User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 19

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

North Island Challenge Stakes

Your PROD on North Island Challenge Stakes has been challenged. It is true that the article has been edited and a couple of refs added, but it is still not clear to me that notability is established. Possible AfD candidate? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

~~Someone posted a scathing message about you~~ FYI, I posted a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[1] regarding your yet-to-be-published, as-far-as-I-know, closing statement of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On further looking into the matter, Yikes! Good luck on summarizing all that. : ) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.

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

- Zhou Yu (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A favour

I may be getting close to being considered "involved". Can you keep an eye on Cineworld (Glasgow)? I'm actually suspecting some socks, but it's not overtly problematic yet. The re-addition of the PROMO crap has become annoying enough that I warned the most recent editor (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm watching the page, and have placed COI / unencyclopaedic tags; looks like the involved editors need to be persuaded to work within our rules rather than simply treating the article as their school assignment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw your help ... one way or another they're playing tag-team, and I'm loathe to involve tools. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can advise re:policy. I appreciate your eyes too. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Afd for Greek love

The recent Afd debate included a link to my sandbox, denoted in the nomination as 'this list of sources'. I have now cleared my sandbox for other uses and the existing link needs to be replaced with this link to the relevant version of my sandbox. It looks like a job for an admin. Thanks. McZeus (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

RMS Olympic III deletion

Dear, I have seen you nominated my article for deletion. I have read also that you actually think it is going to happen, I know that it is going to happen with two other people. But the source, like you said is not reliable. But I can say, there is 88% chance that the Olympic III will be rebuild as a cruise ship. I have to wait next week for the answer, I will also present the Olympic III idea in Heerlen on December 17, 2010 over a week. When two lights will be put on in my city, because of the demised Lange Jan, Lange Lies towers. All the best, Peekarica (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not your "dear" and I have no idea how two lights being turned on in the city where you live relates to anything that we have been discussing. Please try to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to write about things that you just made up. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ADMINS

Sorry, I dindn't know. « CA » (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We're All Together Now

Hi Beeblebrox. I'd really appreciate it if you could leave some explanation in the edit summaries as to why you declined various CSD's. In this article you just said "decline speedy/rmv section break". So I'm none the wiser. It'd really help me, and I'm guessing others, to learn a lot if you could leave an explanation. Otherwise I'll just make the same mistakes over and over. Thanks a lot. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A test page is generally understood to be an entire page that is apparently nothing but a test of some feature of Wikipedia and not an actual attempt at creating a viable article. In this case, as I noted in this [2] edit summary, the user who created the page apparently thought that you need to add #REDIRECT before every link. I fixed that problem and declined the speedy as the page did not appear to be nothing but a test. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for the info. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on my userpage

Thanks for reverting. Do you watch my page? There is a watcher tool on Toolserver and apparently, I have about 140 persons watching my page, which is surprising to me... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been on my watchlist since I dropped a note there few days ago. Getting attacked like that is always a sign that you have done something right recently. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

NeoGeo arcade machine

Hello, Beeblebrox. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

Fallschirmjäger ✉ 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

B9 Hummingbird Hovering

Thanks for the note. I saw, shortly after posting my message, that this guy's account had been already deleted long ago, but couldn't bring myself to delete my own heartfelt reply simply because nobody was listening ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Clueless_in_Alaska

Hello, Beeblebrox. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

PawełMM (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

History deletion

Hi, I just hid 4 recent revisions on an article. I'm not clear from a quick skim of policy whether I need to report that to somebody with oversight or not, so I thought I'd drop you a note here to be on the safe side. Can you check it out and let me know? --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be the sort of thing that does qualify, I've suppressed it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass Article Merger

Hi Beeblebrox,

Two editors have suggested that 36 or more articles be merged without any discussion on the talk pages of the individual articles. A discussion was opened at ANI, but an editor closed the discussion, indicating that it was a content dispute. I strongly disagree. I feel that the mass merger proposal is a blatant attempt to circumvent Wikipedia merging policy. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thank you very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied at ANI and at merger discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Proposed move of Industrial Espionage page

