User talk:Beeblebrox

Welcome to my talk page

I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.

If you would rather communicate by email, it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email.

If you want to know why I deleted or protected a page, or why I blocked a user please check My admin log first before posting a message here.

Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.

please stay in the top three tiers

Newbie Question?

How can i get in touch with you abut unprotecting a page title that you protected for "repeatedly recreated". I am wanting to create a legitimate wiki entry for someone of the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookmark this (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You can get in touch with me by posting right here on my talk page. (you might want to try simply clicking the "new section" tab next time, it's a bit easier) Anyway, in a situation like this your best bet is to construct a draft article as a user subpage. Click here to learn more about that. What particular article are we talking about? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did make a draft. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bookmark_this Then another editor almost deleted it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookmark this (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the page I am trying to create was tried by someone 4 years ago. I found a deletion log. I think the person I did the article about is definitely notable now. There is another person with the same name that is the subject of quite a bit of ire on the interntet and I assumed that was what the "repeatedly recreated" was about. Can you let me know if/when you will be able to unlock it? Cheers Bookmark this (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Page is moved and live for editing. I looked at the previous versions (administrators can do that) and they were in fact about the same person, but it looks like you have come up with better sourcing for this new version. However there are some problems with the point of view the article is written from, all Wikipedia articles must be entirely neutral in their tone. I've fixed some of it but it still needs some work. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your effort to rewrite the Gundala (film) that I AfD-ed. Bennylin (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II on the PC

The reliable source is here. And on Wookieepedia they tell that the PC version will be developed by Aspyr. 84.86.199.99 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazon is not an WP:RS and neither is Wookiepedia for the same reason that you would never use Wikipedia as a reference for an essay. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be having this problem lately where I get posts on my talk page about content disputes in video game articles [1] and I have no idea how this conversation relates to me. You wouldn't happen to be User:ScottKazama editing anonymously would you? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I odn't know if this a issue I'm not fimiliar with but a simple google search [[2]] could show this to be real. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I kind of don't care to be randomly dragged into a content dispute that has nothing to do with me by a user who is spamming talk pages and more than likely is another user editing logged out. Not really my thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok as I said wasn't familiar if this had been a ongoing issue just saying....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

New users leading us down the garden path

Hello. This is to Beeblebrox and HJMitchell. A while back we spent lots of time on a new user and his peculiar timestamp username. It probably added up to several user-hours spent. That user has since not made any edits. This is not a unique case. Many follow this same pattern ending in a waste of time for all. I am watching one unfold now and it is really annoying me. Do you have any recommendations on a clever way to handle these kinds of new users? Please drop me a line on my talk page if you have any thoughts. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who it is you are talking about. If they are causing a real problem, take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If they are not I would suggest ignoring them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hi Beeblebrox and sorry for bothering you; I see you've declined User:Theirrulez's request for unblock on the basis that it's an ARBCOM sanction and so an admin cannot lift it. Well, to make a long story short, my curiosity is: do arbitrary sanctions imposed by an admin in accordance with an ARBCOM ruling have to go through the arbcom-l mailing list? From your answer there, I gather they do, but I wanted to make sure, so a "yes" will suffice. ;) It's just that I find it a bit puzzling that any admin can impose such a sanction and, yet, only Arbcom can lift it
Thanks for your attention. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Despite the fact that a single admin can impose an ArbCom sanction block a single admin cannot lift that block. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But the imposing admin can?

And am I mistaken in believing that, anyway, the community can? Thanks for your answer! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A discussion at WP:ANI wherein a consensus emerged that the block was flawed would be sufficient. Community consensus trumps anything short of the Wikimedia Foundation front office. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you've been most helpful! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Baillie

Hi I am requesting that you please unlock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Baillie so that we may enter new content to reflect the fact that he is now running for political office. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Votebaillie (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Request undelete

Hi,

I'm requesting you undelete New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc., as there are now sources for the article. Becritical (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be better if I provided you with a copy as a user subpage, then you could expand it and fix the problems that led to the deletion before moving it back into article space. Let me know if you want to do this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, that would be great (: Becritical (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Article restored to User:Becritical/New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc. If you're not comfortable with moving it when the time comes, let me know and I'll put it back into article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (: Becritical (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive ban close

Please remember to sign the close so everyone can tell in retrospect who closed, and log the ban at Wikipedia:List of banned users.

Thanks!

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I figured it didn't matter who closed it as there was no real interpretation or closing statement involved given the unanimous support for the ban. I did forget about adding him to the list though. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Camry Hybrid

Hello. You were extremely helpful in the Zubaty affair, and I thought your expertise would be helpful in the current discussion at Toyota Camry Hybrid regarding whether to merge the article with the larger Camry article. I have stepped back for a few days of cool-down period, but I would like to see what cooler, neutral heads might have to say regarding the current debate. Note that I am not asking you as a subject-matter expert, but rather as a Wikipedia rules expert. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look and left some comments on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox , how are you?

