User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Beeblebrox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

LGBT rights in ISIL-controlled territory

Hello! I was a major contributor of sourced, appropriate content to the aforementioned article. While I realize the page's creator was blocked (presumably for unrelated reasons), the article itself was worthwhile and had been up in its most recent incarnation for several months. Could you possibly restore it, or perhaps give me the article's body so I can recreate it?

Thanks! 3hunna (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I see from the edit history that there is some dispute over whether this shouldn't just redirect to the article on human rights in their territory. As this is a fairly brief article I tend to agree, but I don't really intend to get involved editorially here, so I'm going to re-create the article as a redirect, but with the page history intact so it can be used as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. 3hunna (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Move List of census-designated places in West Virginia

Hello Beeblebrox, can you move List of census-designated places in West Virginia to List of census designated places in West Virginia? Our article goes by census designated place, not census-designated place. I would move it myself, but List of census designated places in West Virginia redirects to List of census-designated places in West Virginia. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved, nevermind. Seattle (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Anchorage, Alaska

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It does seem to be working, but normally we don't protect preemptively and it hasn't even expired yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Insightful

I found your essay Wikipedia:Unblockable very insightful, it really does feel like you are dealing with an unmovable brick wall. In my view yes good editors should deserve respect and be admired but when you have those same editors act up its hard. Maybe its a cultural thing for some, but I believe that basic respect should be given to everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

ok I stop :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdistantolive (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Different IPs

Hello Beeblebrox! Can you please check out following IPs, 27.62.31.241 and 74.120.223.141..? I think it's the one user you blocked recently, CosmicEmperor. I proposed his 6-7 useless redirects on June 24, and the user is now proposing my created redirects, which are even usable. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably. They have been making a fool of themselves with a number of IPs on a variety of pages. A WP:RANGEBLOCK may be in order, but I don't persoanlly know how to do one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As an FYI, relevant links are at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 2 and User talk:Tavix#Anonymous IP. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll start and SPI per Tavix's talk page discussion, and I'll let you know. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And now I'm being vandalized, and I'm sure it's him, because he wrote abusive words in Hindi language and the user was an Indian. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Kindly review

Hello, My request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer is "pending" there since 2 weeks, can you review it? Thank you. --Human3015 knock knock • 20:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)--Human3015 knock knock • 20:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. It seems the archive bot that usually deals with that page is on hiatus, so the page is kind of a mess right now and I guess your request got "lost in the shuffle". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

--Human3015 knock knock • 21:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary that "list is clear" but User:AkshayAnand is also yet to be reviewed. --Human3015 knock knock • 22:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, even my request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer is pending there since weeks. The recent edit mentions 'list clear'. Can you review it asap? Thank you. AkshayAnand (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI

There is a going on SPI on "CosmicEmperor", please comment there, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is a Bureaucrat's bite worse than his BARC?

Beeb, can you take a look at this please. Something has to be done so I'm going to start the ball rolling very soon. Following several general discussions on the topic, I have completely reworked it and I would very much appreciate your comments on its talk page. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

RfA deletion

I would appreciate it if you deleted the request. It was never meant as a serious request, but rather a curious act. Thanks for the input.mezil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin

Hi Beeblebrox, I would request you to consider giving your opinion, as an uninvolved Admin, on an ARCA discussion featuring me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice you made this request of seven different admins. That none of us has commented there is a clue for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the added permission as a pending changes reviewer. I appreciate it. Best, Bahooka (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue regarding the deletion of the Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics article

I want to recreate the Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics article because of one controversy surrounding the games. That is, the pollution in some of the venues which will be use by athletes. See the news article: http://www.casino.org/news/rio-de-janeiro-under-fire-over-summer-olympic-water-quality FrankieL1985 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are free to recreate it whenever you like. So we're clear, I deleted it because it had no substantive content. If you have some content to add to it, you should do that when creating the article and/or tag it with {{under construction}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and Merci from Canada! FrankieL1985 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Stinson hunter

As that's obviously not how it works (which begs the question if it's so obvious, why did I do it that way), would you be so kind as to explain to a keen, new editor how it is supposed to work?

Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.238.130 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at this diff [1] You created a section in an article that appears to reproduce a section of the actual speedy deletion policy and says one of the speedy deletion templates, not the article itself, was nominated for deletion. That would be what was obviously wrong about it. Now, let's reverse engineer this scenario. You put "A7" in there, which implies you did at least look at the criteria for speedy deletion, but you apparently skimmed it, missing the explanation of how to use specific tags, which for the criterion you were attempting to invoke, are listed at WP:A7, right there on the same page.

I would add that it is unlikely that an article that has been here for eight months and edited by a variety of users actually qualified for speedy deletion at all, which is only for the most hopeless cases. Other deletion processes such as proposed deletion[ and deletion discussions have less narrowly defined rules than speedy deletion. Hope that helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories seem complicated

About this: If I agree that Category:Archeological sites in Africa should exist, how do I make that happen? Do I tag a lot of places like Olduvai Gorge, Laetoli, and Kapthurin with the category, and then create it, or vice versa? How do I subsume things like Category:Archeological sites in Kenya?

Hang on. Strike that; I just discovered Category:Archaeological sites in Africa. Note the British digraph. So, new question: Am I allowed to create a category redirect to avoid this in future? FourViolas (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying I am not an expert on the rather arcane world of WP categories, but I don't see why not. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Manche

fyi; perhaps I could have asedk at BLPN for consensus to speedy delete, but I'm more familiar with afd procedure. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My take would be that if you think it requires consensus, AFD is the appropriate venue. I don't have a real strong opinion on it myself, but I did try to clean it up a bit. In addition to the obvious bias, it was just bad writing on its face. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Undo of my edit in Template:Alaska

The article is written in Dutch Harbor is the port, and that the city is so named not written. If you want to prove to me that it isn't so, please do not start a war of edits, and give me sources, in which it is written. Mr. Vladimirovic (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So, let's just look at this situation real quick. You undid an addition that was made to the template at least five years ago, during which time it has been seen by dozens if not hyndreds of users familiar with Alaska, with the completely unhelpful edit sumarry "style". I reverted you, noting in my edit sumarry that the area is fact usually referred to by both names. You tell me in your edit sumarry when reverting me to read the article, which makes it clear that Dutch Harbor is part of Unalaska and where nearly 60% of its citizens live so I, wondering if you have read it yourself, put the edit back to the stable version it was in for over five years. You just revert again, then lecture me about edit warring? Are you sure you've thought this through? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for the prosecution in edit warring. Mr. Vladimirovic (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

{{WikiProjectBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} Question

Hello. I've been wondering about this for sometime, and you seem to know. What does adding the parameter 1= do to the above mentioned templates? Compassionate727 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I actually do know. I think what is going on is that you are telling the template "here is the first project tag" but for whatever reason you don't need to do it for the subsequent tags. I seem to recall that it just doesn't work if you don't do it that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Your email

This is someone who knows the history surrounding User:JarlaxleArtemis, including Jarlaxle's RL identity. But it's not Jarlaxle -- the style is completely different. Not sure who it is, and don't really care either. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I figured when i saw rhe reblock you must have recognized something about it. You know what they say, being attacked by trolls is sure sign you've done something right. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

arts stub

I'm completely new to Wikipedia and misread the purpose and the application of stubs. It truly was my error in thinking such decisions were juried. Helios2000 (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, we all know how confusing this place can be when you are first starting out. There's no shame in an article being a stub, it just means it's a very short article, and other users are invioted to help make it better. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope that this doesn't erupt into a problem...