Hi there, I appreciate your advice about moving the article and on reflection I need to do this with plenty of opportunity for discussion first. I was n't aware of the move tab so will use this if I try to do this - However, I have a few qualms about your self appointed policeman role - though I can see this role has an important purpose in Wikipedia it is important to exercise it with humility and a bit of appreciation for those who also spend a lot of their free time researching and seeking to understand and accurately articulately convey information about their subject in well referenced detail - there are enough people editing a hyperbolic million articles a day and those that seem to do this, whilst throwing weight around and telling people off can be a wee bit annoying too... if Wikipedia becomes a site only for expert Wikipedians rather than a repository of specialist knowledge delivered by people without much experience of editing Wikipedia then it loses its purpose - don't consider this a warning - but consider it all the same - all the best... PB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddingtonbaer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am not self-appointed. I had to go through WP:RFA twice before the community appointed me as an administrator. I wasn't rude or overly aggressive with you, especially considering that you were willfully ignoring the advice of others who had previously tried to guide you. In fact my message on your talk page [3] is to the point and non-threatening, so I don't even see what your problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an outside observer and as an admin who uses his keyboard more than his admin tools, Beeblebrox is a very good admin. I wish I could say that of others of my colleagues.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock

I think we have another sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simulation12 --Confession0791 ^talk 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Again.

Why don't people bother to read the rules? Thanks for watching my back yet again. I am within a microsecond of breaking down and blocking that user, but cooler heads shall prevail. Owe you a bunch of Barnstars, bro. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what are talk page stalkers for if not to get your back when you are accused of being part of a a vast anti-organic food corporate conspiracy that secretly controls Wikipedia? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

re: CSD exercise

Hi - I looked at it and you're right, it should go. I'll tag it shortly, or if you read this before I get to it go ahead and consider this a {{db-u1}} request to delete it. Once the link goes red on my talk page, I'll blank that section so no more attention will be called to it. Thanks very much. Krakatoa Katie 06:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA

I think it's quite obvious what I was saying, and it didn't need a snide aside. You were suggesting in perfectly good faith that we have an interest in reducing the drama level, to which I replied with the observation that it cannot possibly be the case, as the RfA are getting progressively more loaded with the trick questions that are the cause of much of the drama. A statement, which even on reflection, still appears to be perfectly in context with the thread. Kudpung (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should accuse me of being snide while failing to recognize the same quality in your own remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a most unfair observation - some of us really are concerned with improving RfA, and keeping sarcasm out of it is one small way to achieve progress. Being bullied off the discussion with comments bordering on WP:CIVIL, if not directly PA, is probably not the best method of eliciting participation to this end. To recapitulate, your 'we' is clearly not genuinely concerned, why else do 'they' so keenly fuel the very dramas you speak of? What saddens me most is that I actually !voted for some of them. --Kudpung (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you felt bullied by my remarks, that was not my intention. By "we" I meant we as in people who are trying to solve (instead of inflame) the problems with RFA, a category we can clearly both count ourselves as members of. The persons you refer to are really a teeny tiny miniscule percentage of all the users that edit Wikipedia every day. Many stay away entirely for exactly the type of reasons that have been identified in these prolonged conversations. Inevitably in such a difficult and, might I mention again, extremely lengthy conversation, communication is sometimes not entirely clear what for whatever reason and misunderstandings occur. I would suggest that in fact we have both fallen victim to this and that we each in fact expressed a perspective that has more in common than not. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it does, and you can rest assured that I have always held your contributions to these problems in the highest regard. Best wishes for 2011.--Kudpung (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're on the list, you get a cookie!