I am also involved in this discussion and I was quite annoyed that Mariordo had unfairly skewed the results by contacting five users that would support his point-of-view by personally contacting all of them and unfairly canvassing votes via their user talk pages: [3], [4], [5],[6], [7]. Canvassing votes is against policy, please see: Wikipedia:Consensus#Improper consensus-building.

I look forward to your reply. Kind Regards. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that, and you are correct that it violated WP:CANVASS. As I said, I think it would be more productive to move forward than to re-hash what mistakes have already been made. To make an imperfect metaphor, think of it as "declaring a mistrial" as a judge will often do when there is evidence a lawyer has acted improperly. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, we still appear to be having issues regarding "what is a consensus?"

If all votes are included, we have 4.5 opposing votes versus 7 supporting votes, a difference of 2.5 (or 56 percent more votes: 2.5 ÷ 4.5 × 100 = 56%).

If canvassed votes are excluded, we've got a total of 2 opposing votes and 5 supporting votes (2.5 times as many).

Either way, I see that as a clear consensus to merge the article, but Ebikeguy disagrees. Would you mind taking another look with the above in mind? Any changes that I make are only going to get reverted, so we really need someone such as yourself (a neutral third party) to do this for us. Kind regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Zubaty affair, in which nearly all "votes" favored keeping the page, but the page was deleted anyway, because that was clearly the right thing to do under Wikipedia rules. The Toyota Camry Hybrid has been the focus of many articles in mainstream media, as shown in the reference section. It is noteworthy on its own, independent of other Camry models. Several editors have done a lot of work making the article a good one. It deserves its own article.

Interestingly, when several anti-merge editors had registered their views and only two pro-merge candidates had registered theirs, no one was insisting that we cut off debate and take the merger discussion off the table. After OSX canvassed multiple editors at what he perceived to be "the last minute" of the debate, and they responded, he attempted to claim "consensus" and he merged the article without any discussion. His merge was subsequently reverted, and the debate goes on. It is clear that both sides could find editors to support their position, through neutral, non-canvassing means, but what would that prove? It would further prove that there is no consensus.

Bottom line: The vehicle in this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, and it should stay. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked two editors who had already voted at a previous discussion at WP:CARS—that's not multiple—your buddy Mariordo was the one who immediately went around scabbing votes (five in fact) as soon as voting started. How is one supposed to compete with that?

Ebikeguy, that is exactly the reason why we have excluded those votes (from both sides), and a clear consensus is shown: we've got a total of 2 opposing votes and 5 supporting votes (2.5 times as many). OSX (talk • contributions) 01:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please stop continuing this debate on my talk page. There is little point in discussing this here when there is already a quite long conversation on the article's talk page. My previous advice that we throw out what has already happened and move forward does not seem to have been heeded. I suggest you initiate a request for comment in order to gather a broader consensus without concerns of canvassing. Be sure that it has a neutral introductory statement that does not suggest support for either position. I will be unavailable for the next several days so i won't be able to play referee for a while, but I have to say that either way it is not something worth getting all worked up about, it's just a merger discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Bigpimpin-az

People are allowed to create user names containing the word pimp? What about whore? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Offensiveness is of course a highly subjective criterion for blocking. There are no hard and fast rules about what words are allowed, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. The word "pimp" has developed new meanings in the last few decades and does not necessarily refer to prostitution anymore, i.e. Pimp my Ride. Seeing as this user has not made a single edit yet it's hardly worth blocking them or making a big deal about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitefish

I had just archived earlier discussion, including the sections you deleted, when I edit-conflicted with you. If you feel strongly about pulling them out of the archive, I won't object. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Thanks for letting me know though. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh

I was going to say "As much as we might appreciate Sopranos-style dealing with problem editors, we cannot condone such activity. Since we cannot find the proof in the Hudson River, we will have to pass for now" ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"I'm sorry Vito, but you got the whole library blocked from Wikipedia, it's curtains for you, see..." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Tubbs

How is the consensus to delete? CTJF83 pride 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Although numerically there were more users who wanted it kept the arguments to keep were not based on Wikipedia policy and the arguments to delete were. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you move it to User:Ctjf83/DT and I'll see what I can do, thanks, CTJF83 pride 02:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

Dear administrator, Kindly take a look at my email. --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just closed the deletion debate, I am not going to get drawn into an ethnic/religious conflict. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Ja 62's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--ja_62 14:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Re. 4o4aestudiografico (talk · contribs) UAA end of here

(Hard to discuss UAA matters, as the postings to the page are so quickly archived)

