD? Seems to me that this could have been done with a little more pleasantly. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

He has consistently been unreceptive to anything I have to say, so it seemed better to seek a consensus than to argue with him directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, for future reference, you could always come via me :) Worm^TT · (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Dungarvan County Council

Hi, as I explained on the talk page, this appears to have no content on the subject of the article: the infobox relates to a Town Council, not the same thing at all. So I reckon it has zero content and thus should be speedied. PamD 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not positive that would get us around the problem, but that fact that Dungarvan Town Council is a bluelink does. I've deleted it as WP:CSD#A10. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: It's not covered unless you count the redirect. ~ R.T.G 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oi put that back

You just deleted Dungarvan County Council. You deleted it without waiting. Undelete it thank you. I only started it yesterday and went to do something else and come back. You aren't supposed to delete anything so quickly as that if it is not vandalism and you know that or you shouldn't be permitted to delete anything. Thank you. ~ R.T.G 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please read the thread directly above this one. Their own webpage,[19] which you linked to in that article clearly identifies the organization as town council, and not a county council. That organization is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll just put what I had in an *2* edit confilt with you there and will read that then. If you want to get all picky you should click the link you claim it duplicates. Apologies for mixing up town and council in the title but I'd rather you just undelete it so I don't have to go all over the infobox again which actually took a little while. The content is supposed to be at Dungarvan Town Council at which the is no content currently. Is that okay? Dungarvan County Council could be a redirect because there isn't one and it's just an easy mistake if you are looking through county councils. Sorry if I sound aggrivated now I am just surprised is all. 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)~ R.T.G

I was in the way of not being in a rush about doing it either I might have done it tomorrow or something... ~ R.T.G 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your infobox is now at User:RTG/Dungarvan County Council where you can work with it at your leisure until it is actually an article. Articles should normally have some content. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with at least one sentence on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Spot on cheers. ~ R.T.G 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Company Page

Can you undelete Offworld Games I'm just starting the article and you deleted within a minute or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonrios (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion apply at all times, regardless of the age of the article. Further, this was just an infobox and did not have a single line of text. It is clearly not ready for article space, and it is also likely that the subject is not sufficiently notable for an entry. Therefore I have userfied it so that you can work to resolve these problems before reposting it, it is now at User:Gordonrios/Offworld Games. (in the future please use the "New section" tab to post new comments at the bottom of talk pages, thanks.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

City of Westminster

Beeblebrox, could you possibly restore the section on Banksy that was the subject of the edit war in the page on City of Westminster? Now that the page is blocked (for which many thanks) I am no longer in a position to edit it, and therefore unable to restore the section. I imagine that the anonymous IP edits will start up again as soon as the protection is removed, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it. Thanks in advance for your patience and assistance - Asteuartw (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do that. I went with full protection to stop the edit warring, not to take a side in it. See [20]. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, in that case how is one supposed to resolve an edit conflict? What is needed is surely some kind of 3rd party review, else we will simply have an indefinite edit war, which can be in no-one's interest. I requested the block in order to try to resolve things, not simply to freeze the page. My mistake perhaps? Thanks in advance for any clarification. Asteuartw (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a mistake, or I wouldn't have protected the page. However page protection is merely an administrative action and not part of our dispute resolution system. WP:3O, WP:RFC and WP:DRN are some of the options for soliciting outside opinions. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems rather sad that "Asteuartw" is determined to get his own way despite the lack of support for his position. Is there any form of gentle system-generated discipline which can be imposed until an undertaking is provided to abide by the rules he is so fond of quoting ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.27.146 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. We don't do "discipline". As I already said, WP:DR is how disputes are resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is all very nice but "we" (whoever that means) seem ready to distribute commendations for what is perceived to be sensible use of Wikipedia so it would seem logical to have some method of showing disapproval.

