Jump to content

User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30


Greek love

I'm looking for a way to extricate myself honorably from this mess. I'm leaving a note here because you closed this AfD, where I made a commitment to do as you instructed in the closing statement. There are two editors who have long sought to delete or eviscerate the article, one of whom has used a series of user names (unacknowledged on his current user page but available here, so at first glance it may appear on the talk page there are more than two editors in the 'suppress' camp). I complain here about their coordination. Other editors, including User:Nuujinn, User:Peter cohen, User:Wareh, User:Dominique Blanc, User:Pmanderson, and User:Akhilleus, have periodically weighed in to indicate that the article was developing in the ways outlined at the AfD, based on RS recommended there and others discovered since then. Since I'm a rather obsessive provider of citations, I've never had these kinds of problems in other articles. The same objections that were dismissed at the AfD recur endlessly, and really, it's been like living in Groundhog Day and I simply can't do it any longer. I haven't changed my position on the validity of the article, but I've been accused (on various talk pages, and never the appropriate notice boards) of edit warring, ownership, disruption, and even pedophilia by implication, all for trying to carry out what the community decided. I'm done. I need to limit my time on Wikipedia at present, and wish for that time to be spent pleasantly and productively. When I've made a commitment, though, it grieves me not to keep it. I'm not asking you to do anything: I'm just explaining why I can't keep my word as given at the AfD. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is a mess.Certainly no hard feelings on my end, it is clear you endeavored in good faith to improve the article. I have found that knowing when to walk away is an essential skill, not only here but in the real world. Sometimes your presence, despite your best intentions, is harmful rather than helpful, and sometimes a dispute just isn't worth it anymore. Best of luck in your future endeavors here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mailchimp

I'm not that bothered but I think that the Mailchimp speedy deletion was a mistake. It did cite that it was one of the more important email marketing programs so it was stating the importance - something that was supposed to be the original problem.

JASpencer (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The criteria specifies a credible claim of significance. Wordpress pages are not reliable sources. However, I would certainly not object to it being restored as a redirect, as it was for several momnths before today. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Jasper Deng's talk page.
Message added 01:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a hunch?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be a returning editor, the username is not a blatant violation of the policy. If you have any evidence of socking file at WP:SPI. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of article Shay Carl

I would like to request that the article Shay Carl be recreated, see the deleted Talk:Shay Carl for my reasons (note, Talk:Shay Carl was delete because of A1, not notibility). --Aaron McHale (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • That sounds like a good idea, although Shay Carl has grown considerably in terms of followers since then to over 2,000,000 subscriptions on YouTube split between two channels. Would it be possible for you to get the previous contents of the article for me to give me somewhere to start. Thanks! --Aaron McHale (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I've userfied it for you at User:Aaronmchale/Shay Carl. As you can see none of the references attached when it was deleted meet the definition of a relibale source, hopefuly you will be able to rectify that. Once that is done it can be moved back into article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, would a YouTube video be considered a reliable source if it came from one of Shay's channels, as I see that other articles about YouTube Personalities cite videos from that persons channel(s) on YouTube? Thanks. --Aaron McHale (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally, no. YouTube is not a reliable source as anyone can add anything they just made up to it. It could be considered a primary source for establshing what is in a particular video, but it's no good for establshing notability, which is the problem here. I'm not sure what journalistic outlets with editorial oversight would be writing about YouTube videos, but Google News may be able to find something. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • True, anyone can upload a video, however I am talking about only videos uploaded by the channels ShayCarl, ShayTards, iPhoneTard, ShayLoss, and any other channels that are partner channels run by Shay Carl, or his wife Colette (also known as Katilette) and channels run by his other family members. Those are the types of videos that I am referring to. Also things like YouTube's official statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronmchale (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the criteria used in identifying a reliable source is its independence from the subject. You need to find something where someone besides the subject or the website they post on has written something substantive about them. You can ask about specific references at WP:RSN. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 

@Aaronmchale: I did some Google searches and found some potential sources you might be able to use in your article.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Note that I didn't actually read any of these articles or even click on the links, but it should help you get started. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those, I'll have a look at them. --Aaron McHale (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Storypwner14

Since it was moved to the holding pen, I probably wouldn't have seen your response if I hadn't by chance moved another report there just now.

To explain that a bit better, it has been my experience that, regardless of the user's intentions, the "pwn" string gets other users' backs up, making good-faith collaboration difficult, and that was the thrust of my username warning. If they had not wanted to change it, I wouldn't have blocked them.

I admit that viewpoint is probably based on my experience of earlier years (the mid-2000s) when it was more common for people to attempt to use that name. If some user seriously wants a name with it, I would not object to an RFC. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should be slapping the username discussion template, which often has a chilling effect, on the page of a user whose name we all know does not violate policy. Since it says " If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why." it makes no sense to add it when you know it is not in fact a violation. If it bothers anyone they can take it to RFCN. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Expiration of British & Irish political voluntary ban

Howdy Beeblebrox, has my unofficial topic ban ended? or is that when the '17th' ends? GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the exact language was "until the 17th" so I suppose that would mean it is over at 12:00am on the 17th. I would be sure to check in with your mentors before re-entering the area though. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Britcom's Userspace

You've got a lot of nerve deleting pages in my user-space. Tell me why I shouldn't file a complaint against you. --Britcom 08:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied to the identical remark on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest WP:DENY by now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking WP:DIVA mysself, especially the first point in the section on spotting divas. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jake.edu

He's not a troll. Just a child who doesn't know any better.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

An univolved look please

Hi Beeb. I'm glad to see you chiming in as an uninvolved party. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#Incivility and disruption of an RfC (No 50 on the archive list). This was archived 2 days ago unresolved because there have been no recent edits to it. Andy and R-41 have commandeered the RfC and the discussion that proceeded it that led to the RfC. There has been a lot of fast and slow edit warring on the article for years which led me to full protect it after warning editors. Andy is insisting that the RfC is flawed, but I believe that it may possibly a means to reconduct the RfC in his favour. R-41 has now started putting 'satellite site' on other articles which I consider to be possibly trying to prove a point through the back door. Something needs to done to stop these two from disrupting processes and possibly other articles, but now that the ANI has been archived I'm at a loss to know what to do, don't really want to get further involved (I have no opinion on the outcome of the RfC), and I would be glad if an uninvolved admin would look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Gulp. I hadn't really looked into it at all, just going through banned users contribs and trying to erase as much of their footprint as possible. I was actually just about to sign off for the day, but if I can find some time in the next few days I'll have a closer look at all this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I would appreciate it if you could. Something needs to be done because the RfC is now practically a fiasco and I will soon have to extend the full page protection again until it is resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'm taking a break for a while, Beeb. Dunno how long it will be. Keep the wheels turning! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Vannathirai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (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) 10:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oversight

Hi there. I believe you're an oversighter, so this may require your attention. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

JetBlast

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at JetBlast's talk page.
Message added 12:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JetBlast (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Please can you tell me the situation regarding the deleting of the talk page please? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's like this: There is no policy based reason to delete the entire page and all it's history. You were asked by the Oversight team to identify specifically which edits were a problem. You never did that. Oversight can remove every revision of the page that had any problematic content on it to the point where even administrators won't be able to see it. But you just need to tell us, off wiki through the oversight OTRS system or by emailing me directly, where the actual problem is. We can't act if you won't provide us with the information we need. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks, where can i email you please? --JetBlast (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Use the "email this user" link in the toolbox in the left hand collumn of this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hi Beeblebrox,

I see that you have been working on a Wikimania bid, but have not moved it to the "official" section of the page meta:Wikimania 2013 bids. Do you plan to move forward with this bid? If so, please simply move it to the appropriate section; the deadline is today. -Pete (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC) (member of the Wikimania 2013 jury)

I don't think it is going to go forward. I had hoped to find someone who actually lived in or at least close Anchorage to assist with it but that never materialized and I don't have the time or resources to regularly traverse the 250 miles from where I live. I'm considering the idea that it could maybe be hosted in Kenai/Soldotna, which is a fairly large area by AK standards and only an short flight or two and a half hour drive or bus ride from Anchorage, but that will have to wait till next year... Beeblebrox (talk)
Sounds good. In the past, it's been pretty common for a first effort to lead to a successful effort in later years, so you'll be in good company. Thanks for the update, and good luck in your future efforts! -Pete (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re expired block

Could you tell me if you would have accepted the request? Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed your case or even read the request, as soon as I determined for sure that the block was expired I deactivated it to remove you from CAT:RFU. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of my personal edification and future editing, do you know if it would be possible to find out? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My RFC/U