Gnowor has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Gnowor^T_C 19:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

IP Santa/editor says Merry Christmas Beeblebrox! Go easy on the homebrew! ;-) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 00:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Radiocrazy

Merry Christmas! Just a heads up, I wasn't tag bombing. The editor is attempting to avoid detection by deleting warnings on his talk page. I actually placed the tag yesterday, and then today, you tagged it again. No harm; no foul, however, the username is not only a violation of the username policy, there is also a conflict of interest in the articles and links the editor has created and is planning to create. Your tag failed to indicate the COI according to the articles written, so I thought to simply be thorough. Thanks for assuming good faith, and again, Merry Christmas! Cind.amuse 00:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There was/is a COI notice directly above my username discussion notice. User was reported at WP:UAA, and the name is in fact a violation, but nobody warned him when he started out over a year ago, so the decision was made to go with discussion for the moment instead of blocking. However, I admit I had not noticed that you had just informed them of the same issues yesterday. That they just archived that is not a very encouraging sign. If they continue to edit without filing a request at WP:CHU I'll go ahead and block. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

He's written on my talk page and I offered some thoughts, along with some help in creating and editing articles. I first and foremost pointed out that he needs to follow through on changing his username, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I think he may be editing in good faith (outside of the avoidance issues), just according to the foreign Wikipedia's with which he is involved. BTW, I wasn't aware that he was reported to WP:UAA Cind.amuse 00:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This is like mobing. I use this Username since August 25th, 2005 in german Wikipedia and I've wroted a lot of articles about classical composers in my profession as a Musicologist. No article have been removed or deleted in the last six years. On Christmas Eve I have created an article about my broadcating company (part of a project that won a prize of the Wikimedia Foundation in Germany). I have linked all references why I have created this article inside the delete discussion. Nobody read them - I was very very surprised that some "Super Moderators" can marked during one day (christmas) with speedy delete and delete the article. Now you let me know that my user name is inacceptable. This is not a fair act - it's like a comic with "Speedy Gonzales"... Of course I will change the user name if you wish but I feel me completely misunderstood and mobbed out... Carl (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2010 (CET)

I'm sorry you feel ganged up on, but we have long-established policies that we should not write about subjects in which we are personally involved, and usernames should not represent an organization. These were pointed out to you right after you created the article, and you responded by removing them [4], replacing them with links to non-existent talk archives. Different Wikipedia projects have different policies, we are not bound by policy on the German Wikipedia and they are not bound by our policies. I actually would have been completely within policy to have blocked you as soon as this came to my attention, but I did not. I'm afraid if you wish to continue editing here you are going to have to file a request at WP:CHU for a new username. It's funny that you invoke Christmas is if we are heartless when it is you who decided to write an article on an organization you are involved with on Christmas Eve. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like conflicts - so I have created the new account and start by zero. The mental stress was not nice during christmas time. Carl (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2010 (CET)

That's fine, but you will need to stop editing with your current account which still has the username violation and start using the new account. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For cleaning up my mess so quickly.[5] --Kleopatra (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. That's why they call it the mop. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Uh, what vandalism? I corrected the infobox that wasn't displaying the candidates' names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.79.70 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

A reply waiting for you. Best. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 02:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

Hi! Apparently you forgot to remove PraxisConsensus (talk · contribs)'s talk page access; your block summary says that, but the block settings still allow the user to edit their talk page. Thanks in advance. Hey Mid (contribs) 08:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added Davesmith au (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC). 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.

December 2010

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Confession0791 ^talk 06:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I deserved that. Actually I usually do use User talk:Sandbox for user warnings for any Twinkle testing, just for future reference. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even know it was there. --Confession0791 ^talk 06:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you mean of me not posting in English, Confession posted a question about a template being added to Twinkle and I jokingly used Twinkle to issue the very warning he asked about. In return I got this. No harm no foul, just playing around. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wondered if it was a language I could understand. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AN Hypothetical Scenario

For the record I understand your position of wishing to discuss matters in a hypothetical sense, its a shame others did not feel the same way. I would think that common sense prevail in a hypothetical situation like that and we should only remove others comments signature and all, I also think if a user changes a comment of another user and leaves the sig intact it could be a form of impersonation and should result in a block or very severe warning. Perhaps something to discuss further in the future in a more civilized context without others dragging names and diffs into the discussion. That's just my observation, Kind regards ZooPro 13:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

