User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 18

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

{{Camping}} -I am venturing off into Interior Alaska and will be completely unavailable for the duration. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not much point in trying to go online in interior Alaska. If you think dialup is slow, try doing the internet via smoke signals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Have fun and enjoy the break! Tommy! 01:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you've got any extra moose-meat.Weetoddid (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And.... I'm back. Had a good time although it was a bit cold and windy at times. Chena Hot Springs is pretty awesome if you are ever in the neighborhood. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a new one on me. The scariest road signs I've seen seen in the interior are 15mph with an arrow and state road maintenance ends. Makes me wonder if you've ever read T. Neil Davis's Battling Against Success or The Great Alaska Zingwater Caper. I hope you didn't go all the way over there without getting a moose Zaphod. Weetoddid (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually we just missed the fall moose and caribou hunts. On the flip side, the caribou seemed to know the season was over, we saw lots of them. A co-worker of the wife has a full freezer and is going to kick us down some moose though. Moose meat loaf is a winter staple at my house, along with moose chili, moose burgers, moose steaks, moose fajitas.... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed your prod on this one, too. I looked at the history: It has been vandalized many times. It can be resceed. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be a little more careful with this edit; nowhere in the Wireless article have I found a substantial copy identical to what was on the userpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good news...finally got the change implemented, so pages tagged with {{uncategorized stub}} don't get listed as "untagged" anymore. So I can finally start using that template properly! (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Bsherr's talk page.
Message added 16:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Beeblebrox. You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ozi Amanat as delete in February 2010. This spam has been reposted again; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ozi Amanat, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ozi Amanat (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ozi S Amanat, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ozi S Amanat. Would you {{db-repost}} these pages and block Ozi Amanat (talk · contribs) and Ozi S Amanat (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry and circumventing community consensus? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a general question about the notability of software. I wasn't sure where to pose it, so please see Talk:PEP tool. Do you have an answer? Rp (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(replied elsewhere, page is now deleted Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC))

Requesting unprotection on the Naeem page to create a name dab page.

Regards. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that it was deleted four times before being protected, I think it would be best if you created a user subpage draft. If it looks like something that wouldn't be speedy deleted, I'd be happy to unprotect the page and move your draft over onto it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• User:JohnCengiz77/naeemdraft

JohnCengiz77 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done nice work. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(section moved from User talk:Jc37 for some reason - Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

With this edit [1] you made an entire section of the poll disappear from view, along with your explanation of why you did it. That is really not how it is supposed to work. If you disagree with something, just say so. If you disagree with the entire premise of a conversation, say that too, but don't just hide an entire section of a debate that is still open and listed at WP:CENT. I went to close this today and it took me a bit of time and effort to figure out what you had done and reverse it. Please don't do anything like that to a open discussion again. Newcomers to the discussion wouldn't even know they were missing anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Next time, check my edit history before presuming bad faith.

(I am surprised in that you are closing a discussion you participated in, which itself asks for WP:AGF, that you would make such a jump yourself concerning someone else...) - jc37 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To save you further difficulty: my note and his response - jc37 23:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I neither said nor implied that you acted in bad faith, which anyone can see since you have elected to move this section to my talk page. I said it was not how things were supposed to work and a bad idea. Yes, you notified the person who initiated the page, but how anyone else was supposed to know that is anther matter. I also noted in my close (on the page itself not in an edit summary or on someone else's talk page) why I was the one closing it, which was because I asked five days ago at WP:AN for somebody to step forward and do it [2] but nobody did and the section was archived without comment. As is clear from the results a majority of users agreed that there should not be a hard and fast limit on relists, but that does not condone or excuse simply hiding the entire conversation from view. As the subsequent sections of the poll were linked to the original question of relisting and many users tied their votes in those sections to the results of the section on relisting it would have made the entire process rather confusing for someone unaware that there was a "hidden" section. There is no precedent, no policy, and no other legitimate reason to do what you did. So again I ask you to please not do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I in anyway misinterpreted your tone.

As for "saying so", the fact that that strawpoll page had no talk page (it itself was the talk page) left fewer recourses than normal. My normal action would have been to move those sections to the talk page for discussion.

All that aside, technically, the proper response would have been to simply remove it per WP:BRD, but I was giving discussion a chance.

So I don't have any issue with my action. That said, if you'd like to get some WP:3PO to look at this, that would be fine with me.

Oh, and I tend to move initial queries from my talk page to the talk page of a single querier, been doing that for years. (Afaik, long before "talkback' existed.) - jc37 00:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how hiding it could ever be a good option. You probably could have simply closed the section or even collapsed it and nobody would have minded, but hiding it from view entirely is another matter. Fifty-one users expressed their opinions in that section, and with one edit you swept them all under the rug. As we seem to be at an impasse regarding the appropriateness of such an action I believe I will ask for a third opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, nothing was "hidden", and anyone editing the page would have seen it.

But anyway, please go ahead. I'll see if I can find a 3PO as well.