Hi, following my departure from Wikipedia last month you closed a rather absurd RFC/U opened about me. I didn't feel at all comfortable about the lack of scrutiny given to those harassing me and their general misconduct, but I promised to review my decision this month and it really looks as if there have been multiple positive developments in that regard, so I'm notifying you of my return. I understand you technically may be obliged to re-open the RFC/U and I won't take any offence were you to do so.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt I will be reopening it, but the certifiers or anyone else who feels it should be re-opened may do so at any time. I would add that the comments about the persons bringing the RFC which you have chosen to post in a large box at the top of your talk page reflect poorly on you. "Grave dancing" in such a manner is generally looked on very negatively by the community here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the reply, I don't really understand the technicalities of the procedure so thanks for explaining things. The large orange box was simply for showing my departure from Wikipedia and I've simply added some notes below to show my return. I'm not "grave dancing" whatsoever, and the fact is that if the behavior of those who had brought the case hadn't come under scrutiny by now then we wouldn't even be having this conversation as I still wouldn't feel comfortable editing here. I was simply commenting on the timing of the actions and providing a large amount of evidence which thoroughly supports everything I've ever said in the past and completely vindicates me. There was nothing at all celebratory about the content and I felt it was very important to make very clear my reasons for returning and what my position is. Anyway I've tweaked the text to avoid any possible confusion. Many thanks for not re-opening the RFC/U.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My_Revenge_(band)

Dear Beeblebrox, Regarding your deletion of the My Revenge (band) article. I am writing to ask if you would please be willing to tell me a little more about what the article's weaknesses were and why it got deleted. I'm also wondering what I could do, as the Article's primary author, to strengthen this article to pass Wikipedia Guidelines so that the article could be undeleted if improvements were made. What has confused me is the numerous use of bios from bands' record label websites as references throughout Wikipedia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(band) as just one example of many. This page is not nominated nor tagged, yet the use of the band bio is not in question. This occurs with innumerable Band Articles on Wikipedia. Moreover, there were people in favor of deleting the My Revenge article, but also quite a few Editors in favor of keeping it. I believe according to Wikipedia guidelines the article has merits which could allow it to be kept. Numerous Bands on Wikipedia also utilize Allmusic.com (the all music guide which is not editable by any outside source) as a verifiable reference, as the My Revenge article did. I have also found another source which I wanted to implement: http://bigheavyworld.com/tunk/?p=5277 This interview is from www.bigheavyworld.com, which is the Vermont music Library and Archive. It is the largest collection of Vermont-based music in the state. I thought this would be a reliable source to add to the Article as it provides verifiable information which also cannot be edited by any outside source. I would be grateful if you would take a second look at the article and to reconsider how if it can be kept; or how I, as the primary author, could improve the article to warrant it being kept on Wikipedia. I appreciate your time! Thanks a lot, sincerely, Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  • As the closer of the debate it was not my task to evaluate the article itself, but rather to determine what the outcome of the discussion about the article was. However I can address some of the concerns you have expressed here. There are thousands of band bio pages on Wikipedia, the existence of pages in a similar or worse state than this one is not necessarily indicative of uneven application of the rules, it is more a problem with the sheer volume of new articles being added every day. We aren't able to catch every such article right away and they manage to slip through the cracks. A deletion discussion is not a vote, so how many people were on each side is not nearly as important as the quality of the arguments presented, and the basis those arguments have in Wikipedia policy.
As for Allmusic, I would suggest that regardless of their reliability they are not a source that adds much as far as notability because their goal is to cover absolutely everything, no matter how obscure it may be. So, a reference to a listing there can be good for verification of the basic facts about a band, but it is not evidence of notability.
I just tried to check the bigheavyworld site but Google warned me not to navigate to that site, and their diagnostic page had this to say about it "Of the 528 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 60 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2012-02-02, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2012-02-02." So I can't help you there as I won't be navigating to that site. What I can do is userfy the article for you, which will provide you with a copy of the deleted article that you can work on until such time as the issues that led to the deletion have been rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, thanks a lot for getting back to me and I appreciate your willingness to userfy this article affording me the opportunity to work to rectify the issues. One point about Allmusic.com - Their scope is more narrow than you define it, they only cover professionally published material that is "commercially available in their country of release." http://allmusic.com/about/product-submissions I recognize that's still pretty broad, but worth noting that their goal isn't to cover "absolutely everything."
As I wrote user Cloveapple (talk) the band My Revenge has an interview with National Public Radio - State Of The Union program with Tina Antolini evidentially being done later this week regarding their activism against topics like racism, sexism, and their work on promoting same sex marriage rights. When this story runs, it should prove to be a quite reliable source and at that time I will incorporate any applicable references and verifications into the article in order to further its improvement.
As for Big Heavy World, I keep getting that malware warning too. The site had parts of it down for a couple months and now that it's back up, I think they are still trying to work out problems. I'll keep you apprised as to when I see that it's safe to visit the site. My interest lies in Vermont music history. I am quite knowledgeable about music history (with a focus on the past 3 decades) in general, but particularly with Vermont, and that is my impetus for being here and I would like to be able to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards and can be included in the Encyclopedia. Thank you very much for your time and your advice on this, I appreciate it. take care, Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Article now userfied at User:Vermont Hardcore Punk/My Revenge (band). Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at BigDwiki's talk page.
Message added 06:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDwiki (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

List of bands from visual kei

The page "List of bands from visual kei" needs to be deleted or edited in a way to redirect to Category:Visual kei musicians, or more appropriately Category:Visual kei musical groups, without adding itself to the category. The way it currently is, has it listed in Visual kei musicians. Xfansd (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think I acted too hastily before and didn't look deeply enough into the history of the page. I also failed to notice the redirect I restored was to a category and not a list article. I don't know where the idea came from that such a redirect is appropriate but it is not, at least not when an honest attempt at a proper list article exists. I've tried to straighten this out by moving the page and restoring the list. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I'll admit since I personally don't like the use of "lists" on Wikipedia and since the page was created by a repeat sockpuppet offender, I nominated it for deletion. But if you find the page necessary and in the guidelines, then so be it. But shouldn't it be "List of visual kei musical groups" to match the category's name? Xfansd (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a note, but the user who created this list has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Yui Ponyo, who got blocked indefinitely for messing around with articles on visual kei bands. If the list is to remain, it should be checked by an expert. Michitaro (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Zulu (film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ChocolateWolf (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You obviously missed the fact that I attempted to open discussion of these issues two months ago and nobody responded. So, maybe you should try responding on the talk page instead of throwing this stupid template at me and acting like I'm some common vandal. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I was about to rollback the warning but I accidentally rollbacked your reply instead bleh. I rollbacked his revert, obviously he's a clueless new contributor that just started vandalism fighting and got misunderstood. Will warn. Secret account 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

way ahead of you, was doing that as you wrote that remark. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You had mail - and it looks like you've dealt with it already, but your input would be useful too. Reynardo (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. And the encouragement. Reynardo (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent cleanup - if I can trouble you further, could you please look at Special:Contributions/178.63.32.109 and see whether these should be redacted? AFAICT they're all a cut-and-paste of the same allegation against Purrum. edit: looks like either you or somebody else has taken care of them, all good now. Cheers! --GenericBob (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello Beeblebrox

Would you please undelete my blank user page that you deleted on January 3, 2010? Or at least help by explaining how to create a user page with the exact same name to reclaim my contributions...i've obviously changed my mind about being here and i'de like to un-red and re-blue my name on the history pages of Wikipedia. Thx. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Henry_Delforn (For id purpose i leave my email address: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.169.36 (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A gmail address can be created by anyone and is not proof of anything. I have no way of knowing if that email was ever associated with that account or with the name behind it. You would need to sign in as that user and make this request again, it would then be granted without question. And actually it is generally considered extremely unwise to post your email address anywhere on Wikipedia so I've taken the liberty of redacting it from your post. If you had email enabled on that account you should be able to recover your login information if you have forgotten or lost it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've done some digging to see if there is any other way to reclaim the account, and I'm afraid it looks like there is not. If we can't verify that you are the same user then we can't accept any request based on that presumption. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but we have had problems on occasion with users impersonating others or trying to take credit for their actions here, so we tend to err on the side of caution in such matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, I've looked at it a bit more. It seems fairly clear that the original account was owned by a Henry Delforn of Carpinteria, CA. If this new person, whose IP locates to Murrieta, CA, could somehow prove he is Henry Delforn (like sending a trusted user a copy of his license, utility bill, business card, etc), I would be willing to let him usurp the old account. MBisanz talk 02:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You guys are alright, i don't care what they say...Beeblebrox: you got my back, thanks for deleting the email; MBisanz: butt in butt in (btw, i think i remember you...the signature looks familiar). Anyway, Beeblebrox i'm a little confused, how can i sign in as a user that doesn't exist? I got another idea to prove my identity...since i use the exact same user name in wikimedia, wikibooks, wikiqoute, wikinews, wiktionary, wikinews, ...etc. Therefore, what if i log in and write both of your names on 2 or 3 of my user pages in these sites? Would that satisfy? I'm reluctant regarding "(like sending a trusted user a copy of his license, utility bill, business card)" and confused about signing into a non-existent account. The only account i closed back then was wikipedia because one admin was greatly unfair against me and i was totally clueless regarding how to defend the unfair attacks (i.e.-wikipedia policies/laws/rules/appeals). Aaaaaanyway,...water under the bridge. MBisanz: what's "usurp"? and also, i moved from Carp, i am now in Glendora, not in Murrieta. Thanks again to the both of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.169.36 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Bingo. If you could log into one of your old accounts on another wiki, I could do it then. It would require some shuffling of stuff around on my end, but once you log in and prove it, I'll provide detailed instructions on what to click and where to do it. MBisanz talk 05:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
MBisanz: okayyyy, that's great...so i copied & pasted your message above at the bottom of this link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Henry_Delforn#About_User (i own you one, thx)...see ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.142.144 (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Go over and log into Commons again, then click commons:Special:MergeAccount on this page. Then unify/create an SUL as the page instructs. When you return here, an account should automatically have been created for you. MBisanz talk 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
boy, i can't tell you enough how i resisted linking wiki accounts when commons:Special:MergeAccount came into being. i prefer not to link the accounts...is there no other way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.169.36 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Try going to Special:UserLogin and signing up for a new account using the old name "Henry Delforn" I moved it out of the way, so it should let you re-register. MBisanz talk 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
MBisanz, i was telling Beeblebrox that i wanted the exact same name to reclaim my contributions. i think that re-registering would not make my red go blue...in other words, i want to reclaim the contributions i made using my name as it was prior to my user page being deleted (which btw, it was deleted without even me requesting deletion). I don't really want to start all over again...know what i mean? i would like to pick up where i left off two years ago. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.169.36 (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the history of your old talk page, it is clear that the user page was blanked, I left a note on the talk page asking if that should be interpreted as a request to delete it, [9] and that message was also blanked[10]. It was only then that I went ahead and deleted it. Once this is sorted out it can easily be restored to its former condition and you can make a note there indicating that the now-renamed account was you, but without your login info from that account I don't think there is any way for you to actually resume editing with that account's history in your contribs. I not sure I see why that distinction would be so important anyway, but it looks to me like MBisanz has been very accommodating and is willing to do everything that can be done about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I cannot give you access to an old account you lost the password to, because I don't have a way to reset passwords. The best I can do is to let you have the old username and old userpage with a new, empty, contributions history. Sorry. MBisanz talk 17:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit notices