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.— Hey Mid (contribs) 12:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your q to Vintagekts

I hope you don't mid and I have no authority, but a lot of the discussion there is not helping the blocked user, I have re - asked your question as it seems a fair and helpful question for him to answer. Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Third times a charm. Maybe the peanut gallery will let him answer it himself this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Krupa de Tarnawa

Hello, if I and all of my genetics friends engage in some shamanic dreaming, may we make up our own Eastern European Noble Family stories and start Wikipedia articles for them? ;-)

More seriously, I and others have spent many hours cleaning this guy's mis-sourcing (citing an journal article but misrepresenting what is in the article) in the Y-chromosome genetics articles. His anger over that is likely why he requested this article. It is almost as bad as sweeping up after the guys who try to use genetics to create Race_(classification_of_humans) tools. --RebekahThorn (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the flawed speedy deletion nominations. Complicated cases should usually go through a thorough discussion and not just be speedy deleted, which I see is now underway. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. Re you comment at talk RfA yesterday. A good rant - I couldn't have said it better myself. I've tried several times over the year but couldn't find the right words. Best wishes for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

radio citations

Hi, I though it quite important and in need of clarification and have opened a thread at the RSnoticeboard. here - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you can see I don't have a lot of support for radio station links and I don't think there is much community support for them to be used to support anything contentious, anyways it clearly isn't common practice, but in this situation and from comments in the RS thread and as regards this non controversial content I have replaced them. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that conversation in quite the same light as you do, but at least we've settled this specific issue. The reason why I find APRN so useful is that they do this handy thing on their website where they break their daily newscast down into individual stories that can be directly linked to. In this case the stories are only about two minutes long apiece, about the same amount of time it would take to read a brief newspaper article. Since they have reporters on the ground in Alaska, they are actually more likely to get the story straight than the international corporate media corps. For example, in the case of the Ted Stevens plane crash, they already had somebody in Dillingham because they have an affiliate station there. Their reporter was able to talk directly to witnesses and the National Guard search team before anyone else had a reporter in place. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean the outcome that I have bolded, I don't support that at all but some users appear to there. I never clicked on a link to the radio station you added, as I have no speakers at present but you have explained it is a news report, a radio news report. If the content was contentious about a living person I would not have replaced it. Anyways, the discussion has cleared up a few things, you also don't seem to support adding contentions radio claims about living people from your comments so I apologize for disturbing your non controversial additions, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cup o' joe

It's on me. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuts...can't get the picture to appear for some reason...oh, well. It's the thought that counts. :)

--PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 Bidding Open

I though you might be interested to know that Wikimania 2012 bidding has officially opened. I hope that the Alaska bid goes ahead and that we see some fantastic bids this year.

Many Thanks Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Wikimania 2012 jury moderator

It's all very tenuous right now as I have been unable to get away from work and I seem to be the only one interested in pursuing this, but I will probably be able to make it to Anchorage (250 miles (400 km), about four and a half hours of driving, including a high mountain pass from where I live) and get some harder numbers for the bid before the time is up. If not there's always 2013. Thanks for the heads up! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV

Err, sorry I was in the middle of closing it when you added {{closing}} on the Canada–Tonga relations DRV. Prodego ^talk 03:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd barely begun writing up a rationale and I believe it is more or less inevitable that whoever closes this is going to get some grief no matter which way they close it, so you are more than welcome to go ahead and close it as you see fit. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's more or less what I would have done and said anyway. I hope the involved parties can find their way clear to finally drop it, but I'm not holding my breath. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