However, having observed your comment in the next section, perhaps some constructive activity in the real world would be rather more appropriate than gatecrashing someone else's imaginary squabbles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.27.167 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

renewed edit-warring on Developed country

As soon as the page protection expired, Bluesurfers (talk · contribs) is at it again [21]. Furthermore, I am certain he is a sock of HOOTmag (talk · contribs), see here [22]. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am involved in dealing with a crisis at my job at the moment and it's not likely to be resolved for a few more days, so I really don't have time to look into this right now. Edit warring can be reported at WP:AN3, sockpuppetry at WP:SPI. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Short apology

I didn't remember to type the third b.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD review

You closed the AfD with "No consensus". I'd like to nominate it again, since no references have been provided. According to what I read here, I don't know if I have to directly ask you to open it again, or I have to open a deletion review. I'll appreciate your help. Thanks. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Deletion review would be needed only if you believed that the closing was inappropriate and you wanted to challenge it. If you want to re-nominate in an attempt to arrive at a consensus you are perfectly free to go ahead and do that right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

CSD proposal

Hey, I was disappointed when you didn't chime in here. I'd love to hear your thoughts! causa sui (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Beeblebrox. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you very much for unblocking me and giving me a chance to help the website. DylanWhittaker (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandonfarris

You unblocked this user here, did you log the conditions anywhere ? and if not should the be ? as they have now been archived off the users talk page. Mtking ^(edits) 06:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Brandon is obviously aware of what he has agreed to, and I'm not sure there is a place for logging simple unblock conditions. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GoodDay

Hi Beeblebrox

Things seem to have died down at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GoodDay to a point where I think we could draw a line under the proceedings. Those who posted concerns at the final Concluded? section would appear to be satisfied to the extent that they have now added their names to the 'short' list of those who support the summary. I'd therefore like to invite you to do close this RfC/U, if you agree that such a move would be appropriate at this time. Regards. Endrick Shellycoat 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's looking pretty ready for a close. I'm at work right now, but I should have a chunk of time later on to write up a proper close. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Had a bit of time sooner than I thought, so I've done the close, but I've just been called back in. If nobody else gets to it I'll do the cleanup with listing template and such later. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Yet another false alarm at work, so I've finished up delisting and archiving the results. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Hi. Um, will an editor be blocked indefinetly if they are caught doing the same thing (edit warring, personal attacks, etc.) over and over again? Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 06:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Eventually. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rfa talk

Beeblebrox...why do we leave what would in most cases be nothing but disruptive talkpage banter standing for the sake of...what exactly? I don't question your PP there as I did one edit and had no intention of reverting anyone...but hum...Malleus' comment was for what purpose you suspect? How did IT contribute to constructive dialogue?--MONGO 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As always, the protection has nothing to do with the dispute itslf and everything to do with stopping an edit war. The only other option was to liberally hand out short blocks to everyone involved. That seemed unlikely to help calm the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough....and I support the action but feel it was on the wrong version. Unconstructive talkpage commentary that is deliberately designed to insult should be removed.--MONGO 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Gunmetal Angel block

Hey there. The above editor and I have worked together before on some genre-warring issues, and he asked me to look into his current block. I'm a little concerned that he was blocked along with the genre warrior he was engaged with; he was quite a distance from 3RR on that article. I've suggested that he ask for an unblock, but would also like to ask if you'd take another look and consider at least a reduction considering the attempted edits by the other editor did appear to be less than sourced from a quick glance. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have worked on edit warring issues before I'm sure you must be aware that the quality of the edits is not a relevant factor and 3RR is not an entitlement, especially after already having been blocked repeatedly for the edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I feel that GMA's edits are generally in the right as genre warriors tend to be very single-minded - note that the opposing editor in this question basically said in at least one edit summary 'I'll be glad to discuss this but I'm going to make my edits first' - and believe that the block - after a single informal warning - is excessive in this case. I would encourage another look, if possible; I understand if you feel otherwise, however. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was unclear to you about my point that the quality of the edits is not the issue. Unless the other user was outright vandalizing that is simply not relevant. He was just blocked last month for edit warring. That block was for four days. I don't see how extending the block period by three days is excessive, and I don't see you saying that he wasn't, in fact, edit warring so I'm afraid I don't see any compelling case presented to reconsider. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your stance, but thank you for your consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take another look at GAs talk page, we've already worked it out. He has agreed to limit himself to 1RR on genre related edits and I have unblocked him. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, Gunmetal Angel is back at AN3 in WP:AN3#User:69.225.21.51 and User:Gunmetal Angel reported by User:Abhijay (Result: ) for a genre war. He has not broken 3RR or 1RR, but he has been consistently reverting his preferred genres back into the article over an extended period. Perhaps that deal should have been for 1RR/week. Your original action seems fine, but I'm leaving the AN3 report for someone else to close. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that the report is based on an incident from before the latest block, and has been declined as stale. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

rfc/u ?

