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.
Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
Hi Beeblebrox, would you mind expanding on your close here? No SIGCOV in multiple sources was identified -- just one source that was potentially non-independent. At least three of the keep !voters were SPAs, there were abnormal levels of IP activity, and all of them based their !votes around sources that do not contribute to notability (passing mentions and quotes as the lawyer involved in some cases, clearly non-independent sources like from UCLA and the "Best Lawyers" article) and/or non-existent notability criteria like "being the lawyer on important cases".
Thank you! JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I came across this AfD independently, and also wondered a little at the close - while numerically this is heavily favoring keep, there are a lot of insubstantial comments, and the relative inexperience of most !voters is odd to say the least. I'd think another relist would be useful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
The article was deleted after an Articles for Deletion discussion. However, I believe that the decision should be reconsidered because I can provide additional reliable sources that establish the company’s notability. If possible, I would like the article restored as a user draft so I can improve it and resubmit it through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. Thank you. Sukikowsik (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
@Sukikowsik: You may find you get better results when starting a new conversation if you use the "new section" button instead of replying to an existing post that is not relevant to what you are trying to discuss, and maybe provide some context and a header, as I have now done.
I don't think there is any grounds to reconsider the result of the deletion discussion as consensus was clear, with three comments in favor of deletion and none in favor of keeping, However, as you state you believe you cvan rectify the issues identified I have restored it as a regular draft at Draft:Samugam Media. BeeblebroxBeebletalks20:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not really active right now and frankly don't recall whatever it is you are vaguely complaining about, but I'm guessing that if I did recall I probably don't care anyway.
Hello, I was wondering if you could give me some advice and tips on how to become a better editor? I feel as if I’m not good enough, and you’re the most talented/professional editor I could find. Please reach back when you can :).
Would you mind reviewing this discussion, as well as the corresponding edits in that article history? I'm having trouble explaining policies & guidelines with another editor, as clearly and thoroughly as I can, and my interactions are being characterized by the other party as "dismissive", "hostile", "rude", and 'trying to "win"'.
My apologies for showing up here, uninvited, but I think you're the only remaining administrator who's had hands-on experience with this editor (your involvement was here). I'm not trying to involve you in the article dispute, itself, but I think ChrisP2K5 has intentionally stalled or empassed the discussion, and I'm not sure what the way forward looks like. Thanks for your time, — Fourthords | =Λ= |14:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not really active right now, this looks rather involved, and I can't say I recall the one interaction we had nearly fifteen years ago. However there is still one other admin who commented there, who probably also doesn't remember it but is currently active, perhaps @JBW: would like to take a look? BeeblebroxBeebletalks21:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
@Whpq: I haven't really been active so I just saw this. They openly admitted to attempting to proxy for a blocked user, so at the very least it is WP:MEAT. The user they proxying for was blocked for, among other things, incompetence. At a glance I would say a case could be made that this is a sock of that user and not just proxying for them. BeeblebroxBeebletalks19:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.
I've linked it here and posted also on WP:CANTALK in the search for someone to "help the guy" with his demands for line-cites and neutrality-challenge about what in BC and most of Canada is well-known information. Advice on fixing the deadlinks and links to existing articles that need integrating etc but unless he's genuinely interested in the subject matter and not just obsessing over line-cites and only wanting someone else to do them (same as me, bt I'm not an active Wikipedian anymore and am approaching 70 years of age and confined co an extended-care home and a wheelchair, so what writing i am trying to get done doesn't need constraint by a chorus of baboons and axe-wielding ego-trippers nor trying to educate those who will not listen - I sympathize with your userpage's observations (see the Maxims and Memes section on my userpage) and remember you as being sane and not an insulting prick (like too many Wikilanders) so thought to bring this matter to you; my closing comments on the wikiproject alaska talkpage get into the reason boundary-related articles are high priority for us (Canadians) so I hope y'all are understanding of the sentiments voiced in that post, so I won't go on at risk of further ranting. Sorry for the IP post, I don't have another account set up and am pretty sure I don't want one; you get too old to put up with endless bullshit, but you also too old to stand with lies and half-truths....m care aide's here with dinner so GTG. 'Ta.2604:3D08:5776:7900:0:0:0:E596 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