And someone should probably drop a note at King of Hearts' talk page - jc37 00:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I have removed your request from the list at the Third Opinion project because it involves a dispute over behavior, rather than a current dispute over what content ought to go or not go into an article. (The straw poll is closed and this clearly is not a dispute over whether the commented–out section, which has been restored, should or should not be again commented out. It is instead a dispute over whether Jc37's behavior was proper or improper). The Third Opinion project is for content disputes, behavior disputes should be referred to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.

Having done my duty to WP:3O, however, let me note that I am a neutral in this dispute, having not participated in (or even been aware of, for that matter) the straw poll and not having had, to my best recollection, any prior history with either editor involved in the dispute. This is my !3O opinion for what it is worth: It seems to me that this question is settled by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which says:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. ... When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply.

and

The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request.

I understand Jc37's point about the page not having a talk page, but the fact of the matter is that current guidelines consider pages such as this to be talk pages and prohibit what was done here. At the same time I have to say that I do not believe that there was any maliciousness or intent to deceive. In short, I think it was an error on the part of Jc37, but was also a well–meaning attempt to do what was best for the discussion and for WP. If either of the disputants cares to take the matter further, I'd suggest using Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your comments.

I personally don't believe I changed the meaning of anyone's comments. I didn't strike any individual's comments, I commented out the entire set of threads. Never editing the comments themselves.

And of course you are indeed allowed to remove a person's comments (in total) from your own talk page, that's a long held policy. (Right now there is even a discussion about whether or not we should disallow blocked editors from removing block notices from their talk page.)

Anyway, all that said, this situation was indeed unique, and I doubt we'll see this specific set of circumstances again.

Thanks again for your comments on this, as I said, they were appreciated. - jc37 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This was indeed a rather unusual situation. I still beleive your actions were not the correct way to proceed, but I do not intend to pursue this matter any further. Thanks for the opinion Transporterman, well said. And I guess we were both wrong about what is and is not a question for 3O, thanks for providing it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say: I suggested probation for Zhou Yu because I'm relatively new here, and calling for fire and brimstone seemed... Shall we say "not yet my place?" So I went looking to see what's been done in the past. Even as I suggested it, it seemed to me like a burden on the admins as it sounded unlikely to work. I agree with you, and for what it's worth I support your actions there. A sharp slap upside the head is surely the least thing indicated...! Thanks very much for the courage of your convictions on this one, it is appreciated. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you see it that way. I know I kind of came down like a ton of bricks on your idea, but as you say it was unlikely to work, and the last thing this user needs is more coddling. Hopefully the message has been received. Despite what it may look like over there, my only goal here really is to make sure he finally understands why edit warring is wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent closure of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll. Your close has, in my opinion, acknowledged all major arguments presented and provided a useful summary of the changes desired by the community. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

... and now there's another one. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