Do you know the hex color of the bright orange edit notices we used to use? If not, could you point me to someone who knows? – Confession0791 talk 01:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what "hex color" means, so I don't think I can help you, sorry. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you comment here please? – Confession0791 talk 04:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks to have been resolved without me. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Beeblebrox,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding RfC/U

[11] I actually did read some of the evidence, and was planning to post an opinion after going through the rest of it. Insofar it would have been along the lines of "meh, people tend to lampoon politicians they don't like and defend those they like; finding sources for that is not hard; among Wikipedia regulars, that is couched in WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP terms, but it's the same old." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

just a note ...

Fantastic!!! Job well done. I tip my hat to you sir. — Ched :  ?  20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

oops ... if not a "sir" .. my apologies. It's just that I try to have a short wiki-memory, but I had a gut feeling there. — Ched :  ?  20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Your gut is correct, I am of the male persuasion. Thanks for the praise, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who had ever noticed this phenomena. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Not only the phenomena, but what impressed me was your sound and sage advice in how to deal with it. I know we've crossed paths many times over the years .. and there's just always a good feeling associated with my thoughts when I see your sig. Just that I found an excuse to drop by and say hi .. lol. :) — Ched :  ?  23:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

csd decline

I understand the reason for your decline, and agree. I knew the page probably didn't qualify, but I was WP:IAR based on the flood of pages that that editor had created that all seemed questionable (and the vast majority of which were speedied, by others). I was taking a shortcut and hoping to get away with it, but you rightly busted me. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bahram Nouraei

Hi my friend, I saw your final point in this AfD. I'm a little confused with that, do you really think that he's notable or it was just a consensus to keep? And did you count the SP and convassings in the consensus? This article is never important for me and doesn't matter whether it kept or not and sure that there is no objections about it, but I just want to know your opinion about this article as a user who wanted to comment "Keep" or "Delete"? Thanks you. ●Mehran Debate● 06:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought my closing statement was pretty clear about how I came to the conclusion that we keep it. Since you say you don't actually care anyway I don't see any reason to elaborate on it any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't expect to see such answer. I do apologize. ●Mehran Debate● 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I'm just having trouble understanding why you would want further explanation regarding something you feel is unimportant and does not matter. What I can tell you is that I don't really have an opinion on the article itself, as it was my task to act as a closer and not a participant in the discussion, so I only evaluated the discussion in order to determine what consensus was reflected by it, and how I arrived a t the conclusion I did is detailed in my closing statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Your AfD elaboration was admirable for me and I know it's a very difficult to read completely that long discussion, but my aim was just to know if my AfD POV was correct or not? In fact, I just wanted to know that I understood WP policies right or not?! Please forget my message, I do apologize again. Thanks friend. ●Mehran Debate● 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on a reference for my revenge (band article)>>>>

hello beeblebrox I am now working on cleaning up and making the my revenge (band) page workeable. I am an intern working to improve this article and will be putting it into my sandbox shortly. in an effort to improve the references & verifiability i was wondering if you could take a look at this link: http://bigheavyworld.com/tunk/?p=5277 This vermont music site was unavailable for a while and had a malware warning but i think it has since been resolved, if not let me know. if you could take a look and let me know if this could be a useful reference to improve the my revenge (band) article in an effort to get it into the encyclopedia, that would be wonderful. thank you so much Music ann (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, sources are used for two different purposes. For purposes of verification, this is probably an ok source, but since it is a record label as well and obviously an advocate for the "Vermont music scene" it is not going to be valuable for purposes of establishing notability, which was the issue that led to the deletion. Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source may of some help. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thanks a lot for your hearty welcome on my talk page. i'm glad to be here. If notability is a primary issue then I will focus my attention on that aspect for purposes of notability. I will be in touch as progress occurs and thanks a whole bunch! Music ann (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Baker album

It was created by mistake based on a source subsequently found to be unverifiable and removed. When this was discovered, I asked for it to be removed. Seemed to be the appropriate course of action. I appreciate your vigilance in investigating the legitimacy of the issue after a deletion request was filed. Benc90 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a pretty hard core group of new page patrollers, I'm kind of surprised that they didn't catch this completely unverifiable content, but with the massive size of this project sometimes things slip through the cracks. I'm puzzled as to why you say it was based on "a source" found to be unverifiable since you actually identified the source as Allmusic, and they do in fact have a page on an album of that name [12] but it is by a completely different musician. I'm trying to take you at your word here but your explanation is not really adding up. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Miller

Hmmm...the poli-sci fanboys seem to think he's running against Don Young this year. Actually, I think I would enjoy that...for about 10 or 15 minutes.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Wow, that would be so... stupid. I can't say I'm a huge fan of Young, but the guy just gets re-elected every time without even campaigning, and most Alaskans have a bad taste in their mouth after the crybaby act when Miller couldn't admit he'd lost. Anyway, feel free to re-add that if he seems to be becoming relevant again. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny you would say such a thing. I'm actually curious (but don't have time right now to do the research) as to whether or not Young is the longest-serving congressman to have never run unopposed. I'm pretty sure he's always had an opponent, even if some of them have been, ahem, less than positive additions to our society or way of life.
Speaking of time, I was hoping to get WP:AK up to 5,000 pages by now, but seemed to have made it to over 4,800. Shouldn't be too hard, but I may have to deal with other things than this for the next however many weeks. We'll see. LOTS of pretty much useless stubs, but I'm sure you already noticed that.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Also speaking of that article assessement drive (which I started when it occurred to me that some of these articles were left unassessed for as long as four or five years): the contents of Category:WikiProject Alaska articles amount to 4,810 articles. The sum total of articles in the subcategories of Category:Alaska articles by importance also add up to 4,810 articles. However, the sum total of articles in the subcategories of Category:Alaska articles by quality add up to 4,813 articles. I don't know if this discrepancy is important or if there are automated tools available to check for the problem. Perhaps these three articles erroneously carry two WP:AK templates or similar in their talk header? I certainly don't think I'd catch it, nor even have that much time, were I to go through it by hand.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Third bullet in your page notice

Toughest week of school career yet...please place a block lasting until 20:30 UTC on Friday, with the entry in the log stating "user request". Thanks much GotR Talk 08:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears you meet my criteria, but I always like to double-check before imposing such a block that the blockee understand that they will also have talk page and email access revoked and will not be able to appeal the block at all. I fthat's ok with you we can proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for not considering 4 days too short... Since revoking of talk page and e-mail access better serves the purpose of requesting a block, so be it. Again, as long as you state in the log that this is requested, we are good to go.
Oh, and please do not notify me on my talk page...have had enough notification e-mails from MediaWiki recently. GotR Talk 19:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It is kind of short, but looks like you have a good, real world cause for it.  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Where to now?

I obviously appreciate why you made these edits but there is an unforseen consequence. I was about to tackle an editor about serious COI, believing he was adding POV information, and sourcing it to his own attack piece he posted on a citizenwiki type blog, and to a book he wrote. I think I read somewhere among the the various edits removed that he admitted, or was shown to have admitted, being that person. But now the evidence has disappeared. What do you suggest? Just forget it? Moriori (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If his sourcing is not acceptable, it is equally unacceptable whether he is the author or not, whether he has a proven COI or not. So I would say comment on the sources, not the person using them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignore Meta

What do you think of this revision? I made a bold edit but it got reverted by someone who hasn't even signed the pledge.--v/r - TP 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. If we're ignoring it, arguing about how to ignore it does not strike me as a productive use of time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Response

Wow, I took a holiday and all hell breaks loose. I'll take a look and see what's going on. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I took a look. I do believe actions there to be regrettable but I include, again, your own actions in that broad category. I left Nemo a note saying that I wish his actions had been targetted to de-escalate rather than to enflame, and I now leave the same desire here. What actions are you taking to de-escalate the situation, rather than to enflame it? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I quit contributing to Meta. It doesn't really have any relevance to this project that I can see and it obviously has no standards for admin behavior, so I don't think I'll be hanging about there anymore except for steward elections. I've also been openly advocating for others to do the same as our presence there isn't helping this project and it is probably better if we just ignore Meta at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the hearty welcome, and thanks for your input & helpfulness.