Re: "I am watching now. Please stop what you are doing there",[2] I hope that this doesn't erupt into a problem, but he just signed up as a WP:DRN volunteer.[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see, repeatedly asking for user rights within days of their first edit, blanking reports for no apparent reason, signing up to resolve disputes when they aren't even autoconfirmed yet... yeah, I could see how you might be concerned that there may be trouble ahead. As we all know it takes time to learn how things work here, but this user seems to want to just plunge ahead regardless of whether they know what they are doing or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this is related. Might just be a coincidence, but coincidences are suspect nonetheless. Something seems off, maybe I'm wrong, just putting it out there. Rgrds. --64.85.217.222 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Nyambe

Hello Beeblebrox, could you please delete this expired PROD Ryan Nyambe when you have a moment... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: I didn't respiond to this because it was already deleted by another admin. But now it's been recreated and i have gone ahead and nominated it at WP:AFD, citing your original reasoning from the PROD. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope

Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check "what links here" next time ytou consider deleting something like this. I'm as surprised as anyone that the little essay I created years ago has become part of the everyday lexicon of "Wikipedia-isms" but it has, which of course implies broad support, which of course means trying to just delete it or water it down to some wishy-washy thing that says something else is probably not a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realize you were the authot Beeble, damn good reasoning and it has indeed become part of the lexicon. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been so long, I didn't even have it on my watchlist anymore, and lots of other users have improved it (or not) over the years, but I did get it started, "disturbing imagery" and all... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubiouser and dubiouser

[4]
[5]

Suspicious timing, wouldn't you say? Reyk _YO! 17:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I imahine a CU might find some interesting results were they to look into this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Then do request a CU. Otherwise, keep your bullshit to yourself. Alakzi (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. Thanks for yet another lesson in manners and civility though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Restore

Would you mind restoring [[6]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Aw, what'd I do now? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to thank you for deleting Template:R to other namespace/testcases. Joys! – Painius 01:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nankang Rubber Tire

Apparently some types of 'trains' [7] do use rubber tyres, see Rubber-tyred metro! No squirrels though. - 220 of ^Borg 03:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess I learned something noew today. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP is the place to pick up all kinds of 'trivia', like this! 220 of ^Borg 12:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014–15 AC Omonoia season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Omonoia. 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) 08:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you and keep up the work! Inomyabcs (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Straightoutofcomptonmovie.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Straightoutofcomptonmovie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

People excluded from the British Throne listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect People excluded from the British Throne. Since you had some involvement with the People excluded from the British Throne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

edits i made

Hi, I would like to ask you if you would be willing to delete or hide my previous wiki edits. Looking back on things I acted immaturely and now find the edits embarrassing. The pages these are on are Gorillaz demon days, gorillaz plastic beach, gorillaz debut. Not the ones from my current account marginallycool157, but the ones from 184.39.8.154, 74.235.32.75, 184.39.5.200, 192.182.173.92, 45.53.230.186, 162.247.201.120, 45.53.247.228, 74.235.32.159, 74.235.50.11, 184.39.11.82, 74.235.51.181, 104.240.179.121, 162.247.201.114, 184.39.10.151, kobe24ny. Yeah... I know, a mouthful isn't it? Anyways, i apologize for my past behavior and hope you will help me. Thanks! Marginallycool157 (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, been a bit busy in real life. Revision deletion is only done in certain circumstances. Being embarrassed, I'm afraid, is not one of them but I will take a look. when I get a moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Autopertrolled

Hi beeb. are you absolutely sure about this? The guy doesn't even know how to patroll new pages yet! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked some of his recent creations, and they all seemed ok, nothing speedy deleted recently. Since it's not a user right that actually does anything I guess I am fairly liberal in handing it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Need some eyes/advice