... ditto. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for your information: 72.253.135.100 (talk · contribs) apparently got re-assigned to 72.234.207.192 (talk · contribs) a few days ago. Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up, I can hardly wait to see what he has to say now... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There is more at User talk:72.234.207.192. You'll be able to see the deleted contributions. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • See also User talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyright text at an AfD. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of these edits to Bob Jones University? I reverted twice but IPs keep putting these alternate names back in. Slightsmile (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone playing around. I've reverted and warned them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Another one - Pedo. Slightsmile (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, someone's on it. Slightsmile (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You added a Prod2 tag to Pad feet: Prod, Prod2, & Unreferenced tags have all now been deleted without explanation. Would you consider nominating this at AfD? Thanks. 86.180.64.117 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I can't stand it when someone removes a valid prod without fixing a damn thing. For future reference however, any editor may remove a prod tag at any time for any reason. It's considered good form to explain yourself and/or actually fix the problems that led to the proposed deletion, but it is not required and you shouldn't edit war to put the tags back. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 86.180.64.117 (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Can you possibly block me for the remainder of 2010? I'm starting to spend too much time on WP again, discussing rather than editing, having promised myself (and my wife) I wouldn't. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Before you act on that, may I bring to your attention this, in particular the discretionary sanctions regarding user behaviour. RHoPF engaged in a number of personal attacks yesterday, culminating in a frivolous complaint to WP:ANI see [3] and WP:ANI#User:Justin A Kuntz and Gibraltar for the follow up. Regards, Justin talk 12:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I really don't want to do a self requested block that could be interpreted as having been done to duck out of an active dispute, whether that is your intent or not. Therefore I must decline this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The nastiness it takes to follow someone to a page who has asked - for family reasons - to be blocked from WP is beyond me, it really is. It's just flabbergasting. Beeblebrox, please, reconsider. There are no pending sanctions against me, no chance I'm going to get blocked, it's just I promised my wife I would spend less time at the PC, where time spent there is time away from the kids. Please. (And Justin, please have the decency to stay out of this discussion - it has nothing to do with you)The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not use Wikibreak Enforcer, or edit your hosts file to redirect en.wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.0? Nathan ^T 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, Please block me from the wiki until December 15. I meet your criteria, and would find it helpful to be not editing at all until the end of the semester. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You do appear to meet my criteria, but I always like to give these things a day to make sure you are serious and understand that you will be hard blocked, without talk page or email access for the duration of the block. If that's ok with you I'll go ahead and do the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Replying in the other section, I noticed the link to your criteria... I've never heard of this "admins willing to fulfill self-block requests", pretty interesting. Can you explain the theory behind banning people who evade their self-requested blocks? Nathan ^T 20:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not a WP:BAN. That portion of the requirements is meant to deter people who are not serious in their request. This really isn't something we should be doing willy-nilly, so I made my qualifications deliberately harsh by making it clear that evading this block would be treated the same as evading any other block. Is there a poicy that specifically backs that up? Probably not. The idea is that you are making a deal with this person, and if they do not agree to the terms of that deal they will not get the self-block. There are only a few admins who are even willing to consider such requests, and i have deliberately made my criteria narrow and very much subject to my own discretion. (In practice I have only had one user evade a self-requested block, all he did was come here under another id and ask for an "early release." in that case I decided to ignore them as long as there was no further block evasion, a decision they thanked me for making after the original block term expired) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi: "Lockerz" has been salted for lack of notability and reliability, but I've got a new post that I think meets both criteria. I wanted to contact you before initiating a deletion review: how should I proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plagoot (talk • contribs) 23:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The best move would be to create a draft version of the new article as a user subpage. If it does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion and has addressed the issues identified in the deletion debate (which you can see by clicking here) I'll just unlock the page and move your draft article over. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks: there's a draft up at User:Plagoot/lockerz draft for you to look at.Plagoot (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that looks pretty good, I've moved it to Lockerz and put the bells and whistles on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I did the right thing here. Feel free to undo my edit if there was a better way to handle it. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, reverting an edit like that is always the right thing to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Beeblebrox, remember this brief conversation? It's back, at User talk:Ozi Amanat.i and User:Ozi Amanat.i. Maybe other places too! Have fun, Drmies (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just in case you went out of town I nominated them for deletion, at MfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• See my earlier comment to Beeblebrox above. Cunard (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, maybe I'll get a "good catch" too! Drmies (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not only that, but I predict you'll also be anointed the "Super Duper Spam Smasher". Spammers will snivel and sob, shiver and shake, in fear of your scary skills. Oh, I wish I were as talented as you! Cunard (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, too much pressure! Uh, I, uh... exemplary work, you are to be commended! How's that? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ah yes. I'm totally basking in this sincere outpouring--dare I say "effusion"? Beeble, I saw your solution of our problem; thank you for taking care of it so quickly. Later, both of youse, Drmies (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• BTW, Cunard, I just had a ton of fun with the ACLG--thanks to your article. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Which part of Alaska are you from? Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Homer, the "banana belt" of Alaska. Not a fan of -40℉. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Southeast is warmer still, though wetter... Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox,

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kogswell Cycles has been up for a week, and I think it has run its course. The article has been much improved while the discussion was underway. There is a strong consensus to keep the article. The only dissenting voice comes from someone who has previously prodded the article. What is the best way to close this discussion and formally register the decision to keep the article?

Also, over the course of the discussion, the notability of one of the references on the Kogswell Cycles page came into question. Bicycle Quarterly serves as an important reference source for several bicycle-related articles on Wikipedia. It has not received much media coverage from other sources, but it is a notable magazine in-and-of itself, with a circulation of 3572 copies per issue, and a reputation of being an important source of technical testing and design analysis. I would like someone to remove the notability tag from this article. Thoughts?

Many Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't close the debate at all as you were one of the main participants. Someone will probably come along and close it within the next few hours. There is a flurry of AFD closes around midnight UTC every day. If the AFD is closed as keep, that should indicate that it does indeed meet WP:N, but if there are still lingering concerns about the validity of the sources it would be a good idea to ask the experts over at the reliable sources notice board. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I would never close an AfD if I were an active participant. Can an editor overrule the clear consensus if he/she has a problem with the sources? Ebikeguy (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not a vote, so it is technically possible that one person making a superior argument could be found to outweigh the majority, but at a glance I doubt that will happen in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there, but there were several edits not reviewed that were already reverted and to clear the Pending changes page I went through and accepted ONLY those that had been reverted but were still pending. Confusing isn't it. :/ care to explain what I did wrong?--Talktome^(Intelati) 20:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, thanks for taking the time to review and close the RfC. Question for you - you wrote that "retaining the current image should not be an option in this new poll." I've been tempted for a while to remove the current image from the article, leaving it without an image until a new one can be found/chosen. What are your thoughts? ← George ^talk 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that the close is done I can tell you that my honest impression is that the current image is horrible. The man does not seem to have been particularly photogenic, but that image is without a doubt the worst of a bad lot. Nevertheless, since we do not have consensus for a replacement yet it is probably unwise to take any sort of unilateral action. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Beeblebrox. I couldn't agree more with your closing statement or your assessment of the image. To be frank, I'm a little fed up with Avi pushing this image for what seems like POV reasons. NickCT (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem, I'm not in any hurry. Though if no single alternative image gains a consensus, does that mean we keep this one, even though most editors were for changing it to something else? ← George ^talk 22:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, let's hope it doesn't come to that and one of the alternatives gets a majority behind it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I, too, want to thank you for handling this matter in an objective, neutral fashion truly befitting a Wikipedia administrator. If I can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks again for your fairness. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you do something with this vandal ? Slightsmile (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Try AIV? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. AIV requires that I warn them many times and I don't dialogue with these people (vandals). Sorry Slightsmile (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