Music ann (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Rocky Hill School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harkness (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) 10:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Baelor/GA1

  • Where do I go to find out why this was deleted?
  • Is the intent to invalidate the GA assessment? If or if not, this is going to pose an interesting problem as I'm trying to get Game of Thrones (season 1) to a Good Topic.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi J. The was the first time I used the nuke feature, and I was somewhat surprised it doesn't seem to have anywhere to add a reason, which would be WP:CSD#G5. Your reviewer was a sock of a banned user, so their comments are invalid, but if you need the page restored to get the GA going I can do that for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Are there any other GA reviews that were deleted? AIRcorn (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There were one or two more. I suppose the alarm bells should have maybe gone off a bit sooner when such a new user dove right in to GA reviewing, he started doing them less than a week after his first edit... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you link me to them (is there a way for me to see your deletions?). We can't really have Good articles without reviews and it doesn't seem fair to punish the nominators by just delisting, so I thought I would re-assess them quickly myself when I have time. AIRcorn (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You can see any admin's deletion by checking their logs, here's all my recent deletions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Regions of Alaska and particularly Arctic Alaska

Please see section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alaska Dankarl (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

He to Hecuba

This fellow has been blocked as a sock of Claritas [13] He had given a GA review on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and this review has now been deleted, the copy editor chaps are now giving the article a going over and once they are done I wish to nominate it again, but as the first one has been deleted what actually happens? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As a a banned user their review is invalid, and it they were the only one to edit that review page, so I would say you have a clean slate and can re-nominate it at any time without regard for the previous review. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
OK thank you, what of the failed GA tag on the top of the talk page? Should I remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I meant to do more cleanup after the deletions but real life interfered and I didn't get to it yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, could you restore the GA review that HtH performed on Baelor? At WT:GAN it was suggested that a reassessment be done, so I'd like to see what came up in the initial review. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've restored all but one of those edits, you can view them in the page history of the current GA page now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, will do! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrections Department (New Zealand)

Hi Beeblebrox. You recently deleted a conversation happening on the talk page of the New Zealand Corrections Department. Your input was very much appreciated as I was feeling quite harassed by the two other people involved. They were claiming I had a C0I. in my opinion, they have one.

They have now both deleted material I supplied under the Criticisms section of the Corrections Department page claiming I am using it as a coatrack. I reverted both their edits as in my opinion the information is totally on topic. However, I am new to Wikipedia editing. Could you take a look please and give me some advice about this. ThanksOffender9000 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My actions were purely administrative enforcement of WP:OUTING, and were made primarily to stop your repeated violations of that policy. I don't have any more authority over article content than anyone else and I know basically nothing about this topic. You may want to consider WP:RFC or other forms of dispute resolution that are available to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent comments

Gratuitous insults such as this are not helpful and, in my opinion, unbecoming of any member of our project, let alone a functionary. You are supposed to represent the best that English Wikipedia has to offer; someone who can demonstrate a maturity of spirit and decision notwithstanding the pressures of helping to run a Wiki. Those comments, among others, do not exhibit such behavior in my opinion. Of course, since it is only an opinion, please feel free to ignore me if you disagree. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi, with all due respect I don't see an insult, gratuitous or otherwise, in that comment and I'm unsure why you think there is one. I was warning that user about how Meta has been reacting to any proposal from an en.wp user over there lately, not insulting him. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No, you insulted all people who are regulars at Meta. You had a bad experience and generalized it to apply to all Meta regulars. -- Avi (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I gave a warning based on my own experience. Not only was I insulted by an admin, but other admins defended that action and told me I deserved it for daring to make such a proposal. I know not every meta regular is like that, but they stood by and did nothing, apparently not caring about a user being trolled by an admin in response to polite request for help that was not in any way directed at the admin who delivered the insult. I'm not the bad guy in that scenario. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved your clarification request

Hi, Beeblebrox, WP:ACN is used for the Committee, Clerks, and subcommittees to make announcements, not for questions like this to the Committee. I've moved it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, where I'm sure m colleagues and I will discuss shortly. Courcelles 20:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Hammad Ghaffar

As per Muhammad Hammad Ghaffar's request, I am renaming that account to a generic name, and placing a permanent block on it. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nasseriya

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

Nyttend (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Hey Beeblebrox. I've spoke to Erik and Howie; they report that the original plan is still very much valid, if the community comes back with a "yes, we want this tool". Having said that, further development will need to be fitted around the other tools we're working on at the moment and in the near future. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the link. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and thankfully Oliver can work full time only liason work between the community and engineering this time. :) It was really just a triage effort for me. Cheers, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Let's move

I've closed it, since it didn't have time to get started, and since it's clear that there is work being done on the more structured one. I'm going to get flack over this, so please make sure you deliver, and soon, on this RfA. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sven. As soon as we have three uninvolved admins on board to administrate I'll be moving it to project space so they can take it over and get it running. we only need one more.... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

link?

Hi, before I started my proposal I've been searching for a while if there isn't any similar somewhere. I couldn't find it, and that's why I started it. If there is any rfc regarding PC it would be nice if you could instead of telling me how bad it is to start similar talk beside of existing one, tell us, where this "good proposal" actually is. Be sure that if I knew that there is any, I wouldn't start this. There was no notification on wikitech-l, neither any notification board (for developers or community). And yet I still don't know where it is, although many people "slapped" me for starting own while there is clearly "some proposal" already going on (I am definitely not talking about WP:AN which is only a noticeboard for administrators and not really important for the encyclopedia itself) Thank you Petrb (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not involved in this, I am, of course, quite interested and in checking to see whether it was ready to launch noticed your message. :) The RFC was discussed 9 days ago at Talk:Pending changes, and linked from there. The conversation is here. The RfC is under development at User:Beeblebrox/sandbox. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I didn't really noticed that "f 400/150 users wanted this, then 150/65 editors removed it... Why did the later group get its way" was actually a thread related to open rfc, neither I have User:Beeblebrox/sandbox on my watchlist. I quite agree that it's my bad I didn't check further, but I still don't see what is so wrong on asking the real community of wikipedia, and not only a small part called administrators to start a wider discussion on this topic. Petrb (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that would be a discussion between you and those people who you feel have chastised you, and I have no input there, as I'm not one of them. :) I'll have to let the person you asked handle that one. But I am concerned from your note here that you might misunderstand what Beeblebrox was doing at the administrators' noticeboard; he wasn't asking admins to be participants in the discussion, particularly, or to start a discussion, but to agree to close the RFC when it is finished. There's been a recent movement towards getting three people to close contentious or particularly important RfCs. It does not necessarily need to be admins who do these closes, but admins often do. I feel pretty confident that Beeblebrox intends to open the RfC to comment by everybody, and it seems that he did invite anybody to help shape it at the thread I linked. I'm sure he'd welcome your collaboration, whether you're an admin or no. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
My RfC was closed before it even properly started with comment "don't do this this way" I am trying to find out what is wrong on "my way" and correct on "his way" and I still see that only difference is that his RfC is about to be managed and closed by local sysops while mine was started by me and was about to be closed by wikipedia community. Does it imply that only correct RfC on important topic is the one started by user with sysop flag, or something like that? Thank you Petrb (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I hope not. That wouldn't be a direction I'd want to see the community moving. :/ Beeblebrox will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, but from my observation I think the concern was simply that this RFC is likely to be tremendously controversial and likely to deadlock if not carefully prepared to avoid that. I don't think there was any issue whatsoever with you starting an RFC, but simply that under these circumstances this time being "bold" in starting it may not be the best approach to get a good outcome. :D (My bold comment is a reference to Petr's edit summary, by the way, for those who haven't seen it. :) It amused me.) Personally, I appreciate your willingness to get going on it, as it's important; I think you're to be commended for that, and that's in no way diminished by the fact that somebody else was working independently on another RFC. I don't know if there's ever been a situation where two people have worked independently on the same RFC; I imagine it will never be a simple matter in such cases to settle the best way to proceed. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • My apologies for seeming to ignore this, I apparently got numerous new messages while away and didn't even notice this thread until just now. Peter, last year I did pretty much the same thing that you did, just throw open an RFC about PC and hope that it would result in a usable consensus. While Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 did produce some results, it utterly failed to resolve the main issue of whether we would ever use PC again or not. In short, it was a disaster and caused a lot of hurt feelings all around. You can read more about how it went down in this signpost article. So, a year later, I gathered up the shattered bits of what little was accomplished in that fiasco and used it to lay the groundwork for a more structured discussion carefully designed to avoid such problems. I then asked for a "jury" of admins to run the RFC and close it. And then, your proposal opened and was linked from the exact same noticeboard. Your "I'm so bold" edit summary when opening it led me to believe that you were aware of all this and were just pushing ahead anyway. I apologize for that misunderstanding, and I hope you understand that this is in no way about elitism or an idea that only admin opinions are important. It is about learning from the mistakes, my mistakes, of the past and trying not to repeat them. I've now moved the draft RFC into project space at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 and "turned it over" to the admins who volunteered to help out with it. It should be up and running soon, there will probably be a site-wide notice about it but at the very least it will be listed at WP:CENT once it is ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

Would appreciate your input. Discussion on possible COI is proceeding here and who outed whom is a bit confusing. You presumably have the details so could advise and also guide to avoid re-outing or further outing. My post to COIN is my first on this matter, not otherwise involved. Thanks. Babakathy (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. Babakathy (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello again, I am concerned that the page protection is about to expire and the involved editors have not yet started discussing change to content. Is it appropriate to extend the protect? Or hope someone else will edit it?Babakathy (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK ...

this did make me smile. .. ok, I chuckled ... all right then ... I actually LOLed .. cheers. :) — Ched :  ?  18:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What gives?