OK, thanks, I guess it seemed obvious / common sense to me, not to others; I understand; I'll try to be more circumspect in reporting in the future. I'm actually pleased that you are so careful to AGF in UAA; I wish same happened in other areas - see Wikipedia_talk:Request_an_account/Guide#AGF!  Chzz  ►  17:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a borderline case, if there had been a clearer indication that they were intending to spam something by that name it would have gone the other way. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:FirstRunFeatures8

This user has requested an unblock and it seems reasonable to me. I would like to unblock them so they can request a username change, but wanted to ask you first as the blocking admin. TNXMan 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! TNXMan 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Greg Barry

There is an ongoing issue with the Holmes a Court articles, it's OTRS stuff but you can email me if you want some more information. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

About Sugar Bear

In case you weren't aware, this user went under a previous name; Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · SPI · cuwiki). This user.. although I can't remember what specific month, was indef blocked for personal attacks, edit warring, and most of all, abuse of alternate accounts. He had about 2 other alternate accounts, and 20+ IP socks. He denied and lied until he was blue in the face, and when the indef was imposed, he finally admitted to the block evasion.

He was finally unblocked when he admitted to the socking, and promised to stick to one account, and not edit war or personally attack.

Now he's changed his username to Sugar Bear, and he's back to doing the same things that originally got him the indef in the first place. Edit warring, and socking.

Taking the advice of Gwen Gale, the admin who originally indef blocked, and subsequently unblocked, indef isn't long enough. I therefore petition you to increase the block length to at least 3 months, given he's violated his original terms of unblocking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't let this thread be forgotten by time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you have also made several appeals directly to Gwen Gale, you'll have to forgive me for not wanting to be the other parent. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about that. I'm going off of her advise: Asking for a longer block, instead of an indef one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Given yet another SPI that determined he was socking, I have changed the block to indefinite. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

hi

you locked one of my pages. can you write the things I wrote on the talk page onto the main page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefesf9 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(protection was only for one hour and has expired) Please be aware however that it is not "your" article. Click here for the relevant policy page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Userfication

Hi Beeblebrox. You userfied Donna Tubbs to User:Ctjf83/Donna Tubbs a few days ago, and I have now deleted User:Ctjf83/Donna Tubbs per Ctjf83's request. My question is, does the history of User:Ctjf83/Donna Tubbs need to be moved back to Donna Tubbs? Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the edits form the basis for the content at the redirect's target then, yes, the history should be kept at the redirect. –xeno^talk 18:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, none of the content was moved to the redirect's target. I'm guessing the history isn't needed then? Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. The article was deleted via AFD and I recreated it as a redirect to the list of characters independently of the AFD. You could move it back but since there's no content anymore I don't think there's any reason to bother. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns regarding BrownHairedGirl. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sakalauskas

My bad here; I confused two Lithuanian politicians with the same surname but different first names. Not really excusable; my apologies. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, how dare you not be intimately familiar with Soviet-era Lithuanian politics! Err, I mean, no biggie it's been restored anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PBSKIDS

Hello Beeblebrox, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

As far as I can recall, my only involvement with those articles was chasing off serial sockpuppeteers. I don't remember ever doing any actual content editing there. Thanks for the random spam though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Restore Turnkey Consulting

Please could you restore the following deletion:

19:38, 20 June 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted "Turnkey Consulting" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

This is a genuine company and the posting was informational. I have just signed in to edit and update this with some links to relevant content and will also highlight more on the subjects of SAP Security and GRC, which will hopefully address your concerns.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.85.170 (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that you're User:Kevin73. You'll need to clearly read notability and more importantly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is absolutely nothing about this company that is notable - it's one of a billion SAP consultants. I also expect you might have some WP:COI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Checker Fred

Checker Fred came back as "unrelated" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simulation12/Archive#Report_date_January_28_2010.2C_00:17_.28UTC.29 . Why did you block him anyway? He has an unblock request pending, and if this was just a slip, you should probably deal with it.—Kww(talk) 12:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read the conversation at both SPI cases I believe the reasoning will become abundantly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly had missed the subsequent conversation.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Forty lashes with a wet noodle for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This is to say thanks for using your admin powers to block me and ignoring my request to be unblocked, you helped me make sure I got one of these and not one of these. It was very much appreciated. Smartse (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-addiction can be a dangerous thing. I'm sure there are days my wife wishes somebody would block me. Congratulations on your degree! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

*puts hand up* I'll do it! LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta, now onto the to do list! Smartse (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Recreated page

Sorry about that, I tried inserting the page in the template and looked at the protocol how to do it but it appeared to make no difference. That article was a recreation of this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_West 77.103.80.23 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then, that's different. Page deleted, both titles salted. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome and the quick tips. Raisescale (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)