a clarification. It may even have actually raised the temperature, in an area where I would hope we are all trying to promote calmer discussion. --Merlinme (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

|}

Here. There apparently is all of CSR plc behind this IP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My talk Thanks for the {{unsigned}} and the explanation. I took a quick look at the contribs, but it wasn't important enough for me to start looking at dozens of diffs to see if I had reverted using Huggle. I appreciate the heads-up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please pardon the intrusion. Your response at my RfA showed dissatisfaction with my answer to question #1; I believe question #17 may be relevant. Thank you for your time and trouble. • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that you had to be asked four times, and had to have a user spoon-feed you a possible answer before you replied with any degree of specificity I'm afraid my opinion remains the same. By all accounts you are a fine editor of content, but as I have said, candidates are supposed to have at least a passing understanding of admin work and the criteria under which the admin toolset should be used before applying for adminship. As many others have suggested, if you could get some experience in these areas while at the same time striving not to let your "dark side" come out you might be a more acceptable candidate in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh. I thought I had already very clearly said (in my self-nom statement, and repeating myself in Q1) that I wanted to start out with gnomish tasks, then move up under mentorship. But anyhow, thanks for your swift reply! :-) Cheers. • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just it, "gnomish tasks" is incredibly vague and covers a wide spectrum of editing, much of which does not require admin tools. I myself have been using WP:HOTCAT in on-and-off doses over the last few weeks to work on categorizing the ten thousand or so uncategorized articles we have, something any user can do if they want. You may find that you can get the variety you crave and the experience people like to see in admin candidate at the same time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Good suggestion! Thanks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Diallo page, which you protected a while back, is being edited again by anonymous users to remove unfavorable content. Please revert it and protect it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.240.137 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You recently closed an afd discussion. Please reconsider your decision. User:dewelar started a discussion of the issues involved in this afd at the sports notability talk page and asked those of us who wanted to save the article to suspend afd discussion until the larger issue was resolved there. It is yet to be resolved there and it has been suggested that this will affect dozens of minor league season articles across several sports. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Kinston eagle is correct. There is ongoing, although stalled, discussion at the link above regarding determination of notability of individual minor league seasons not just for baseball, but for team sports in general. While the general track of the discussion seems to be that we should simply use the general guidelines, I don't consider the discussion complete. While I may not personally think that the Sailors article, as it stands, passes GNG, I do think that your decision to close this AfD with a result of delete may have been premature, and also request a reconsideration on that basis. -Dewelar (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I based my close on the consensus at the AFD. If policy is changed in the future to include this type of article it can easily be undeleted or recreated at that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. I believe Kinston eagle's concern was that others, like himself, may have refrained from commenting due to my request for discussion at the sports notability talk page. I just don't want my good faith request to have -- or, indeed, to appear to have -- resulted in a false consensus. There are, after all, a number of other such pages, for which the result of this AfD will likely be used as a precedent, and some pains should probably be taken that the precedent is as clear as possible. -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see it that way. This purpose of this afd was to decide the fate of this one article according to current guidelines as policies. AFD is not for doing "test cases," if a policy or guideline needs to be changed it can be discussed elsewhere. If there is a future change in policy that invalidates the arguments to delete I would be happy to restore the article at that time. This request to restore now is a bit to hypothetical for my taste. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's totally fair, and understandable. After all, I agree with the result. Just know that it is because I agree with the result that I want to ensure that my appeal to put the AfD on hold did not weigh too much in the decision to delete. I do not want to be seen as having "shut down debate", as some might put it, because that was in no way my intention. In fact, my intention was the opposite. Also, it's so much that this was meant to be a "test case", but that there were other articles that would have been added to this AfD, that may not have been added to it due to my original appeal. In any case, I will not pursue the matter further vis-a-vis this particular article. Thank you for your consideration. -Dewelar (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if a RevDel of [redacted] might be in order? It seems especially obnoxious considering the subject is only 13 years old. Thanks in advance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would have said that it is fairly normal idiotic vandalism, but given their age I decided to err on the side of caution. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - and yeah, I'd have just left it if she wasn't a minor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw you declined this user for a username violation last night. Although having "sock" in and of itself isn't a username violation, in this case it was either a reincarnation or an impersonator of a banned user, User:Cy Q. Faunce. User:Sandstein blocked him after he opened a DRV for his hoax article for that reason. Thought I'd let you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said at the time, all that stuff is outside the scope of a report on a username violation. It's preferable to block for the more serious problem if the username is just an clue and not blockable unto itself, which is what happened in this case. So, in my view the system worked properly here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought impersonation usernames (which is almost certainly what this was) would fall under disruptive, but what you say makes sense. Duly noted, thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi There, I have been researching DEGW for a while now and would like to submit some information to Wikipedia, but due to some failed attempts I believe it is blocked.