I thought 3 of us (LibStar, mmeyers, and I) had certified the Hentzer RFC/U? What did we miss? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a section entitled "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" that must be signed by at least 2 users withing 48 hours of the RFC being listed. 48 hours after it was listed the section was blank. At the time I deleted it, yours was the only signature. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to think LibStar or mmeyers intended to certify but just didn't understand the format properly. I know they had included diffs of their attempts to address the situation -- is this a recoverable error? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to counsel you that this is an RFC that has very little chance of leading to the result you want, but if LibStar were to post here to that effect I could restore the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you think I have a particular result in mind; but in any event I'll notify LibStar. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you think I meant by that, the RFC has another section called "desired outcome." Since you certified the RFC it doesn't require the use of imagination to determine that that was your desired result. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Well, you can hardly me expect to discuss intelligently the contents of a page that someone went up and deleted! Seriously, I mostly suggested this as a means of support to LibStart and mmeyers who are getting very frustrated with the lack of communication; if there already is a fairly clear community consensus that an editor could work essentially in isolation I sincerely am not aware of it. I'll be fine with whatever the consensus turns to be. Mostly I wanted more input than was happening at WQA. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

BeetleBrox, could you please restore this RFC. Nobody Ent, is willing to certify. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You guys really aren't making this easy. Hes's the only one who 'did certify it. It needs at least one more user to do so. Would you be that user? Beeblebrox (talk)|

yes I would. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Meta-bureaucracy fail. Frankly, I don't see point of this RfC/U after I've read the WQA thread. It's absolutely the same thing, with the same participants. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored it, please certify it ASAP. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a cookie

…For coming to a good conclusion on a situation I was a tad upset in. Also, I'll keep it cool on the deathcore bands. (= GunMetal Angel 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the mail, it never fails, it makes me wanna wag my tail, when it comes i wanna wail… MAAIIILLLLL!!

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

• GunMetal Angel 19:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC) •

Porchcorpter

I just noticed that this is back, with a full copy of the original ban proposal in its history with Porchcorpter's rebuttals appended. He seems determined to keep a copy of it hidden somewhere in his user pages. Do you think we should do anything about it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• replied by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Does not violate any userspace guidelines, there are no personal attacks there now, no comments are even on contributors. And since it has been said in the MFD to link it to the archive, it is now linked to the archive. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Btw, in case, I've worked lots with Worm and I've got now much more knowledge about the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. I've even passed Worm's adoption and got the barnstar for passing. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Which makes one wonder why you wanted to recreate this page at all, if you've supposdly matured so much as an editor. Literally nobody besides you feels that the topic ban was problematic, and it expired some time ago anyway. But really, I don't give two shits why you recreated it and I certainly don't want to hear any of your nonsensical reasons for doing so. Keep your little bitter pity party of a page if you makes you feel like you've accomplished something. Beeblebrox (talk)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Eagles247 restoring personal attacks. Thank you. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Way to go. The WP:BOOMERANG has been tossed, don't be surprised whn it comes back and whacks you in the noggin. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter

Extended content

I ask you respectfully to recuse from any further issues involving him. Posts such as [23] and [24] is inexcusable for any editor on this project. —Dark 02:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I have to agree, Beeblebrox. The edit summary on the second one, especially, is beyond the pale. I hesitate to distract from the real issue at hand - which is not you - but you aren't helping the cause with diffs like those two especially.  Frank  |  talk  02:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Agree in theory, I guess, but I really can't see bitching at Beeblebrox in this context. Everyone is entitled to a bad day. Let's all just let it go. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I explained in clear, polite language that I did not wish to have any further direct communication with him. He posted to my talk page. I reverted his edit and used my edit summary to again ask him to stop. He posted to my talk page again. I told him to fuck off. He posted to my talk page again. I told him to fuck opff again. When being polite and reasonable in your requests doesn't work you sometimes need to turn up the volume. I don't see any reason for me to apologize for or regret doing just that. And for the record, for those of you who think Porch can't handle the word "fuck" anfd must be protected from it, take a look at this [25]. Not sorry I did it, not sorry for what I said, wpould do exactly the same thing if it happened again. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Not being sorry doesn't make it proper. We've been polite and proper to Porchcorpter for years now - literally - and there's no reason to stop today. The sun will come up tomorrow either way. The example you've set will, however, remain. Again - I do NOT think you're the issue here...but you're not helping, either.  Frank  |  talk  02:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC) There's a line between saying "fuck's sake" and saying "fuck you porchcorp", and you inadvertently crossed it. "Turning up the volume" doesn't translate to a personal attack, which any active contributor in this project should know. You wouldn't say that to a vandal, so why would you say that to him? You were neither reasonable nor polite in your interactions with him. —Dark 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC) "Fuck you porchcrop" is not a personal attack, just general rudeness not worth arguing over. But one could argue that it is rude to post a message to someone's talk page who had wished for no further messages from said person. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Okay. So if someone told you to fuck off from their talk page and proceeded to ANI to instigate your ban, you'd dismiss it at "general rudeness"? No, of course not. Admins on this project are meant to keep civil in all their interactions. If you believe that it is acceptable to tell someone to fuck off, then you shouldn't be an administrator. —Dark 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC) If I was told not to post by an administrator and did it anyway, I'd say I deserved to be told to fuck off. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC) That is neither here nor there. Is it appropriate for an admin to tell someone to fuck off and label them incompetent? —Dark 03:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC) That's not the case here, so I don't think it matters. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Oh for fucks sake, that was no personal attack. The cesspool is that way. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I'd like to interject with a small note, provided by my own talk page, in response to me simply saying "for God's sake", for which the user felt humiliated. It seems to be along the same lines as what Beeblebrox had, with the exception of "Fuck" rather than "God". That being said, this sort of thing should not even be a point of interest; something posted on somebody's wall, especially with this level of interest. Sure, the mannerisms involved were not the most civil, but I don't believe that should be a determining factor with this Porchcorpter case, much less Beeblebrox's career on Wikipedia. DarthBotto talk•cont 03:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Folks, we've had a heated day, and I don't think carrying on an argument about it here is of any help right now either. Can I suggest the best thing we can do now is just all walk away from it for the evening and come back refreshed tomorrow? That's what I'm going to do - g'night. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I see as little point to continuing this line of discussion as I did to continuing to discuss this idiocy with Porchcrop. However I will note that Dark's depiction of the chronology of these events is entirely wrong. The ban discussion had been underway for quite some time before the incident on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC) My mistake - "If someone posted to ANI to instigate your ban, then told you to fuck off from their talk page." In other matters, you have not answered the original request. Will you recuse from further matters involving him or not? —Dark 03:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Not sure what definition of recusal you are using. Obviously my admin tools are permanently off the table where this user is concerned. If you are asking me to shut up, I'm afraid I will not be making that promise. The only reason this latest chapter in this saga of stupidity happened at all is because Porch is unable to leava anything alone and would not stop posting here, going so far as to once again revert war with an admin who reverted his posts. My point all along has been that Porchcrop, not me, not his mentor, not anybody but him, is responsible for all this overly dramatic nonsense. Now, can we please keep this at ANI instead of my talk page? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi, I think this is the correct way to notify you that I have sent you a message. Apologies if it is not. Many thanks.

Really?

Could you take that image down, as it doesn't tend to encourage rational, reasoned discussion and instead only seems to serve to activate emotional triggers? The discussion was going rather well, and I'd hate to see it degrade. Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I should think it demonstrates rather neatly the point that even among Christians there is significant disagreement on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, see the point I was going for was that you could make that point without posting that picture directly. As I said, the issue is that a picture like that doesn't help advance the discussion in helpful ways, it tends to cause people to react emotionally rather than rationally, and that's never good. It is always wise to consider the likely result of any action. --Jayron32 05:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If an actual problem as opposed to an imaginary one becomes apparent I'd be happy to remove it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

how email works

Excuse me Beeblebrox, but what is your email address? Alternately, where is the appropriate place to follow up on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rafal_Heydel-Mankoo&action=history and your request to be consulted about your decision to blank that page, and the 2nd nomination for removal of that page? Thank you Vancouveriensis (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)vancouveriensis

I generally prefer to discuss matters transparently, here on my taalk page. However, if you feel this must be do so by email you can use the "email this user" link in the toolbar on the left hand side of this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I find no such link where you have indicated. Which heading does it fall under? Vancouveriensis (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)vancouveriensis