It might be a good idea to lock down both the user and the talk pages of VK's. I already proposed that idea to the most recent unblocked-declining admin. My reasoning is that the page could again become a lightning rod of invective from his so-called friends. However, blocking the page might cause even more trouble. I dunno. This much I know: I'm fairly irritated with that guy. People offering to help, and he takes an "F.U." attitude. Hard to figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, Courcelles took care of it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, hopefully this long annoying saga has finally come to a close. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Before totally reaching that conclusion, please watch this:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup

FYI, you forgot the {{subst:PAGENAME}}, in the TFD template so the inline links to the discussion aren't working. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just clicked it and it worked fine for me, went straight to the relevant discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

McNelliesGroup

You beat me to the block page by seconds (I tend to put the template on the page first)... ;-) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And I do it the other way around. You got chocolate on my peanut butter! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Gynocracy article deletion reason

May I ask your reason for deleting the article Gynocracy (formerly Women's superiority)? The reason was not logged. Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected link: 05:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

On the contrary, the reason is clearly logged as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's superiority. If you are asking for a rationale for that decision it is because there was a rough consensus to delete the article as a result of that conversation, for the reasons identified by the other participants in said debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please reconsider the closing and the deleting?

Of the five votes to delete, one offered a ground outside of Wikipedia's standards (that a set of sources had to cite all other secondary sources), one was on notability (when I provided about half a dozen notable individuals and about 17 secondary sources), and one or two were about whether the scope was clear but I rewrote the lede to solve that and said so and no one replied about that. Since grounds are important so that this is not simply a headcount, I question whether that leaves enough votes for deletion.

We were negotiating. There were still debates; the issue of stating scope for some editors was an issue of synthesis for others. I was editing, re-editing, and posting to seek consensus. Somewhere between the scope perspective and the synthesis perspective there was likely to be a resolution.

I understand that the article's subject is widely despised outside of Wikipedia and has been for centuries. I think the treatment avoids some of the social concerns that might be felt about being public about the literature. For example, criticisms were in the article.

Please undelete or, if you would, please enlighten me on the concerns you still have.

Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The deletion was not based on my own concerns. It was based on the result of the discussion. If you wish to contest my interpretation of what the result was you can ask for a deletion review. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

COI at RocketSled

per this page, the "Director of Program Management" at this company is "Kate McDonald", and the article was created by K8mcdonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). WuhWuzDat 16:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

COI is not a reason to delete, if that is what you are trying to say. WP:COIN may be of some help. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Since you protected Islam in the United Kingdom page, i turn to you for some help of some sort (please). This I think is a case worse than sock-puppeting. It seems that a single editor has created many pre-planned multiple accounts on a particular day to target particular pages. Please check the following accounts. The first three have been created on the same day, approximately the same time of day and focus on similar edits:

Veve123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Created on 27 December 2010 at 14:05
Veve1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Created on 27 December 2010 at 14:12
Sanasena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Created on 27 December 2010 at 14:19
69.31.71.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) or 69.31.71.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) may be the IP address of the user or both is that possible?

I am suspecting (not sure) that the original user was Bold7755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked a few days before the above three accounts were created. I look forward to some help as you may see that some of the accounts have continued to vandalise/blank pages while I'm editing this.Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say this is worse that sockpuppetry, as that is exactly what you describe. I have to go work shortly and probably won't be of much help anytime today, I suggest you take this to WP:SPI after all, you may need help from a WP:CHECKUSER. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

putting an image in an infobox-help needed with coding

see Talk:Alaska#image collage. Once again my coding skills are insufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly should it go? It seems like some people want it down past the infobox instead? /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was moved twice by users who did not deign to explain any reason for their actions. Looks like I'm the only one who wants it in the infobox after all, so it's moot at this point, but thanks for looking into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gynocracy (formerly Women's superiority)

Nick Levinson has asked for a deletion review of Gynocracy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected the placement of this section (discovered that the template created a new talk section, so moved it from inside a relevant section to be after the last section already on the page): 09:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Clarified the section title and corrected the link to the DRV: 10:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

Not fair!!!!!!

Not fair!