Before I pull the page together fully and push it out, could you please take a look at the current rough draft. This still needs a lot of work to make it fully Wikipedia friendly, but I would like some guidance so that I am moving in the right direction. Can you help? The draft is here: User:Mzimmerman/DEGW Thank you MZimmerman (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can take care of this, I'll leave a message on their talk page. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Allow me to extend my thanks again for offering to take this on. I know it's a big task. I am just checking in to see how things are coming. Let me know if you need me to clarify anything or give you more context. SYS... Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's been a while, sorry about that. Every time I try to read it over and finish the close I end up getting called away, I've been trying to find an hour or two when I know I'll be able to read the whole monstrosity and summarize it. 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's okay. We're just eager to keep moving. Get to it when you can. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI; that may or may not have any impact on your read of the RFC. postdlf (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being a pest... :) Shooterwalker (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Usual gang seems intent on removing large sections in an edit war. Kindly examine. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Alas - one editor (Andy) has now completely moved the article in his preferred direction - you might wish to see how it looks. Collect (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And Igny has again decided to war. Sigh. Collect (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Now Ludgiwgs2 decided that Igny did not go far enough and announced his intent to do major rewriting and deletions. -[4] I suggest you either go back to status quo ante on the article, or just allow one group full carte blanche to continue deletions (your choice). Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I consider Collect's behavior here as inappropriate for Wikipedia. I have warned him here, but you can apply additional sanctions to him if you think they are warranted. (Igny (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

Just look at Talk:Communist terrorism and the comments about "moving" the content to a new POVfork page. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mission was completed -- the article has been totally gutted, and is now only a dab page leading to the POVfork article. Kindly review - as this is precisely what the "plans" were, as I noted. They failed to get a rename through - so deletion was the result. Sigh. Collect (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You can find the "evil plan" here, in this user essay: User:Petri Krohn/How to get rid of POV crap. You are free to comment on the talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody who can't spell doesn't like you very much. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at what is going on at the Canola page? Weetoddid (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Had you not suggested a self imposed topic block on RfA for Ctjf83‎. I would never have gone to your userpage. Had I never gone to your userpage, I would not have read your admin log. Had I never read that, I would not have found a new gem for User:Sven Manguard/Fun and Interesting. Best unblock request ever. Feel free to peruse the list. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The subpage User:Beeblebrox/CC_workshop has a link to Wikipedia:Banning policy. However, that is a link to the current policy, which is undergoing some revisions partially motivated by deficiencies noted in the CC case. It would be better to link to a static version at the time of the case. I'd do it but I have extended family visiting, and am planning to be at a workshop with limited internet access for a few days, and was just checking to see if anything urgent has come up. I'll look for a relevant link when I return at the end of the week if someone doesn't beat me to it.--SPhilbrickT 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied to you on the talk page. Just curious — are you familiar with US local geography terms? I'm not trying to tell you to shut up if you aren't; it's just that your words remind me of something I read by someone who wasn't familiar with US local geography and thus misunderstood the way that an article was written. I don't want to appear patronising; forgive me if I sound that way, for I'm just trying to understand how much you know, in order to be able to discuss nuances if you understand them or to talk generally if you wouldn't. Please reply to my question at the Terrace Park page, and copy this question there if you feel like it; I'll have an easier time remembering to look there than here. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I mostly replied at the TP page, but I have just remembered that you and I have actually discussed such issues before, (nearly two years ago) regarding Kachemak, Alaska and the difference between the census definition and.... everybody else. There as well a compromise solution was found that reflects both what the census calls things and actual reality. I think the key difference here is that I am editing articles on places I have actually been and know about, and look for resources other than the census. It's nearly impossible to absorb the real character and flavor of a place from census data, as it is just that- data, and often uses wildly inaccurate descriptors that are only used by the census. For example, right next to Kachemak the census would have us believe there is a separate settlement called Miller Landing, Alaska. I have lived in this area for twelve years and do a job that involves having an intimate knowledge of place names in the area, and in all that time I believe I have heard this area referred to as Miller's Landing exactly once. Maybe you could help me out with another Ohio issue, Hamilton, Ohio legally changed it's name to Hamilton! in the 80's. Stupid, I know, but it did happen and was never changed back. The page has been moved back and forth several times between the exclamation point and the non-exclamation point title. Nobody uses it, but it is still the legal name of the city. So, which is it? Even I am not sure anymore which it should be. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: your recent edit: I don't disagree with the "September 11" usage, but I do disagree with the statement that the article is written in "American" English. Previous discussions have established that this article is not to have a specifically US or Canadian POV, but is to be international. Pursuant to that, you will find that the metric system is primary (or should be) except where Imperial units were used in the original quoted texts (i.e. the US and UK agreed to maintain a clear strip for "ten feet" on either side of the border), or where the sentence refers to an exclusively US condition. You'll find that words are usually spelled as they are in most English-speaking countries, rather than as they are in the US.