So this is the third time I've started a thread in good faith, and you've come by to derail it with dismissive comments. Is this intentional? Or just an unfortunate coincidence that makes it look like you're trolling me? 28bytes (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence. I assure it is not personal, it appears we are interested in the same policy areas but have differing views on many of the issues and/or their relative importance, that's all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Agdaban AfD

I believe you misjudged the situation at this AfD. The quality of the sources was being questioned mostly along the lines of the sources being from Azerbaijan, something that is being used by the same editors to delete other articles on alleged massacres. Most of those objections came from people who support the Armenian side in the dispute and I think their reasons for wanting it deleted are not really based on sources at all. What I think is that the dispute was not one that would merit deletion, but one that could be addressed through making edits to the article or merging to another article as was suggested by one editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD closes are done based on strength of argument, not who is making the arguments. The argument that there are not sufficient sources was not effectively refuted during the debate, so the article was deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't focus on just one reason I gave. I cannot review the article to see what sources it included, but it appears those editors were mainly upset about a POV concern, not notability. An article being biased is not itself a legitimate reason for deletion. That area of the world, and its history, gets very little attention from Western media and Western scholars so difficulty in finding English-language sources should be expected and frequent mentions, trivial as they may have been, in such sources point to the likelihood of wider coverage in non-English sources. Here is a translated page from an Azeri newspaper's website (I had to google the Azeri words for the subject to find it) that gives substantial coverage: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ayna.az%2F2011-04-02%2Fsiyaset%2F5476-kelbecer-agdaban-soyqirim%2Fprint&act=url.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
My job was to determine what consensus was reached during the debate, and I believe I did that. I'm not going to re-run that debate with you here. You are free to try and create a properly sourced article and/or a userspace draft that addresses the issues that led to the deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Beeblebrox,

Why are you going thru a blocked editor's user space and nominating harmless pages for deletion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MFD is pretty routinely used to remove pages of no benefit to the project. Feel free to comment there if you object to any of these nominations. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a frequent participant at MFD, so I'll poke around there and see if this really is common. If it is, then I disagree with the practice in general, but then I guess my disagreement would be with the system, not this particular instance. After I've poked around, I'll comment, but to save me (and everyone) from copy-pasting comments, could you combine them all into one MFD? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
They are not all nominated for the same reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why would need to have this discussion off-wiki, the short answer would be that I consider this nothing more than housekeeping, it is not part of any dispute, and the community will decide what to do with the pages through the usual consnsus based processes. How I came across them was nothing more than random happenstance, then I noticed there was a whole pile of subpages there that either served no purpose related to Wikipedia, were unused userboxes, or were in violation of policy. That's all there is to it, there is no hidden agenda or subtext. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I see you have decided that i am lying and you want to make the deletion discussions about me instead of the nominated pages. Classy. This isn't about me, and really it isn't about Proofreader either, it is about a bunch of useless pages with no relation to this project. Please stop attacking my motivations, which you imagine anyway, and comment on the actual topic under discussion, the pages themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • - Just wondering - I am getting feedback via email this is suggesting that , have you had/there has been, some interaction on another wiki that has caused these nominations? Youreallycan 19:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what is up with the whispering campaign about this by email, thanks for asking me out in the open. I pretty much already explained this above, but here it is again:
  • Yes, Proofreader was involved in the ridiculous dust-up at meta that I was also involved in, in that he also participated in the discussions there.
  • As far as I am concerned that matter is in the past, having been concluded a few weeks ago.
  • Yesterday, through nothing more than coincidence, I became aware of a number of unused userboxes and pages with no apparent use or connection to WP in Proofreader's userspace. I nominated them for deletion so that the community could decide if these pages should be retained or not, as with any other deletion nomination.
  • That's it.
  • And now Floq has decided to try and tie these nominations back to the previous incident on meta. They are two entirely separate issues, what happened over there has nothing to do with the acceptability of these pages under en.wp standards.
  • And apparently he somebody is canvassing support for his position by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks for the fine details. I agree the nominations can stand alone as housekeeping suggestions. Just to note - Floq didn't sent me any emails. Youreallycan 20:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I guess I assumed that since he tried to discuss this with me by email for reasons that ware not clear to me. Striking that part. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I emailed you because I think you're doing something uncool, and wanted to give you a chance to change your mind and address it quietly first. If I intended to canvass, you would probably not have been a good person to email. I've been discussing this with PR77 via email (no other option), but not with anyone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's only "uncool" if you assume (as you did) that I am acting in bad faith. Asking or community input on some pages of questionable value/relevance to this project is not generally considered an act of bad faith. I'm not sure I even recall having any direct interaction with them during the nonsense at meta. I remember a lot of flowery faux-poetry postings that I didn't really read, that's about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:People educated at Edgeborough school

Hi, You deleted the page Category:People educated at Edgeborough school on 23 Feb and so have unlinked several names attached to that category. Would there be a problem in re-creating the Category? Manxwoman (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine, the only reason it was deleted was that all edits to it were made by a banned user. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for the speedy reply & totally understood. Re-created and all done 'n dusted! Manxwoman (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Just Step Sideways. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lake Erie Drum and Bugle Corps

Just wondering why the page for Lake Erie Drum and Bugle Corps was deleted, and why I was not notified. Seems kind of sneaky and underhanded. Also, how do you justify deleting an article about an organization that holds a civil rights award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustRealMC (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Erie Drum and Bugle Corps. My only role was to close the discussion in accordance with the consensus established there, which was to delete the article. You were[14] in fact notified, the notice is still right there on your talk page, so your accusations are utterly without merit.Since you participated in the discussion I am puzzled as to why you would feign ignorance about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Einstein Swiss or German

See WP:AN3#User:MadGeographer reported by User:IIIraute (Result: ). Illraute reverted again at 03:15 after your warning at 01:37. You might consider whether this affects your closure. Curiously, the bio on the Nobel prize site says Einstein obtained Swiss citizenship in 1901 so the Swiss side of the dispute might be technically correct. He was born German, invented special relativity while Swiss, but went back to being German later. Aren't nationality disputes fun? EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Update about User:IIIraute: He undid his own revert, stating that it was within 24 hours. I am marking the 3RR as 'No action' in the header but you can revise that if you want to do something there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
That works for me, hopefully the message has been received by both parties. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade video clips from 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91 & 93 gone (not found) on X-Entertainment website

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

What happened to 84, 85, 86, 87, 89 ,91 & 93 video clips from the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on X-Entertainment website that is not found? Can you tell me WHAT HAPPENED TO THE VIDEO CLIPS FROM MACY'S PARADE? Because it's no place like download or watching. PLEASE HELP!!! 74.72.39.176 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2012 (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.

RFC Notification close

Good close on the RfC notification. The comments were not helpful at all.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

HotCat Teahouse edit

Hey, Beeblebrox, just fyi, I reverted an edit you made with HotCat on the Teahouse questions page here, since it was meant to be a wikilink to a category. I've since realized the error of my ways (i.e. realized that wikilinks to categories don't show up as wikilinks in the text), gone back and made it an external link, rather than a wikilink. Is there a better way to handle wikilinks to categories? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, found the ":Category:" thing in an old helpdesk topic. Thanks anyway! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't exactly sure what was going on there myself, but there was bot notification that it had been marked as a guideline, which was obviously not correct. Glad it got sorted out. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD closure sorting category shenanigans thing

Hey Beeblebrox, whatever tool you use to close AFDs seems to have gone sideways - have a look at this. It's adding an NS:0 to the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template, but not actually removing the template. There were a couple others as well, though I don't have diffs handy. The result is... well, honestly, it's harmless, but I have no idea why it's doing that. Didn't know if you had any leads as to what's going on, perhaps? Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. the script I am using is Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I have no idea why it does it that way, maybe the authors do. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like that script has been in place since 2008, with no problems. Hrm. I thought it might be some recent script change or some technical whatever that was causing an issue. Guess it's no big deal. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD closure for Intent Leadership

Hi!Beeblebrox I believe deleting the article without answering the question which i have raised is not fair, nor democratic. I simply request you to go through the questions in my last few comments on the articles for deletion. Deleting without any reasons is not as per the wikipedia spirit.Thanks Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