It's in the "toolbox" section, you may have to pop it open to see all the options. The short answer to why I blanked those AFDs is that they contained statements, some from you, that dispariged a living person. It does not affect or alter the actual outcome, as the tag indicates it is merely a courtesy gesture so that those dispariging, possibly false statements do not show up in search engines. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that tip about the whereabouts of the email function. It's unfortunate that it has been made so obscure. A lot of the meta aspects of wikipedia are a tad time consuming to find and follow, but no matter. As to the point you make about disparagement, I do not believe that I have made any unverifiable remarks about the biographee. Indeed I pointed out the place (now deleted) where he had altered my corrective edits falsifying my work and thereby trying to cover himself after he had already contributed false and misleading details to the page. Blanking as a courtesy serves to obscure, and in effect reward the behaviour of a falsifier and manipulator of wikipedia content who by his own admission viewed the page as being an extension of his career-furthering efforts. In effect it extends a courtesy to someone who has broken some of wikipedia's fundamental rules, and is a very curious way in which to treat a wiki vandal. Ironically, on your talk page you have placed opinion about me of the same kind that you state you are protecting Rafal Heydel-Mankoo from. This is hardly an even-handed approach. It is no easy task to protect wikipedia from a clever manipulator and to cloak his actions effectively aids and abets his activities here and possibly elsewhere. All statements that I made in my comments in the debate and on the former "discuss this page" section of the article on RHM were derived from my interactions with the biographee by email or telephone. I have too high a regard for the role of wikipedia to engage in falsification or unwarranted comment about entries. I think that my standing can be verified if you consult my user page and history of edits, nominations to perform additional roles, and so forth. The same could not be said about the biographee who chose to shape the entry concerning him with so little regard for relevance, merit, fact, and veracity that it was eventually deleted by you. I trust I have stated my case for not doing wikipedia and its world-wide readership the discourtesy of blanking either of the two deletion discussions re the former wikipedia entry Rafal Heydel-Mankoo. Vancouveriensis (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)vancouveriensis

Since you have seen fit to reveal that you know this person and have contacted them in the real world, perhaps you would care to elaborate on how well the two of you are getting along? Is it perhaps possible that you had an unpleasant falling out and that it has clouded your judgement in this matter? Is it perhaps possible that some of the remarks you made reflect unproven assumptions of bad faith on his part? As you yourself suggested, the errors over his exact title could just as easily have been caused by lazy journalism as by deliberate deception from his end. The article was deleted, you got what you wanted. There's no need to parade around accusations about him and it is clear you have a WP:COI issue here. I suggest you let the matter drop. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to take the moral high ground Beeblebrox, you ought to be certain of your facts first. I have no unproven assumptions of bad faith on his part. They are, alas, proven. The errors of lazy journalism you mention were made all the easier by Rafal Heydel-Mankoo's false statements on the wikipedia page concerning him and elsewhere. I am not parading accusations about him here or elsewhere, I am stating fact. I no more have a WP:COI issue about him than you do about me, I trust. If I let the matter drop, it won't be because you have suggested I do so, or because I feel embarassed about what I have written - I am not - but rather because I recognise that it is pointless to engage in any further discussion with you on this topic here. I genuinely came here to engage in a sincere discussion with you at what I took to be your invitation. As we are at loggerheads about the matter, and you have chosen to engage in such tactics of disparagement as are indicated in the essay you invited me (and others) to read, then I expect that we have arrived at an impasse. I wonder if you would do me the courtesy of indicating to me the next step in taking this matter up the line as it were in the adjudication process? Thank you. Vancouveriensis (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)vancouveriensis

It seems like these two entirely separate issues have been conflated in your remarks. If you want to contest the courtesy blanking, I guess WP:AN would be the place for that. Other administrators and users can then comment and a consensus can be formed. If you want to continue arguing semantics about whether you were invited to readn comment on my essay, I don't think there is anywhere on-wiki for you to do that, but it certainly isn't here. Beeblebrox (talk)