Since you blocked this editor as a sock, could you take a look at this edit by a "new" editor (who claims to be 15 years old) which restored the material that the sock had tried repeatedly to add to Panicker. It's also curious that I had commented on Talk:Panicker and on the sock's talk page and the "new" editor, who like the sock copied his user page from someone else, contacted me (out of thousands of editors) with this strange message, two days after the sock was blocked. Do I need to start an SPI? Voceditenore (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a bit much to chalk it all up to coincidence, I went ahead and blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the block was wise. This morning I was about to start an SPI after discovering that not only had this "new" editor, Magicsan, re-added the material to Panicker that User:Mathew102 had tried to add (it was removed three times), he had edited at least two further articles which Mathew102 had edited. The clincher was that Magicsan had told me (with his very first edit here) that he was 15 year old new editor seeking advice on how to edit Wikipedia [8] and then yesterday he went to Seraphimblade's talk page asking for rollback and admin rights claiming that "ive been editing on wikipedia for about two years now(through multiple accounts)". I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had registered several other accounts between Mathew102's block on the 9th and his yesterday. However, given his incompetence, they'll become obvious soon enough. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And to top it all off, the "article" Magicsan created, Chammandi (the movie), is a complete hoax with fake references and a fake movie poster. It was cobbled together by copying bits from other WP articles and then changing the words. I've PROD-ed it. I wasn't sure how blatant a hoax had to be for {{Db-hoax}}. This one isn't obvious until you read it carefully, do Google searches, and check the refs. Sigh! Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen

Hello Beeblebrox. I haven't spoken to you since February, but I am contacting you again today for the same reason as the last time. I feel that my experience level, as well as my number of mainspace and vandalism-related edits, has increased quite substantially since last applying for the reviewer permission. Let me know if you believe I am ready to be granted this permission, and if not, I know based on prior experience that your criteria will help me move in the proper direction. Thanks so much! Lord Laitinen (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Lord Laitinen (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Redoubt