I been an admin for years and I never got no t-shirt. :(

Waaaaaaaaaaahh ! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Here you go:[7]. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dereckson should get IPBE

Hello Beeblebrox. Please see my comment at WP:OPP. The simplest way to get Dereckson running from his Dedibox IP would be granting him WP:IPBE which you should consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about open proxies and how they are detected, so I wasn't sure if that would be appropriate or not. I thought it didn't matter who you were and that we had a hardline "no open proxies period" stance on this. That's not the case? This is why I referred it over there, obviously this is not an area I have researched very much. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy is not quite that severe. m:NOP says: "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." We don't mistrust the user just because they used a proxy, but they won't get IPBE unless we have some reason to trust them. At least that's my theory. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent block of User:Arky91

could you remove this edit from my talk page as grossly insulting language? (i think its called RD2?) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

much appreciated. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was a very appropriate whatever its called. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was disgusted to see that another user had defended Arky and gone as far as to compare me to Hitler in the ANi report. above. It might be convenient but I wonder if Rettien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Arky91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a troll of some sort, but there is not enough to go on to determine a relationship between the two accounts. I suggest WP:DENY as the best course of action, just ignore them. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind another Admin decided to block Rettien has a vandalism only account. And funnily enough another account popped up (Annanovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) leaving another message on my talkpage which is the clearest indication yet that there is a sockmaster at hand. He/she has been blocked also as a vandalism only account. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Having your own personal troll is always a sign that you are doing something right. And it is increasingly obvious that it is socking. I'll start watching your talk to WP:RBI these fools. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had my talk page semi-protected for a week. hopefully that should stave off the attention! =) Thanks for everything so far. I can't believe how low some people stoop... all cause I asked for a source LOL -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Some people don't react well to having the rules explained to them, no matter how politely it is done. If you've never read it before, I can't recommend this essay enough. It is the most insightful guide to the various types of problems commonly encountered here I have seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Must say ...

I am disappoint :/ Confirmed, BTW, and I',m annoyed that I didn't spot that one before .... - Alison ^❤ 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He should be banned for that one. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you are disspointed Alison, but should you have been the one checkusering? Let's not forget it was your naive and unquestioning unblocking [8] of this editor [9] that made many think it was time for VK too to be unblocked. I am rather dissapointed in you too. I hope you are all very ashamed of yourselves - you should be. Giacomo 22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to start a stink about VK accidently revealing his own socks through carelessness and anger, do it someplace else. (not SPI, not here) CUs are more than able to check one another's work, feel free to ask for a review from someone you trust a bit more, if such a person exists in your paranoid view. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh c'est moi - paranoid again! No, I'm not paranoid, just surprised at how little research some you you do. Giacomo 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Posner

My bad. I didn't realize there was a Requested Moves discussion going on. Care to add your opinion there? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, actually I didn't either. There hadn't been any discussion at all on the redirect talk page. I guess I will go add my 2¢... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at User talk:Looie496/Recall.
Message added 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Research in RD3

I agree that your concern regarding my diffs being too recent is reasonable, but I want to point out that they were merely the easiest to find. This has been an ongoing problem for a while now. I am a little busy right now but I will be glad to offer more diffs in the near future when I get a few moments to find them. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ciplex Deletion

Hey, thank you for seeing through the puffery and having to read that awful wall of text. I thought I let you know that there is a WP:COIN in progress regarding the creating user, if you wanted to come in and comment, please do! Phearson (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Renamed user 1499

Regarding the User talk:Renamed user 1499 controversy, WP:DONTBITE! Swim900 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The advice not to bite the newcomers is not a suicide pact. We shouldn't pretend someone isn't charging about like a bull in a china shop and ignoring our policies if that is what they are in fact doing. This user has wasted a lot of time and effort with their numerous requests, many of which are not visible on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Because this made my day! HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 04:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred (Freddy) Krupa

Have a look at what I say about the references (mainly the English language ones, but including one in Croat). Peridon (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Brian Cooper (Australia)