Not conflating necessarily; just drawing parallels. And I thank you for the tip about where this matter can be taken further. As to the second matter, I guess that is fortunate for you, eh? Vancouveriensis (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)vancouveriensis

post script to the recent fracas here

I'm not askiing for feedback and I certainly don't feel like reopening the discussion, but if anyone is still watching here, feel free to peruse this essay I have just written about why I did what I did. That's all, I'd like to stress once again that I am not interested in reopening discussion of those events as the matter is now settled, just collecting my thoughts should something like that happen again. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Like the title :-) It doesn't seem too unreasonable to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me making a couple minor spelling fixes. AQFK (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I've just recently started editing using an iPad, and I am having some issues with how the spellchecker works in ipad version of my browser. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish it were appropriate to say fuck off after the first bullet point in your essay. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page header

Hi Beeblebrox, I've copyedited your talk page header. I just hate the phrase "in order"; it's almost always redundant. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 15:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, actuallly in this case I kind of do mind. you changing my words to suit your personal taste. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Graham87 04:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking for assistance/advice

As you're the admin who dealt with User:Nbaka is a joke last year, I was wondering if you could opine regarding a remarkably similarly named user. I'm not quite sure what to make of it; their assurances on their face seem reasonable, but something just doesn't sit right with me. Your thoughts/comments would be appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I have commented at their talk page. Note also that the block issued was a hard block and they are therefore also in violation of WP:EVADE . Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And now I've revoked their talk page and referred them to WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed something else here. Look at this [26]. He refers to having been blocked by an admin who was later "dismissed for administrator abuse." I am the only one to have issues any blocks to the original account and that description obviously does not fit me. Either he was mistaken or there is a third already blocked account out there. Not sure it makes a big difference since it is apparently already blocked and the type of behavior this user has been exhibiting will get them blocked again whether we know it is them or not, but it's worth keeping in mind if you are watching the articles they tend to edit, may help in catching the next sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for them; their editing is pretty easy to pick out, as it isn't even trying to be neutral. Hopefully this will be the last of them, but somehow I suspect not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops.....

Sorry bout that, I put that warning notice on that user talk page and I guess I missed the block notice. Sorry. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thx

Like Killiondude (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– Confession0791 ^talk 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of European Robotics Research Network

Hi! I noticed that you have deleted the article on the European Robotics Research Network Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Robotics Research Network, with "Non-notable network" as a summary. I am very surprised that you have the knowledge to judge this. About all academic robot research groups in Europe are member of the network (there are 235 of them, as of today), and the network is very active, as you could judge from, for example, its mailing list at <https://lists.iais.fraunhofer.de/sympa/info/euron-dist>. it is very normal that you won't find citations or references to the network in the literature, but that does not mean it is "non notable". I kindly ask you to revert your decision.Bruyninc (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bruyninc. You don't need citations as such, but there has to be references. The original article had no structure. It was asking for deletion. Nevertheless your organisation is definitely notable. The things that tell me it is notable are what have to go in the article. It was deleted last August, why are you now taking up the issue? Are you a member of the organisation? If you stick around and provide us with information and if I can get anyone else interested then I think we can bring the article back. I am a very minor wikipedian myself so I will need help. Robotics1 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to misunderstand how deletion discussions work. I merely closed the discussion and performed the deletion reflecting the consensus established at the discussion, I did not participate in the debate itself and do not claim in any way to be an expert on the subject. As is almost always the case, the reason for the deletion was that it did not meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable subject as it had not received significant coverage from reliable sources. Another user requested that I userfy the deleted article for them because they hoped to improve it to get it over that hurdle. It is located at User:Chaosdruid/European Robotics Research Network. It looks like he has failed to make any edits to it whatsoever in the intervening four and a half months since I did that for him, maybe the two of you can work together to find the appropriate resources to bring it up to our minimum standards. You can contact that user at User talk:Chaosdruid. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your comment, so I will "complain" with User talk:Chaosdruid. The whole story does leave a very bad impression with me, about the super-powers that some wikipedians get and abuse.... So be it! Probably the new "Rate this page" feature can improve this situation... Bruyninc (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may come in here. I normally just look after my little corner of wikipedia but Bruyninc accused me of being instrumental in the deletion of this article. Actually I had never heard of the article or organisation before. So I did some looking around and I suspect a mistake may have been made. This organisation has more than 50 pages of listings on Google, they have over 200 academic institutes as members, no end of PhD members, many afiliations. They are mentioned in several news articles all over the world. Comparing what I have found with WP:GNG I would say this organisation is definitely notable. What have I missed? Robotics1 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would again repeat that my only role here was interpreting the consensus at the deletion debate and taking the appropriate action. I don't really have an opinion or any interest in the actual article subject. If the case for notability is so strong, the three of you should easily be able to bring the current userspace draft up to snuff and move it back to article space, just make sure you fix up the article using all those references before moving it back to article space or it could be speedy deleted per this criterion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake and I apologize. And I agree with your suggestion. Looking at the article I can see the problem but shouldn't be hard. Robotics1 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Lapland (TV Drama), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lapland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Confused wiki communication