See reply to identical post below. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)



I believe deleting the article without answering the question which i have raised is not fair, nor democratic. I simply request you to go through the questions in my last few comments on the articles for deletion. Deleting without any reasons is not as per the wikipedia spirit.Thanks Vartmaan Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

My job as the closer is to interpret what consensus was arrived in during the course of the debate, and to take action that reflects that consensus. That is all I did, if one particpates in a discussion they shouldn't be the one to close it. the reasons for these deletions are already explained in the discussions themselves. And you should probably be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

SFL 1

Hi,
regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1, I believe that all opinions made by IPs in this AfD (plus the already struck one) should have been discounted since from what I can tell they were all made by the same banned person.
I have not read the AfD so I have no opinion on whether this should have changed your evaluation of it, this is purely an FYI.
Cheers, Amalthea 00:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See below. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1

Can you please re-look at the close of this AfD, as it has now come to light that the IP's 63.3.19.1 and 173.241.225.163 were socking for a blocked user, the registered user User:The Bachmann Editor Overdrive was also a sock of a blocked user (now blocked) and 172.130.252.250 a SPA is blocked for personal attacks and given WHOIS information is likely connected with 63.3.19.1. Mtking (edits) 03:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It was fairly obvious when initially reviewing the debate that something was fishy, and of course we had one user openly canvassing others on top of it, but on the whole I found the arguments presented by both sides to be rather weak. However, I will adjust my closing statement to reflect that there is no prejudice against a speedy renomination, I think that might be the best course of action now that the event is over, the socks have been caught, and the user doing the canvassing has had it made clear to them that it won't be tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Done, I have tried to make my nomination clearer this time. Mtking (edits) 04:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
In the interests of transparency, can I please place a talk page notice on the talk page of all editors (both Keep and Delete) that are not subject of blocks about the new discussion ? I propose something along the lines of "Due to serious issues involving canvassing and sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1, I have renominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination)". Mtking (edits) 04:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
My personal inclination at this point would be to not do anything that could possibly be interpreted as canvassing, but if you decide to do that be very careful to adhere to WP:CANVASS. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hence my question here, and given your response, I won't. Mtking (edits) 06:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD closure for Dissolve the box

Hi Beeblebrox!

Thanks a lot for your prompt response. I thought that the discussion was absolutely on when it ended abruptly. My point on "significant coverage" has still not been answered. I only wrote to the editors that i will be travelling and will have limited access to my mail for 3-4 days. Livitup has done a detailed study has have found one significant coverage and two minor coverage ( which is more than trivial coverage) and therefore significant as per the WP:GNG guidelines. Many more references and points are still there which needs further discussion and which may help the editors to reconsider their decisions. Help me out to put my points clearly as i believe the editors are still not clear of many aspects which i am aware of as it has not been discussed. I am new to wikipedia and your guidance will be of great help. Kindly guide.

Once again, my only role here was to interpret what consensus was wached during the course of the debate, not to particpate on that debate. Also, I believe your questions were answered repeatedly during the course of said debate, you just kept asking them again because you dodn't loke the answers you were getting. This sort of situation is exactly why editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your message

(Received from you on my talk page):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half Moon Island Trail

As I'm sure you are aware, there is a lot of concern right now about extremism in AFD discussions. Remarks like this one you made at this AFD are a big part of the reason why.

The bulk of the remark is about who nominated it.

What's missing from this picture? AFD is not for discussing users or casting aspersions about their motivations. If you see a user who is making a lot of inappropriate nominations, you should talk to them about it on their talk page. If that doesn't work there are myriad forms of dispute resolution available to you. Please limit your comments at AFD discussions to the actual topic instead of trying to impugn the integrity of the nominator, who is probably just a user like yourself doing what they think is best to help improve Wikipedia. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron
Hello, Beeblebrox.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others as based upon notable topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

Beeblebrox, could you have a look in at WP:AN#Topic_ban? You said on the Hawkins talk page (18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)) that the BLP subject was being "deliberately obstructive" and that his objections to having his date of birth included in Wikipedia were "not relevant". As far as I can tell from a reading of WP:BLPPRIVACY, his objections are highly relevant, and he has every right under policy to ask that this material be excluded from Wikipedia. And if that is so, then your comments were very uncalled for. --JN466 17:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me know when you finish reading that thread and see the rest of my remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012

gonna unprotect it? Alarbus (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To comment you need to edit by section, the sections for endorsements are transcluded subpages. It was decided by the admin coordinators to set it up this way. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Uh, I followed your edit to get in there, but it's not right working right, methinks... Alarbus (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. You wouldn't have been able to make that edit if the page had full protection on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
If you log out, you'll see that the sections on the main protected page don't have edit buttons on them; even though people can edit the subpages, there's no easy, intuitive way for a non-admin to get to the pages. maybe add a direct link to the subpages, labelled: "vote here" or soemthing? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I found the subpage, but most will not. There's no way to it from the main page that I can see. Alarbus (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I laid the groundwork for this thing, and the admins coordinating it asked me to be the one to turn it on. I didn't do the protection and I am not administrating the RFC, and I'm not sure what to do about this, I could try adding links I guess. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Floquenbeam beat me to it, all fixed now. Thanks! If there are any further issues, they should probably be addressed to the coordinators on the talk page, I swore my hands would be off this thing once it went live. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Please use fullurl ;) Alarbus (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm ashamed to admit I'm not familiar with that parser function; Alarbus, since it looks like you are, could you fix it? (you can edit those three pages, they aren't protected). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually late; about out the door... will take quick look. Alarbus (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
People are going to have trouble watchlisting these, too. Alarbus (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why, they can watch the individual pages, but in any event this was not my decision and I am not in charge of the RFC, I merely set it up and turned it on. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
They won't know to. You can use fullurl with action=watch... (like on AC cases) I hear that it's not your thing; I have just have not looked any further to see who is running this. Alarbus (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You can contact them on the talk page of the RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I expect so; gotta go. Cheers, Alarbus (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oy!

Back off my turf. :) TNXMan 18:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That's odd, I didn't get an edit conflict notice or anything. Feel free to revert or append my remarks below your decline or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I've had that happen to me a few times too (not sure why though). If they request unblocking again, I'll review that one. Cheers! TNXMan 18:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes RFC

Hello there! I wasn't around for the PenChan trial run, and I just have a question about how it was administered before I !vote at the RFC, and you seem to be one of the more knowledgable folks around here (globally, but on this issue specifically). When an IP or non-reviewer edited an applicable page, were they informed that their edits were being reviewed, or was there a way that they could be confused about why their edits weren't showing live? Also, was their a way for Reviewers and Admins to see which edits needed to be reviewed, either at Recent Changes or some other page? And how liberally was the Reviewer flag handed out?

Sorry for being a pain, but I just want to be informed before making a !decision. Thank you, and Cheers! Achowat (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Users were informed that their edit was being held pending review, although there was sometimes confusion. This is something that could hopefully be rectified when/if the tool is brought back. All pending edits were listed at this page, and also wee highlighted on watchlists. The reviewer flag was handed out very liberally during the trial, it is/was considered basically an equivalent level of trust to rollback. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you sir! Achowat (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment about Taboo VI: The Homecoming

Beware, rant-mode on and at full steam.

And you see, that kind of half-assed scrutiny and second-guessing is what drives us members of the ARS mad. You're taking offense against the ARS because of an AfD that I found through the standard delsort; I wasn't in "rescue mode", and thus it's unfair to link it to the Squadron behavior for other than what the other members have done after my posting a notice there. But the worse thing is that you got the factors you list wrong, and still use them as a cause for prosecution.

  • I did not use the ARS Rescue List to find the AfD, so the most common accusation of Canvassing is not present in any way at this case.
  • I did evaluate the sources to the point that I thought they inferred some notability to the cassette. (if I didn't I wouldn't have listed them there). The whole point of AfDs should be asessing all the evidence available, not deleting anything with unclear status; bringing reasonable coverage of sources should to the talk never been seen in bad light. This is not true of indiscriminate sources as those found in listings and catalogs, but I made sure that my links weren't to those. I voted Keep because I thought the article merits a Keep with the evidence I found.
  • I did notice the bundled nomination. If you had done your homework you would have noticed that I explicitly mentioned them at the Rescue List notification, and you would have not bring that particular grief to my talk page. In fact a couple of the links were included so that others could see if they included something relevant for the other, since I couldn't evaluate that part.
  • I listed it in the Rescue List to promote the best expected behavior from it, which is to include the available sources into the article, to entice them to find more sources for the other articles in the bundle, and to integrate them into the articles. I didn't have time to do it as I pointed out, and I'm not well versed in American folk-rock. I knew the article is encyclopedic because I could learn something about it.
  • Since I posted the notice the article has been improved by members of the ARS, so what was the complaint again?