Having said that, I agree that "the September 11 attacks" is the common usage. Don Argus jr (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had assumed that Canadians would also use "September 11" and that the change was made by a U.K. user. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I first arrived to Wikipedia when all the drama with Checker Fred was happening. I know he had sockpuppets, but what exactly were his motives? Was he an administrator? Please tell me, because I never understood what happened. Thanks, --Confession0791 ^talk 03:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The motives of persons who relentlessly create sockpuppets is something a trained psychologist could probably write a book on. For some reason several of the worst repeat offenders are fixated on children's entertainment, I'm sure Sigmund Freud would have had a field day examining that relationship. I first became aware of Fred because at the time I was involved in watching for socks of User:Simulation12, whom I firmly believe Fred is a sock of despite his claims. He fit the pattern of the previous socks although he did seem to be more cautious, perhaps because if someone does this long enough they learn a bit and, ironically, may even become more clueful about how to edit Wikipedia. In any event, I had decided to stop chasing Sim12 and every time I saw an edit spring up on my watchlist on a page edited by Sim12 I removed it. After a few weeks of that I noticed that every time one of these edits came up it was Fred making the edit. The overlap got too large to ignore any longer, and another user filed an SPI that named Fred in Jauary of this year. However the Checkuser results on Fred came back inconclusive and Fred slipped through the cracks while the others named in the case were blocked. This is where it gets interesting, and may reveal something about the nature of serial sockpuppeteers. I had forgotten all about Fred and had cleared all the Sim12 related pages from my watchlist. He knew I thought he was Sim12 and should be blocked, mind you, but several months later he posted an invite to join the PBS Kids WikiProject to my talk page, and around the same time decided to run for WP:RFA, putting him squarely back on my radar and getting me thinking about the whole issue again. Ironically, the only editing I had ever done to PBS Kids-related articles was to chase sock accounts off. Another SPI was already underway at that time and between User:AussieLegend and myself we were able to put together a very compelling case that Fred and Sim12 were one in the same. It also became apparent that he was already preparing six new accounts to switch over to as it became more clear that he was about to be found out and blocked. You can see the various investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12/Archive. He never came close to fooling us into making him an an admin, as you can see at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Checker Fred. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Fred trying to make his self look better with the sockpuppets, or were they "alter egos"? --Confession0791 ^talk 05:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He did, and still does, seem concerned with his image here. This is the the kind of flawed thinking that seems to govern a lot of sock masters, they think if they create one block-evading sock that can manage not to get blocked for a while they have proven something. Often these serial sockers don't understand how easy it is to catch them because they keep coming back to the same cntent and editing in the same style. Sim12 was always caught on behavioral evidence as they learned a long time ago to use multiple computers to avoid checkuser. You can see at the SPI from June that he went as far as creating yet another sock and claiming to be Ruff Ruffman himself, rather absurd since as a cartoon dog Ruff doesn't really exist. Why? What was the underlying motivation? I don't know, perhaps a need to feel like they were part of something bigger than themselves, something I also like about Wikipedia. Unfortunately, not everyone has something worthwile to contribute, and some people just can't get along in an environment like this. Simulation12 was originally blocked for disruptive editing two years ago. If they had just waited a few months without socking and asked nicely to be given another chance, it all could have gone in completely the other direction, but they chose to evade the block dozens of times instead and now there is basically nothing they can do to win back the trust of the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please can I draw your attention to the continuing COI edits by User:JohnClarknew on the John Clark (actor) article. Both User:Will Beback and myself have removed a quotation from the article as per the discussion Talk:John Clark (actor)#The Komisar Scoop, however for whatever reason John Clark has reverted the edits with no explanation - and as of this moment has taken no notice of User:Tmorton166 request that he remove the quotation. Thanks memphisto 09:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is I specifically stated that I would not use my admin tools in this case because I have been involved in the discussion. Talking to him seems to have no effect either, and nobody seemed interested in my suggestion that it was time for WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Addihockey10 has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

--Addihockey10^e-mail 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

... at User talk:Jerzy#Block of User:Julpisanty on hold.
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUsernames_for_administrator_attention&action=historysubmit&diff=396231854&oldid=396224048

I'm no troublemaker. I just saw 2 usernames that weren't that bad so I commented. You seconded the comment. Thanks for the confirmation that I am not a psycho troublemaker. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your saying my name is commercial (which it isn't) but I have to choose a new name I would like to go with charto911 or rruddie let me know how to change it.