Brian Cooper (Australia) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to contact you - so I will try posting here. You removed my site for copyright infringement. The site you referenced was also created by me. I have removed that site now and I would like my wikipedia article restored please. The site I removed was http://web.me.com/picinapod/Brian_Cooper/Brian_Cooper.html)) -Miriam12345 (talk)

(talk page stalker) It reads like an WP:ESSAY, is WP:SOAP, really does not have much to do with the subject of the article, is clearly a WP:COPYRIGHTED piece of work, and I can't find any good reason for it to exist in an encyclopedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Normally, I would inform the OP of how to release the text under cc-by-sa but that text, copyrighted or not, does not come anywhere close to being a "wikipedia article". I would advise the OP to hit random article a few times to see what articles actually look like. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I rescind my request -Miriam12345 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3

As this RfC is being approached more like a user RfC I'm not sure threaded discussion is really sensible, so I thought I'd ask you here about your "Another view". Firstly as a non-admin my problem isn't with not being able to see the deletions per se, it's the effect that this has on my ability to influence the policy on its use that it the problem as I see it. From what I understand it has long been the view that admins are nothing special, they just do what the larger community asks of them. That is that policy etc is decided on by the wider community not just admins. With normal deletions there's enough review of it (at RevDel or else where) that I as an admin feel that I can adequately comment on, and help create, policy etc. It is my view that simple guidelines, like those at WP:REVDEL will never by themselves suffice to inform admins what the community view is as they are too open to interpretation and admins can inpret them too many ways. Review of their actions allow admins to better know how the community feels the guidelines should be interpreted. Without that review how do you propose admins get the sense for how the community wants them to use the tool? Even if we accept (and I don't) that only admins should be involved in this process without a review mechanism it still suffers from exactly the same problem that admins are likely to apply it inconsistently as there's no guidance on how the guidelines should be interpreted. Dpmuk (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with reviewing the policy, that is something we should do periodically with any policy. After several days of discussion about this it seems clear to me that the examples used were instances where the individual edits by themselves don't look so bad but were in fact part of a mass-vandalism spree. Completely removing all trace of said spree serves the project's best interest. If a user feels their edit has been unfairly deleted they can always ask the deleting admin to restore it. If it wasn't vandalism and they can explain why the admin was mistaken they should of course reverse the deletion, like any other flawed admin action. The fact is most admin actions are not reviewed. I would say that less than 1% of speedy deletions are reviewed, because they don't need to be. In the case of this particular application of RevDel it is essentially a more powerful form of Rollback. The only question we need ask is "was the edit vandalism or not?" If the answer is yes then Wikipedia is well served by having it removed entirely. There has still been no evidence presented that there is a widespread problem here, so I don't see any need for any kind of formalized review process. RevDel gets used a lot, more with each passing day it seems, but if it is being used to remove vandalism from a page's history I see that as a good thing. If more substantial evidence of a widespread problem was to surface I might feel differently but to date we have only seen a very few examples, and those were shown to be part of a vandal attack. (see the rfc talk page for more detail on that). Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly see where you're coming from although I disagree with some of it. I'd agree that the particular examples used in this case seem a reasonable use of RevDel but we shouldn't ignore the whole issue just because someone chose bad examples. As for if it's getting rid of vandalism it's OK I have two concerns with that, firstly it's not what the guidelines say and secondly what if an admin gets it wrong. By setting the bar higher that's less likely to happen. I don't have a huge problem with the idea of all vandalism being RevDel'ed but that clearly needs a new community consensus. My biggest concern however is that the reason we're not seeing a problem is because at the moment RevDels are not being reviewed at all and so even though there may be problems we may not be spotting them. For example how many RevDels have you reviewed? Dpmuk (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If I see them in a page's recent history I usually check them, maybe about fifty. Are you thinking we should review them all or that we should have some specific place for asking for review? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what the answer is, hence why I'm discussing it. It's certainly good that at least some people are reviewing them - I don't think they all need to be reviewed but why this is still relatively new I do think a formal random review may be worthwhile. I don't see this as a long term thing just something to help us develop stable guidelines etc on RevDel. Once that's done there'd be no need for it. Longer term and for review of specific deletion, well I think we'll have to wait and see how often things are queried and whether ANI can cope with that level. Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