This also points to a deficiency in the methods used to evaluate the ARS behavior, suggesting that the poor reputation of the ARS is not entirely our own fault. So if you think that little diligence in assessing the evidence is enough reason to hold a grudge, what should we think of people complaining about the ARS? Sorry for the harsh tone (the lack of sleep because of time-zone hour change won't help and also I must rush to work), but if all the grudges against the ARS come from badly evaluated "factors put together" plus a dose of creativity in interpreting other people's policy-compliant and good-faith behavior, you should really let it go. Diego (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(You can WP:TROUT me if that sounded too harsh. I mean it and won't rewrite it, but I didn't assumed bad faith at any point on your part and probably the tone was undeserved). Diego (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

When will pending changes be added to this site

When will "pending changes" be added to this site? an do you need a certain number of votes to get it passed?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I will not be involved in administrating or closing the RFC. I tried that last time and it didn't work out so well, creating the need to do this again without the spectre of the never-ending "trial period" hanging over it. as a result, this time I set up a structure for an RFC designed to force a usable result one way or the other, and then I recruited a team of previously uninvolved users to administrate the RFC. They will determine when the debate has run its course and will close the RFC accordingly. While things are trending in a rather obvious direction at the moment, that all could change as time goes by, nothing is decided yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jersey Circus

Can you please explain the reasons for how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey Circus (2nd nomination) could be closed as a consensus to Delete? If you dismiss the WP:ILIKEITs and WP:IDONTLIKEITs, the major arguments for and against it were based on WP:NTEMP and the level at which WP:GNG was met by the sources available. Both positions were amply justified with direct quotes of the relevant guidelines, so I don't see that the discussion meets the conditions for even a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS either way. Rangoondispenser, the editor that more thoroughly argued for a delete on grounds of not enough notability, explicitly agreed to disagree with me; I sincerely can't understand how that position can be summarized as other than a No consensus or a relisting of the discussion.Diego (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I assure I read every word of your prolonged exchange with Rangoondispenser, even the parts that were not related to whether we should keep or delete the article. I also read everybody else's remarks, and I believe that the "delete" camp made the more compelling case for their position that the sourcing was inadequate. That someone agreed to disagree with you doesn't change any of that, it just means they were done arguing the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. (Although that still doesn't look like a reason). Diego (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles about to be deleted

Hi Beeblebrox, I hope you're well. I know you are aware of my case but now, my two articles smugging and sofalising are about to be deleted and I cannot get hold of any editor who could re-evaluate the changes I made and remove the deletion tag. Is there any chance at all you could help me with this, please? I don't know if I can do that myself and I really don't want to break any Wikipedia rule. I strongly believe that both of these articles comply with Wikipedia's content policies and have neutral points of view. I took the feedback on board and made some changes but was that enough?? Please let me know, I have just 2 hours left now... Thank you so much! Kat Kt1502 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Those articles are tagged for proposed deletion, meaning a single user feels that they do not meet our minimum standards. Unlike our other deletion processes, the creator of an article, or anyone else, is free to remove the tag if they do not agree with reasoning. Of course they should only do so if they really believe the nomination is invalid, and should leave a descriptive edit summary and or comment on the article talk page explaining why. The article could still end up at articles for deletion, but that process is much different as it involves a minimum of one week of discussion to determine aconsensus regarding the article. I would also suggest that both of these articles might be good candidates for merger to related articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Turkish Army Black Hawk crash

This is the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish army Sikorsky crash moved to another page. The editor who created it did [2012 Turkish Army Black Hawk crash] minutes after you deleted it....William 21:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've deleted the article and the AFD since there is no need to discuss such an obvious attempt to subvert the discussion. If you see something like that in the future you can tag it with {{db-g4}} and note either on the talk page or in an edit summary where the previous discussion was and it will be speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Could you take a look at the first few revision of Wikipedia:The Obvious? I might just have missed a joke, but I think there's some pretty problematic stuff which meets WP:CRD's second point. Thanks. – hysteria18 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Even without the personal attacks, it was basically vandalism and threats, so I've deleted the whole thing and closed the MFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes RFC

Regarding your edit to the Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion page discussing the three options, please note I explicitly did not disagree with your choice and said I fully understood why three choices were offered. My concern was not regarding the format of the posed question, but what would happen if vote splitting occurred between options 2 and 3 (which, thankfully at this time does not seem to be happening). I disagree with the editor who claimed there was one option to enable pending changes and two to disable it (in reality it is the other way around) and would prefer not to be lumped into the same category as someone objecting to three options being put forth.

I'm glad that you have been able to clarify the concerns people have expressed regarding the intentions of the RFC and its background while not getting caught up in the merry-go-round—keeping the number of active conversation threads down helps immensely with making the discussion manageable. Good work in funnelling people's good intentions to productive ends so far; here's hoping that it will continue! isaacl (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been working in my real life to be more diplomatic, it seems to be assisting me here as well. Thanks for your comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Black Hawk crash

There were 5 keep votes for the article, and 4 votes for delete, this page should not have been deleted in such haste when in it is clearly very notable being the second most deadly aviation incident in the whole of the Current War in Afghanistan, and Turkey's most deadly loss of life in the current war in Afghanistan to date. I didn't even get a chance to state my points before it was unfairly deleted.

It has 17 deaths and 5 keep votes, read all the citations, google it.

I did not want to even mention the countless and (I'm sorry) but pathetic articles on United States military aviation incidents that have no fatalities and are not notable. Look them up, why has this page been deleted? John Cengiz talk 02:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not replying to this until you alter the inflammatory section header. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not see it as inflammatory, apologies.
Here's another point; The consensus was not to delete, it's the same few users that nominate every article and then comment to every keep vote, this of course shouldn't make the keep vote any less, I frankly didn't think I needed to reply to every delete vote with a paragraph of comments.
This vote should of at least also been re-listed as it is not at all unanimous, deleting so soon like this is agaisnt WP policy. John Cengiz talk 03:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You didn't see the titling a post on a AFD as 'Racism on Wikipedia' as inflammatory? You're clearly lying or deranged. I'm the one who nominated this crash for deletion as I have also nominated around 20 other articles since last Christmas. Your behavior I take as a personal insult.
Various points on this AFD and this editor's behavior. 1- The editor in question made one post to this AFD and it was a comment.
2- I ask him to name one military crash with no fatalities that has an article. I'll be happy to nominate it. Since I follow the yearly templates, I don't know of one. So at the moment I believe this editor's boasts are so much hot air.
3- If those articles do exist, why don't he nominate them? It is alot easier to do than write talk page posts where you accuse people of racism.
4- This editor has been recently involved in another AFD.[15] One where he wrote the article and where someone may have been recruiting people to come vote.
5- Fatalities doesn't make a crash article automatically noteworthy or one without fatalities the reverse. In the last three months a crash with 14 dead[16] didn't survive a AFD and multiple crashes with ZERO fatalities[17] did survive an AFD.
This editor has a chip on his shoulder because one of his articles got nominated for a AFD. He needs to get over it....William 10:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearing some points up:
The incidents that have no fatalities and which I don't feel are notable are the 1961 Yuba City B-52 crash and the 1948 B-29 Lake Mead crash, I probably won't nominate them though, I just mentioned them in comparison.
I was not involved at all in the 2012 Norwegian C-130 crash article or it's AFD debate. John Cengiz talk 02:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A whole bunch of stuff

I've started to notice something really weird. Maybe you've noticed the same or have thoughts to share. It's almost as if the Wikipedia community is compartmentalizing (or ghettoizing) just who and what can and can't be mentioned on Wikipedia. In lots of recent discussion on notability, starting with deletion of sourced content from KTUU-TV (see below) on through these recent AfDs, I hear what to me is a lot of opinion pawned off as policy. It's as if I have no choice to believe that "notability" essentially boils down to "surviving an AfD" and anything else I'm hearing is just so much bullshit and platitudes.

With the KTUU article, I'm back to an old argument. It's undue weight to only mention Sarah Palin, an insignificant contributor to the station who became a celebrity in another career two-decades-plus later, as having formerly worked at the station. (More OR?)I was regularly watching their newscasts back then and I'm still scratching my head wondering if I ever remember seeing her. The same undue weight existed at KTVA and may very well exist again. Appropriate weight is given to this in her article, of course.

The deleted sourced content referred to (among others) two individuals, John Tracy and John Carpenter. Both were at the station for over two decades apiece and are well-known not only for their association with the station, but the role they played in the station literally dominating television news in Anchorage. Tracy has been mentioned as a key player in Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign. "Not notable" was the pertinent part of the edit summary.

This is where it gets scary to me. I'm interpreting all this as "WP:WTAF or don't mention it on Wikipedia at all." Obviously, we don't have an active project with the resources for such a thing right this moment. Let me throw out several names which should be familiar to a resident of the southern Kenai Peninsula. Brother Asaiah Bates? Milo Fritz? Earl D. Hillstrand? Yule Kilcher? Leo Rhode? Benjamin B. Talley? Clem Tillion? Diana Tillion? I dare you to tell me that any of these people are not notable. Bet you if I don't WTAF and insert their names into certain articles, someone would try and revert it. Strict adherence to such a policy/practice/mindset sounds rather Kafkaesque to me.

I was looking at Craig, Alaska and see the only name under "Notable residents" is Holly Madison. Once again, I'm wondering if she was an important person at all to Craig or just a celebrity from there. Too many "stopped for a cup of coffee" interactions inexplicably wind up in too many articles, but I'm sure I really didn't need to point that out. Jerry Mackie is a notable native of Craig, and a very prominent member of the community. If I point that out, is someone going to throw up "notability?" Uhh, lessee. State senator? Yup, notable! The real issue is no article, mainly because he was a state senator in the 1990s rather than now. Perhaps even moreso, is the issue actually one of undue weight towards Holly Madison, and that adding other names would detract from spotlighting her? I've sure seen that in other articles with other people.