-Thedubaipost —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedubaipost (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem t have missed a few details. I am the one who unblocked you so that you could make the change. In the big box on your talk page informing you you are unblocked there is a link, or you can click here to change your username. Beeblebrox (talk)

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

Access Denied – talk to me 20:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nbaka is a joke is attempting block evasion, but a SPI admin believes no conditions apply to creation of Basil Rock.[5] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you recently blocked User:Bitbitbite for spamming: great work! Unfortunately, I do not know if you have noticed, but multiple users are spamming Wikipedia with the site. Some of them I've listed at the entry for blacklist addition, but 66.108.98.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blocked yesterday has implied (s)he will continuously. The site has also been added three times to "Roman's Revenge". What do you think? I was wondering if you could do something. Thanks. Yves (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the spam blacklist is not an area where I have any experience. I agree that this should be on it given the aggressive spamming though. Looks like they are a bit backlogged at the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thanks, anyway. Ughhh "Roman's Revenge" has now been spammed six times by four different IPs and the page is on the list for protection. Yves (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. The protection policy is an area I know quite well. Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Quite appreciated. :) Yves (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Another edit that probably should be obliterated [6]. E. Fokker (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

When I applied the CSD tag it was just a URL link to a personal blog site and therefore qualified for CSD status. Thank you for your switft action on the page. Hasteur (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I didn't check the history. You're right of course, at that moment it it did indeed qualify for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Yeah, I was about to let you know that it was two years gone!)

Eh, go ahead and unblock if you want. Make sure to warn extra-hard against any repeats of such idiocy (since that is what got him blocked in the first place). DS (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to look at [7] wherein I am accused of edit war at that article for daring to insist than an RfC is needed at this point. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wow. That's all. — Timneu22 · talk 23:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I know. Now we'll never know how it is possible to fire a laser missile through a laptop and into headphones [8]. I think this may not have been a troll but rather an actual mentally ill person suffering from severe paranoid delusions. I really do hope they get some help, but Wikipedia can't give them the kind of help they need. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[9] I think it was the two heads that confused me....sorry! Risker (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've known I was missing from the list for several weeks [10] but when I saw it being altered today I thought I'd go ahead and add myself on while making outrageously melodramatic edit summaries. Now that I've managed to amuse a few of my fellow Wikipedians I believe my work here is done for the day. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[11] Try putting your head in boiling water for a while, then drink the tea. I'm sure you'll feel better after that. ;) Franamax (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sooo bad about typos in my edit summaries. I never think to check them when I do remember to preview in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Run for ArbCom? You are an involved admin with a level head on shoulders.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. In addition to not really wanting to do it, I often work in on-and-off doses doing lots of little tasks because I am often on call at my job while editing. I don't really have the large blocks of time available that an arbitrator needs. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, since I just noticed you made a small edit on the Glenn Highway some months ago--are you Alaskan? --Yopienso (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I live down in the cosmic hamlet by the sea. Check my gallery here on WP and my contribs at Commmons for lots more Alaska images. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I'm asking User:Wsiegmund to please help with photos on the Glenn Highway article. I've never been in Homer, but my son works there on his boss's boat sometimes, a big catamaran called the Thunder. We're out toward Chitina; just getting our first sub-zero temperatures of the season. Best! --Yopienso (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the links. Commons:File:Gulkanaglacier.JPG is a lovely picture. I added its location to the file page. I'm curious about identity of the small white object in the lower right. Perhaps it is a sign. We enjoyed our visit to Homer in late June, especially the Pratt Museum with its native plant garden and seabird video camera. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a sign, the pipeline runs between the highway and the glacier and there was a pipeline access road in the area, they always have all sorts of signs posted on them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the road now on Google Earth. Thank you. The location I added may be 1 km northwest of the true location. My gallery is at Commons:User:Wsiegmund/gallery. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought your closing comments for the AfD debate for Greek love were very good. Thankyou for taking the time to read and assess it. McZeus (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey... it looks like you're really busy. Is there still any hope of you getting to closing the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists? I don't want you to feel obligated in any way... Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and I already appreciate you at least offering to help. So if you feel like it might be too hard to do in the foreseeable future we could go back to the administrator noticeboard and find someone else. Just let me know either way, and if there'a anything I can do to make your life easier. Thanks again... Shooterwalker (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to apologize for the way this was handled. Closing this up is going to take hours, and I have been fairly busy in real life and every time I have started in on reading the RFC I end up getting called away. If you can find another admin to handle it that would be fine with me, if not I will try to get back to it at some point. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it will take us some time to find someone else. Think you can get to it in the next two weeks? If not, we'll start asking around. Thanks again for offering. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know that i have edited an archive you are represented on ~ the archive of the Earl of Clare talk page ~ as several of the conversations had been edited, removing information, before being archived. I'm not expecting you to do anything; this is simply a courtesy note to be sure i'm not thought to be covering up mine actions. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