Hi Beeblebrox. I do from time to time get myself in knots in misinterpreting other's remarks. I try to make make a habit of it. Where was the place in the last few weeks that I seemed to be misunderstanding your remarks? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It was at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government. Your initial remark seemed not to acknowledge several important facts explained in my nomination. We worked it out though. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it took me a little time to get up to speed with what was going on there, and what exactly needed to be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

About MUA2 DLC this year

I got an info from Marvelmods:

venom64: I was looking on PSN for the shuma gorath dlc for UMVC3 when i saw

Marvel; Ultimate Alliance 2 Character & Stage Pack for £7.99 i think it was juggerenaut was also there for £4.99

Cant Wait to get MUA2 ans some PSN Cards

Happy Gaming & A New Year

Is it true already re-released again this year? Does it mean Activision renewed their Marvel license just liked Capcom does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKazama (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I think you have mistaken me for someone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete revision history

Hello! Today I was editing a page on Wikipedia. I closed the browsers window as usual and then opened it again when I felt like to edit the page again. When I was done I checked the revision history of that page and I could see an Ip-adress, my Ip-adress, I werent logged in the second time! I have been searching and reading all around wikipedia, how to delete revision history on an article because I dont want my Ip visible when I have an account. It seems that admins have a tool for this and could you help me with this, please? Best regards EN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertnature (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the absolute worst way to go about getting that done would be to post all over Wikipedia about it, see Streisand effect. I would be one of a few dozen users here can WP:OVERSIGHT those edits so nobody ever sees your ip, but I don't see the point in this case since you haven't edited an article while logged in the past two years. Nobody would be able to make the connection. However, if you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight it can be dealt with quietly and confidentially, with no clue on-wiki as to what has transpired. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, and this concern my swedish wikipedia, its more evidence on the english verision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertnature (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to contact someone on the Swedish Wikipedia, nobody here an do anything about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I find someone who i capeable of doing that, Is there another way to solve this, could I do anything by myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertnature (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, nobody here can do anything about such affairs on another project. You will have to ask somebody over there. I don't speak Swedish but this appearsd to be the relevant page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent create protections

• Contribute to all that is Goan VIVA
• Contribute to all that is GOAN
• CONTRIBUTE ALL THAT IS GOAN

You do know that it's rather useless to salt them, when we know all he's going to do is get around it by either changing the case or a couple little letters. --MuZemike 23:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I figured it was worth a try and does no harm. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I just saw that you have now blocked him. Feel free to remove the protections if you want. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Katarighe