Hi Beeblebrox,

It's definitely Mt Redoubt, but you're right that it's just too faint to see in the photo. Pictures just never can match the eye. I tried, taking hundreds of photos of it since the last eruption, with big plumes of steam and ash billowing from it. From that height all you can really see is the tip, but coming down Rabbit Creek Rd you can see much more of it, being able to see farther over the horizon (weather permitting of course). Zaereth (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that the editor adding photos posted one of the "Whale Wall" in downtown Anchorage. I remember a similar photo being deleted because it violated copyright of the artist. Here is a link to the discussion, plus there is more in the talk archive: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whale_Wall_Anchorage.JPG I don't know much about copyright of images, but thought I should mention it in case it is problems. Zaereth (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I should've checked who put that image there, I know you would know if it was Redoubt or not, I just never realized you could actually see it from anywhere near Anchorage. Images of public art are a bit of a grey area, I never know which way a deletion discussion is going to go on an image of it. I don't think anyone really knows the right answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to be at the right place at the right time to see it erupt once, but that was many years ago, before cell phones and a fancy camera was one that developed its own film. I'm not too worried about the mural myself, but just recalled the past discussion. I'm sure if its a problem someone'll bring it up on commons. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The last deletion discussion on Commons involving something I uploaded was a big schmozz. I developed the impression that all one has to do is request that something be deleted and it will be deleted, regardless of what anyone has to say. I was going to say something about the photos in the article, too, but figured I'd wait until those editors were done. I may have to break down and go find my Anchorage photos and upload a few. The photos still give the article too much of a touristy feel, there's a serious lack of photos depicting streetscapes and outlying areas, the locomotive photo gives no indication that it depicts Anchorage while the photo it replaced most certainly is of Anchorage (and, amazing coincidence, depicts a side of Anchorage that tourists normally don't see). What else? Untold hundreds of Iditarod photos have been uploaded to Commons, yet instead we have a photo depicting the Alaska Wild? "The neighborhood of South Addison"? Articles like these are constantly in danger of resembling advertising for the local CVB, so the tone of the photos is one thing I pay particular attention to, even if it means having to "gore someone's sacred cow" in the process. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all. Personally, I rarely upload photos unless I see a need for one, say ... perhaps some text where a photo would help people visualize what it's talking about. (In some cases, if I couldn't find text for a photo I'd just write it myself.) I think the article is too touristy as well. My grandparents came here before WWII, and I've been dusting off and going through some of their old books and photos, hoping to improve upon the history a little, at some point in the future. However, I agree that articles shouldn't be a repository for photos, and have brought it up on other articles like moose, iridescence or Japanese swordsmithing. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Taking this in a different direction, now that you brought that up: I was able to obtain a copy of Fond Memories of Anchorage Pioneers recently. Love the Byron Birdsall painting on the cover, showing the "Oyster Loaf Fountain", later Woolworths and now the gift shop, plus the wireless station where Peratrovich Park is now. Oh yeah, Eckmann's Furniture, too? Before I go on and on, pp. 92–93 mentions my relatives, though I should disclose that they had nothing to do with my immediate family coming to Alaska. My grandmother's cousin, Lloyd W. Hines (1911–1991), came to Anchorage in 1935. In his early years there, he was Sydney Laurence's next-door neighbor at the Anchorage Hotel. He was a pioneering optometrist and later a pioneering real estate developer in Anchorage. Until Anchorage's most recent shift in affluence and related gentrification, his home at the western end of Bryn Mawr off of Wesleyan was one of Anchorage's few scattered mansions (sadly, when new houses in the million-dollar range started sprouting up all over the Hillside, it was deemed an anachronism and subsequently demolished and replaced with a condo development). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Haven't seen that one. I found a book called (something like) A Pictorial History of Anchorage (sorry, I'm not at home right now) which is filled with lots of great photos going way back. There are several others too, plus an original Collected Works of Robert Service to boot. I recently found a box full of newspapers and magazines from the week after the '64 Quake, which are fascinating. Oh, and a book on the Battle of Kiska, which was the largest naval battle ever fought against no enemy. (Turns out, the Japanese had pulled out two weeks earlier.) Unfortunately, summer has been a mad rush to prepare for winter, from break-up until the first snow, so I haven't had time to look over everything properly yet. Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This was published by the local Pioneers of Alaska igloo in 1996. One interesting story: Jack Anderson told of being a second mate on the SS Nenana and encountering Rosemary Kennedy several times as a passenger. The back cover has an aerial photo dated summer 1949; like most aerial photos of that era, it looks eastward along Fourth and Fifth avenues from near the Knik Arm shoreline. At center foreground, I see the "Inlet Hotel" at 4th and K. Not to be confused with the Inlet Inn, which is seen at the right edge of the photo, which was called the Roosevelt Hotel back then. A few years prior, it was called the Lind–Dudley Hotel. Bruce Kendall, someone I also have familial ties to but is not of relation that I'm aware of, owned that hotel at various points in time under all three names (the last time would have been decades ago — he was retired from the hotel business by the time it wound up as a for-profit version of Housing First until it was finally condemned a few years ago). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

User:OluwaCurtis

Hello Beeblebrox,

How are you doing? Just to let you know that the pending change reviewer right you granted to the above editor has been rightfully revoked by Moonriddengirl for repeated violation of the copyright policy. With kind regards! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Wikicology. :) Since I'm pinged, I'll add that I don't imagine Beeblebrox would have had any way to know. Unfortunately, these issues sometimes don't come to light until later! I mean, we've had admins who displayed problems with this after their RFAs. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't imagine Beeblebrox would have had any way to know either. Sometimes ago, the editor asked me privately, if they should applied for user rights, I advised them to wait for at least 6 month before they applied but they went ahead to request for these rights and I was surprised to see that those rights were granted to the new editor but I waited for a day like yesterday. I've seen an admin who granted "Autopatrol right" to editors who only created disambiguation pages. Creating hundreds of disambiguation pages or stubs articles in my opinion is not an indication that the editor is familiar with the basic policies that guild content creation. Sometimes the rate at which admins grant user right on Wikipedia is alarming and worrisome. I feel user right shouldn't be granted to editors without proper examination of their contributions. Beeblebrox is one of the most trusted admins on Wikipedia and I don't think they've wrongly granted the PCR right to the editor but I only felt they should know since they recently granted the right to the editor. With kind regards! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing with these low-level user rights is that they are as easily removed as they are granted. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester

When you reblocked RGloucester, you disabled autoblock. Just curious if that were intentional? The original block included autoblock, and I'd removed it because of confusion over the rationale (I took it to mean that he'd been compromised, so of course we wouldn't want to autoblock him), but you didn't restore the autoblock, and I wondered if you meant not to. Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't really think about it at the time, it just seemed clear to me that it was time for him to have his talk page revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Self-request for block

@Beeblebrox: I'm relatively new, but I feel I've made enough reasonably constructive contribs to meet your criteria. My research interests happen to focus on contentious historical topics, and editing/discussing the relevant articles is both addictive and distracting. I need to take a break from all this for a time. Please block me for 6 weeks.Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You do appear to meet my criteria for such a block. I usually like to verify me last time before blocking, and to make sure the user knows about the Wikipedia:WikiBreak Enforcer, which you can do yourself and won't leave an entry in your block log. Let me know if you still want the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still tempted to block anon contribs. As long as the reason for the block is clearly stated and there is a "blocked for wikibreak" template on my user page, I don't see a problem with having a block log entry. If there are still reasons why having such an entry is bad, let me know. thanks Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about a template, but of course I will note in the block log and on your talk page that it was self-requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OK @Beeblebrox:, sounds good. I am extending the blocking period to about 3 months. So Block me from now 'til January 1, 2016 Thanks for your help!Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-creation of article previously deleted at AfD

Hey, Beeblebrox. The Louisville–West Virginia rivalry article was found to be non-notable and deleted pursuant to a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisville–West Virginia rivalry, which you closed. The article has been re-created, and I have placed a WP:G4 speedy deletion request template on it. Would you mind doing the honors? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The rollback privileges you gave User:SheriffIsInTown

Have you considered my discussion with the editor before granting such privileges? You warned him that rollback should only be used to revert clear vandalism, but that's the very thing, the editor has been reverting edits in bulk with accusations of "vandalism" when only some, if any, of the edits were clear vandalism, while other ones were even corroborated by sources already existing in the article. Tendency to call just every disagreeable edit "vandalism" is dangerous. LjL (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The "warning" you refer to is just part of the standard template message left for users newly granted the right. The thing with these very low-level user rights is that they are as easy revoke as they are to grant, so if there is a problem it can be quickly and easily dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Permission removal

Please remove the rollback and pending changes reviewer permissions from my account. Thanks. CTZMSC3 (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Found you !

I saw the pic on your user page and immediately took to the "where's wally ?" clue. I may be wrong but you're the guy in red and whit stripes,second row behind the man in the orange shirt...........I MAY BE WRONG Yours, Blisspop (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This account is an old "friend" of yours. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have a lot of those, drawn to my talk page likes moths to a flame... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hey, you seem like a fairly active guy in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. I was wondering if you could give me a copy of the code of the deleted Module:Module overview. I remember it had some weird way of working, but I can't remember how. I'd just like to see its implementation again to see what I can experiment with on other wikis. mol uɐɯ 14:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been traveling the last few days, and just got home, and have no idea what the rules for module pages are, so it might be a moment before I get to this, but if nobody else does I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done. After having nearly every permission a user can get here for the last five years it was somewhat of a surprise to be told I did not have permission to move a particular page. Apparently module pages cannot be moved out of the module namespace. I'm not sure what your other options are. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Would moving it to a subpage of a "personal" sandbox module work? Like Module:Sandbox/User:The_Mol_Man/Module_Overview mol uɐɯ 00:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that probably could be done, but I'm not at all sure that it should be done, ignorant as I am of how modules work. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.