Finally, still on the subject of Craig, this is where it really gets scary to me. No mention of Rachelle Waterman in the article, which could be understandable if there are BLP issues. I don't watch a whole lot of true crime trash television, but I'm sure a lot of people do. It seems the ratio of mention of Waterman or her case on Wikipedia versus out in the real world is extremely low. It's almost as if it's the result of a concerted effort. Perhaps I shouldn't dwell too much on teenage criminals, seeing as how we were talking about Winona Fletcher this morning at work.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have notied he growing trend of not being able to distinguish betwen notability sufficient for a stand alone article vs notability to be mentioned in the context of a related subject. I know of most of the people you list, and have amet the Tillions back when Diana was still alive. Great people and I would imagine with access to newspaper archives it would be a cinch to write an article on Clem at the bery least, but it looks like th article on Halibut Cove is another census data cookie cutter article for the most part. Alaska is just so big, and so full of larger than life characters, but apparently there aren't a lot of us active on WP. Seems kind of strange to me actually, People are pretty plugged in up here but for whatever reason don't seem to gravitate towards this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I actually have a Clem Tillion story to share, but I'll get back to that. I need to leave for work soon, and hope to stay busy this weekend. Without getting into too much detail about *my job*, I had to roust some homeless dude on Sunday or Monday. He didn't get very far trying to pick a fight with me, but he did manage to break my camera in the process. It really would have been a waste of time to press charges, so now I have to hope to have an extra $80-120 in my pocket to replace it, as it appears Fred Meyer has cameras on sale this weekend.
As far as interest in Wikipedia from Alaska? I've done enough reading of material on here to realize that there was a flurry of activity in 2006/7, then pretty much nothing since. Speaking as someone who has been a "hobbyist historian" since around the time of graduation from high school, I encounter professionals who consider contributing to Wikipedia to be loathsome and look down their nose at people who do. Considering that "professional" isn't as much a reference to skills or experience as much as it is to getting paid, it should become obvious why. We're doing for free what some of these people have been lobbying foundations/governments/other entities for years to do for a paycheck. That is, putting information on the Internet which would have otherwise languished in the basement of a library or in other forms of obscurity.
What to do about it? If there's just one Alaskan willing to step up and actively work with the Ambassador Program, that alone would make a huge step in the right direction, IMO. The AP has done a lot of work towards improving several Alaska-related articles. However, this work is being done by clueless college kids with no real oversight. The professor isn't necessarily going to be concerned with factual accuracy or proper context if they don't reside in Alaska or otherwise have no ties to here. To anyone with firsthand knowledge on the article's topic, the end result winds up resembling something which lacks a clue. Once again, I have to bring up Sarah Palin to provide an example. An editor or editors from a university in Illinois worked on Republican Party of Alaska recently. You'll find a section entitled "Famous Alaska Republicans" which lists only Palin. The section's title is WP:PEACOCK enough. Even so, I bet I could dig up enough sources from 1957 and 1958 which would assert that Mike Stepovich was considered a "famous Alaska Republican" at the time. Or going back even further, the same could very well apply to James Wickersham.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD Dissolve the box

Hi Beeblebrox! The article on "Dissolve the box" has been directed to "Next What's In" which i believe is not in line with the WP:GNG guidelines as the references provided have significant coverage of this idea. Livitup has himself suggested in his detailed study that there is significant covereage in one reference and 2 minor coverages for the idea Dissolve the box. I provide few more new references for the same. Hope this will satisfy you and the editors to have Dissolve the box as a complete article.

http://yourstory.in/2012/03/dissolve-the-box-santosh-sharma/ http://www.businessworld.in/businessworld/businessworld/content/Box-Factor.html

I am not a seasoned wikipedia editor so hope this is the right forum to take it up. Thanking you--Vartmaan (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I get that you are relatively new here, but I don't get why you can't seem to understand that my only involvement with this was closing the discussion despite having it repeatedly explained to you. The correct place to discuss spinning this back off wuld be the talk page of he article it is currently redirected to. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice

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 2012 in UFC events—Battleground disruption. Thank you. Mtking (edits) 01:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

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

I hope my comments weren't canvassesque. I just think many don't have a clue where to render their opinions. Perhaps I should qualify my statement by reiterating your not-a-vote tag. I would like to see lots of input, whether support or oppose, with rationale. Maybe omnibus is the way to go. I just want the community to all be heard so we can settle this.

Also, I am considering removing the redirects and restoring the articles at:

...until this is settled. This was done without consensus.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Before you do that you should be aware that some of them are redirects following AfD, and I am more than happy to nom any others as none of them meet WP:MMAEVENT as they don't have sources demonstrating lasting effect. Mtking (edits) 07:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Saying that you are "...more than happy to nom any others..." sounds a bit like AfD being used as a tactic to prevent my reverting to the articles. From reading some AfDs, I also see this omnibus being tabled as a possibly concessionary measure to counter the tactic of mass AfDing. This seems like possible gaming of the system.
Further, with respect, I see you responding all over this topic. Nary a single post goes by without your immediate counterargument. I've seen ownership of articles, but this is starting to look like ownership of an entire subject. Perhaps, again with due respect, you ought to stand down a bit, and let the community speak up. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if it came across that way, it was not meant that way, but is it not the case that AfD is the venue to discuss articles that fail notability and someone thinks should be deleted ? There is no bar on an article being listed (save for one linked to from the main page) and WP:BEFORE (C.4) recommends consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term and with 2 AfD's closing like that in the last few hrs and another heading that way, it is a logical step. Mtking (edits) 08:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There are already like three discussions underway regarding this, I don't see any need to open a fourth one on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2012 (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.

MfD tag subst:

Hi! Any particular reason to subst: the {{mfd}} tags on the few recent nominations? The tag isn't usually substituted, and it causes a few minor bot problems. I de-substed the last few that got reported. Regards. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: for most nominations I use twinkle, which does everything for you and so I honestly wasn't sure if mfd noms were supposed to be substed or not and apparently I guessed wrong whan manually adding the bundled noms. To be perfectly honest I don't really understand what substing is all about, technical stuff has never been my forte. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Best reason for dropping the mouse

Was looking at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#UFC_on_FX:_Alves_vs._Kampmann and had flipped over to the ANI discussion and was working through it when I found you saying, "It's getting late and my wife just opened a bottle of wine, so I am going to be absent for a while here." You ought to get a barnstar of some sort for offering perhaps the best reason for signing off that I've ever encountered. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

Hey, when you unblock me, knock the autoblock off my IP too please. :-P Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh, i checked that and it said no autoblock was detected, but that feature has been a bit screwy since the last software update. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding this. You might want to look again - apparently the nomination is humorous. SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See this. The timing is not coincidental but they clearly stated it was a serious nom. All the other joke RFAs have been removed so it appears this is being treated as a real RFA. If it isn't it is the least funny of all the lame jokes we saw this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm obviously mistaken. The "OMG" and complaints about talk page archiving made me thing differently! SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whittier Airport

I always seem to be punching your "airplanz r kool" AFDs. I wonder if Alaska Seaplane Service operates out of here? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It saddens me how many people will march into a debate like this with criteria that they make up out of thin air, making broad declarations that any airport that is open to the public is automatically notable even if it is essentially a long driveway on a beach and nothing more and has received no attention whatsoever from reliable sources precisely because it is not important, even in the context of the regional transportation infrastructure. I found the fact that nobody ever bothered to repair damage from the 1964 earthquake pretty compelling evidence that nobody cares, I was surprised nobody else picked up on that but I can't say I'm surprised that the aviation fanatics came out to support this crummy article. I tried to keep from commenting during the RFA on what pretty much everyone in Alaska thinks of Whittier, which is that they are all insane, or "Whidiots". Over half the population lives in one big, monstrously ugly building, they built a fuel storage facility for their town in front of one of the few remaining glaciers in the region that is still advancing, and oh yeah, they haven't gotten around to repairing the airstrip that was damaged 48 years ago...Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say "nobody cares" as somebody did create the article and on a lark I looked to see who it was. It was user:NorthnBound who has had 1676 edits since 10 June 2009 and seems to be interested in both geography and aviation. We're not talking about a 10 edit red user whose only contributions are creating an article about his favorite YouTube band. You might be interested in his edits in July of 2009 where he edited a lot of articles about Alaska airports and towns, this airport being one of them. Whether or not Whittier Airport eventually stays or goes, we can use more like him and less of the 5 edit "create an article on your garage band and scram" red users.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reblock request

You blocked User:Rusted AutoParts and User:Scorpion0422 on March 10 for mutual 3RR violations at List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees. They're both back at it again and have both reverted this evening after I warned them both at the article page and on their individual talk pages against continuing to do so. Will you consider the matter again, or should I list it at WP:EWN? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 03:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no need. We are discussing at the page's talk. Or at least trying to talk. RAP (talk) 13:00 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways/Archive_24&oldid=1192550100"