On his/her talk page, Katarighe (talk · contribs) lists vanished account S0aasdf2sf (talk · contribs) (TechOutsider) as a previous account. There is a significant disparity between the two accounts' proficiency in the English language. Compare [27], [28], and [29] with [30], [31], and [32]. What are your thoughts on this? Goodvac (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the same thing you think, that it is highly unlikely to be the same person. Up until now I was worried about this user as someone acting in good faith but just a little confused, but this revelation changes the math on that calculation. And of course in the unlikely event that he is telling the truth it would be a flagrant abuse of the right to vanish. How do you think we should proceed here? I haven't had much luck communicating directly with him but I'm not sure it's time to go to the drama boards just yet.. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a thought: User:TechOutsider/Sandbox, now deleted, was edited over 300 times by that user. Surely if that was him he would know what used to be there, and I or any other admin can verify what was there. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a good way to verify whether he once operated that account.
I think we should notify him of this discussion, with an invitation to engage. If he provides unsatisfactory responses and explanations, that would be the time to escalate this to a noticeboard for wider community input.
Nota bene: Katarighe has even copied TechOutsider's talk page archives into his own: see the letter-sorted archives at User talk:Katarighe/Archive Index. Goodvac (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed he's taking credit for that accounts barnstars at User:Katarighe/Awards. I find that very troubling, it fits into a general pattern (which I have discussed with him several times to no avail) of trying to look ready for RFA without actually having the real experience and knowledge needed to pass. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged his talk page and pointed him to this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my interest was computer-related. I was now retired this account. Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 00:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You think you were interssted in computyers at that time? You're not sure? How could that be? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm really sure --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In October 2010, I do not know the password to access my old account. I remember that time since I have my e-mail adress enabled on this account I decided to use this account. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you and I have opened a thread at WP:ANI about this. Shame on you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand, this account was actually used by my brother. Just to claifry to be honest very well. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't follow the whole thing, but noticed the ANI thread - Just want to say that I worked with TO on several occasions - including getting an article to a successful GA. This person is NOT them. (although I'd love to see TO return - great kid!!) — Ched :  ?  01:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it was obvious to everyone that he was lying, but in the spirit of AGF we tried to give him a chance to explain himself, followed by a chance to own up to it and not get indef blocked. Clearly, he blew both chances and the fact that he thought he could actually get away with this is yet another indication of gross incompetence. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request

Per CAT:UNDELETE, can you make a copy of The Bodyguard Group available to me, either in my user space or by e-maile? I'd ask the deleting admin, SchuminWeb, but they're not very active. The reason is actually based on a recollection by Youreallycan (see here) related to an ongoing Afd of Kris Herzog. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The deleted article is definitely about the same subject. Oddly, it identifies the owner as one Kris Cook. There's not much more there but I can email it to you if you really want. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the main issue is - is this version a recreation of that one or are they completely different? Youreallycan (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a recreation, the deleted version is much shorter. It wouldn't qualify for a speedy on those grounds anyway as it was speedy deleted before, not as a result of a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did realize that and was mostly interested, related to COI, in if they were written by the same author. Thanks for looking. Youreallycan (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Beeblebrox. You don't have to e-mail it to me. According to a web document, Herzog's father's name was Herzog, and his mother's name was Cook. He describes himself as "Kristian Otto Herzog (aka Kris Cook ..."--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record the deleted article was written by User:DavisPropertyManagers and of course that username is a blatant violation of WP:USERNAME, but they never edited again. Actually if you look in the revision history of their user page, they drafted the Bodyguard Group article there, it's pretty much word for word the same as the deleted article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Horrible article. I wonder who Davis Property Managers is - couldn't find any connection between a company by that name and Kris or bodyguard or whatever. Not important, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

On a recent thread at ANI you mentioned how another editor was trying to get their entire talk archives deleted. It's not the first time I've heard of this kind of thing. I'm pretty new and this might sound like the dumbest question ever, but how would an editor go about trying to get their archives deleted? How can I look out for it? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

He was tagging them with {{db-user}}. I'm not sure that is actually against policy oif they were archived manually, as opposed to by page moves, but it certainly suggests the intent to hide something. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh of course, thanks for that. I hate this kind of attempt to obstruct, I don't even think we should allow editors to blank talk pages, but there we go. Thanks for the help Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to be active...

What would you suggest doing with this new article? I don't really know what action to take, doesn't seem to fit the letter of any CSDs. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it was apprently a web-based game it qualified under WP:CSD#A7. It was also obviously WP:MADEUP so a WP:PROD for that reason would have been appropriate. I've deleted it and advised the creator about WP:COI. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Email

About the meeting this weekend. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No wheelwarring, please

user decided gto run off to ANI when he didn't like my reply to his demands

Please undo your revert here. Offensive off-topic texts have no place at Wikipedia, and I believe administrators should rather remove such texts than insert them. — Sebastian 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC) First off there is no wheel warring, see WP:WHEEL. Secondly, no, just no. See WP:REFACTOR. The ref desks are generally a little more informal about such things as they are not article talk pages not are they policy pages. Your personal tastes should not dictate what is and is not appropriate commentry in such a forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC) FYI. 28bytes (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry that I forgot to notify you here. I'm not often on AN/I these days anymore. — Sebastian 20:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• [After thread closed:] I don't think you need to reread that policy. And in case you (like I) don't care for lukewarm tea...

A beer for you!

...because tea is for kittens. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Katarighe

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

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30