THANKS

I am glad that I could come across an Administrator who thinks rationally. I am not Naadapriya76.212.1.85 (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually do anything besides de-activate your unblock request, your block had already expired. Thanks for the compliment though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A request

Hi Beeblebrox,

May I ask you to semi-protect my userpage and my talkpage for rabid ip vandalism? [10][11][12]Regards.--Nmate (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

While that is extremely nasty the three diffs are spread out over a period of months. I'll do the user page as we usually do those if anyone asks but as for the talk page,

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotecting Amy Chua's page?

Hi Beeblebrox! Any word on when Amy Chua's page will be unprotected? I thought it was 23:55 UTC but that time has come and gone, so thought I'd check in. I'd like to work on tightening some of the language, and adding in some new commentary/critiques/defenses, as per discussions on the Talk page. I think it's especially important because Chua is appearing on Fox and Colbert on Tuesday, so there will probably be a lot of traffic. The page as it is has some editorial language issues (as noted by Jimmy), and I'd like to help fix it! Let me know. Thanks! Qalandariyya (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Already unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A Suggestion

I notice that you added an image request for the Oshkosh Grand Opera House. I took an image and uploaded it over 4 years before the article existed. I suggest that before you request that a photograph be taken for an object listed on the National Register of Historic Places that you check to see if one has been uploaded on the county page for the object. In this case, it is the National Register of Historic Places listings in Winnebago County, Wisconsin. There are many photographers taking photos of listings throughout the United States; even some of the more obscure places are fully illustrated. Royal broil 02:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I requested the photo, you knew it already existed because you took it four years before there was an article for it, you added it and removed the request. I don't see what the problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that you would be interested to know that there's a placement system for photographs of historic places. It's wise to check it first before requesting photos for these places. I came across the article by happenstance. There's no harm or foul, just a little knowledge if you're interested. No offense intended by a mere suggestion. Royal broil 02:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your timely intervention at The National Archives. It's a rare pleasure and relief to encounter an admin who sees what needs doing and just does it instead of expanding the whole issue into a vast bureaucratic nightmare for once!--Harumphy (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I got all the redirects retargeted as well. With move protection on this shouldn't happen again without consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought

Hi,Beeb, assuming GF, I wonder if it's just coincidence that you appear to disagree with almost everything I say or suggest on Wikipedia ;) You know, I do have the best interests of the Wikipedia at heart. --Kudpung (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do? I honestly hadn't noticed. I would suggest that we are both just active in a lot of policy discussions, I'm not stalking you or anything and I'm sure we are both only arguing for what we believe is right. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lawline again

Hi Beeblebrox. I just blocked SnoopyPA (talk · contribs) as a fairly obvious sock of Lawline. Same MO: straight to Hot Lap Dance Club where it proceeded to shave off a bit more of that already drastically reduced article. There are also a couple of other "tells" which I'm sure you'll notice. This account was actually created a couple of hours before the previous sock, FreedomFighter77 (talk · contribs), so I'll request a CheckUser to ferret out sleepers. Favonian (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised. With the article now gone perhaps that will be the end of it. Then again, they were blanking large parts of the article then arguing to keep it along with swearing they were quitting Wikipedia then demanding to be unblocked so who knows. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BrekekekexKoaxKoax‎;

Small point -- while I am glad you have blocked this user, was it for the BLP edits or for the usertalk page attack on user:John? To explain, I put in my comment pointing out how Brek's reference to the Nazi anthem was a personal attack. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the above. A clear pattern of disregard for numerous policies, and now with a bunch of unhelpful sarcasm and personal attacks on top of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your support. --John (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)