--Access Denied – talk to me 01:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was about to reply to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webhat/Asynchronous follow when I found you deleted the AFD after deleting the page. Deleting AFD's under G6 is rather unorthodox and not supported by any policy I know of, so I recreated the page and closed it. Yoenit (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that it makes a difference to me either way, but what a waste of effort purely for the sake of a flawed concept of process. Afd was obviously not needed or appropriate, it was a user subpage that the user wanted deleted. The appropriate forum would have been WP:MFD if it weren't an obvious WP:CSD#G7, but if it is that important you that a completely useless afd be recreated have at it. There used to be a quaint little concept called ignore all rules that allowed us to use common sense but unfortunately slavish obedience to policy wonkery has replaced it. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See [12] for edit war revert by Igny, followed almost instantly by further edit war by The Four Deuces. Considering TFD sought to have me blocked for a single revert of the wholesale move by deletion, these acts are prima facie problematic, no? Collect (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted We R Who We R to be semi, not full protected lol. There is no dispute its just different IP"s adding unsourced edits and vandalizing and test editing ect..... Could you change the protection please and thanks. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what you wanted, and I explained why you didn't get it at WP:RFPP. [13] Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I know i saw that, but edit warring is reverting single edits, im reverting different edits by different users adding differnt content without edit warring as you said, edit waring is a content a dispute, im simply maintaining very high standards without, or even comming close to WP:3RR. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Judging by your various condescending edit summaries you appear to be attempting to WP:OWN this article. I have to go to work right now, if you can find another admin who is willing to reduce the protection they may use their own judgement without consulting me. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} See my comments at Talk:List of U.S. states and territories by population. No idea why it works in one instance and not the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't encoded in {{flag}}, at least not by the time I got there. This seems to have done it. Or was there something else you were trying to do and I've horribly missed the point? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes are all that is needed. I tested it out like this: {{flag|Washington (U.S. state)|name=Washington}} which is what I had to do with Georgia because it has more than one meaning. It didn't work. It never occurred to me to even try the simple solution you used as I had already assumed it needed to be disambiguated. Thank You! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved this to prep, so I will take responsibility for this "epic fail", as you put it on the article's talk page. I agree, it would have been much better if English translations of the song titles had been added to the article and the "moralizing" bit expanded before it went to the main page. I did notice the untranslated titles, and I should have piped up about it. Mea culpa. 28bytes (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I really think DYK has gotten too big. If we reduced the number of updates per day and increase the standards it would take a lot of the pressure off those who work there and fewer things would slip through the cracks. The reason I and others react so strongly when there are errors is because these articles are featured on the front page of one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Earth, it's embarrassing to put something forward as our best new work when it barely even makes sense. Anyway, thanks for owning up to it and taking the time to come here and comment on it. It looks like there has been a lot of discussion among DYKers about how to improve the process, hopefully such incidents will decrease after those changes are implemented. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I believe you're right, and that some of the changes we're working on will, if nothing else, lead to more pairs of eyes on articles before they're promoted. More can and should be done, though. 28bytes (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Beetlebrox, thanks for your advice on my (very short-lived) Rfa. I will certainly try to work more in the areas you suggested. I just have one question. When editing articles, I tend to do work in my sandbox, and then transfer them over to mainspace. This makes many edits in User namespace and few in mainspace. Any suggestions on what to do about this? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could start by explaining that as you just did. This wasn't clear at your RFA. I don't think in this case it would have affected the outcome, but it's worth at least mentioning. The other option would be to go ahead and be bold in your editing. We have the preview button that allows you to test your edits on the page you will be making them, and if you make a mistake it easy enough to revert it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, I do that as well, but even taking that into account, if you look at your mainspace contributions there isn't really enough there for anyone to make a judgement on whether you're qualified for adminship or not. Without such evidence, you are always going to be opposed at RfA I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. The only thing I was worried about was that there would be half-finished articles on Wikipedia...ones that I half-worked on. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There's about a million such articles already here, we call them stubs. Not wanting to create more junk is a laudable goal, but perfection is not required and adding an article to mainspace gives other a users a chance to assist in improving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That’s what I’m saying. I improve various stubs in my sandbox. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are (partially) wrong on the count. I'm a fan of starting a new article in user space, and have a number of times. The edits in user space do add to the user space edit count, but once the article is moved into main space, the counts are transferred to main space counts. If you have a number of draft articles still in user space, those edits will still be counted as user space articles, but any articles you've moved will count as main space counts.--SPhilbrickT 14:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well thank you very much for that piece of information! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 15:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my lack of e-mail contact info, but I had a real problem a few months back with a disgruntled, banned user. Will drop you a howdy ASAP. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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