Jump to content

User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Beeblebrox

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by EPIC (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 14 December 2024 (EPIC moved page User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 1 to User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 1 over redirect: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Just Step Sideways" to "Beeblebrox"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Hello from Bob

Welcome!

Hello, Beeblbrox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, you can ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on this page and ask your question here. Happy editing! — Bob • (talk) • 00:40, August 3, 2007 (UTC)

Sharpton/Simple Savior

Per Wikipedia, more than just a screenshot is needed for these kinds of statements. You'd need to cite an actual, published (as in, in a newspaper) review or article about the film in which someone makes this observation, or you'd need a quote from Bakshi himself saying that the character either was meant to be based on Sharpton, or that he didn't realize that the character resembled Sharpton when he was making the film but that he found some similarity later on, etc. These are just the rules. It's better to keep things accurate. Our own observations don't mean anything. I wanted to write something about the Miss America character being used as a metaphor for the way blacks have been treated in the United States, but I didn't have any official sources to back it up. It's true, but I can't prove it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC))


Adoption

Thanks, that is what I am looking for, to protect me and my works vs. Filipino editors who vandalize, using in the name of Wiki, selected or tailor made parts of rules for their vengeance or ulterior motives. Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahaha what? sorry Beebl, I don't think it worked. --Migs (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kodiak UFO Talk

I added a bunch of extra resources. The object was in fact seen from few residents from Homer. Many Kodiak residents did see the object and there was in fact a government response involved. It was a real UFO sighting, there were newspaper articles written about it. Since it was a proven experience with references, it cannot be deleted for notability. I have researched it and found it in recent UFO textbooks for sightings. If you want, sure I can clean up the article but deleting it because the local newspaper reported it is out of the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBotto (talk • contribs) 01:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it didn't happen, the Daily Mirror article establishes the verifiability, but it may not meet the standards of notability for inclusion into Wikipedia. More importantly though, Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view and not include unverified claims or original research. The edits I have made to this article were to bring it into line with these two well established Wikipedia policies. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the new links you have added are from blogs and ufo websites, which may be of interest to people reading the article, but are not accepted as reliable secondary sources on Wikipedia. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}} Just started my first AfD nom, for Perpetual Wake and it seems there has already been an AfD and it was deleted, what do I do now? Beeblbrox (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beeblbrox. If an article has been deleted once, and the old content has simply been restored, you can tag it for speedy deletion. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the future, if there was a consensus issue, add "(2nd nomination)" to the heading, eg. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perpetual Wake (2nd nomination)) Best, PeterSymonds | talk 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there. It seems as though you are following me consistently around Wikipedia, undoing all my edits, no matter how valid they may be. Perpetual Wake was not originally on YouTube and was present at a film festival. The Kodiak UFO really did happen, the statistics for the Union for the game G-Nome are valid, although they could use some work. I am requesting that you cease following me around Wikipedia and requesting that all my articles and edits be undone. Should you continue harassing me, I will report it to the administrators for cyberstalking. Now, I will not ask you again to stop this, so I recommend that you forget about me and simply leave my edits alone. -DarthBotto —Preceding comment was added at 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain, looking at someone's edit history and noticing that they have added material that does not meet Wikipedia policy for inclusion does not constitute stalking. Every one of the edits I have made to the pages you mention, including the deletions, were in line with the well established policies regarding notability, point of view, and original research. I would once again ask you to assume good faith and to familiarize yourself with the policies I have mentioned. I know there it seems like there are a million things you need to know to get around here, but these particular policies are the most essential to understand if you want Wikipedia to be a positive experience for you. Please remember also that no one owns Wikipedia they are not your pages, and anyone is free to edit them. You may report my behavior whenever you like to whomever you like, as I have acted in good faith to improve the project. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I might add that it is somewhat ironic that you added your comment right under the discussion of the article you keep re-creating against consensus.Beeblbrox (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pin Young/Pin Chen

I see you have noticed thee pages. At first I thought they were sisters, but it seems they are the same person. I'm not sure what's going on here. Any ideas? -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea I'm going with right now is that they be deleted. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I hope they don't go to afd. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)::
Hey, I think you're right, they are the same person. Well, one down one to go. If you want to make it easy for the admins, you could review the prod and add the prod2 template if you agree. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD

If you want to create a new AFD discussion, it needs to be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabot House 2. However, based on your nomination I don't see a compelling reason to delete rather than merge to one of the obvious target pages, if you feel that the current organization of this content is not ideal. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I kinda screwed up there, I must be getting too used to Twinkle thinking of everything for me. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Beyond the Red Line

An editor has nominated Beyond the Red Line, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the Red Line and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zatopeks

Just letting you know that I finished this AfD for you, since apparently Twinkle choked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As it turns out, it is my problem. My wireless antenna is going down in flames and not everything I send is being recieved, should be fixed by the weekend, but I don't think I can use Twinkle till then cuz it's been nothiong but trouble this past week. Anyway, Thanks for the help and good luck at that RfA! Beeblbrox (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Charles S.

Hey man I did not remove your info about the scandal. I just put it in the discussion as your presentation made me think you wanted to do so yourself. Im sorry if I caused any inconvenience. Take care. Parisinos talk

  • I'm so confused by that I don't know what to say. I don't recall making any presentation. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry bad use of the language here. By "presentation" I meant the fact someone I realise now was not you put the information in the article as if it was a discussion page (using a username etc...). So I, thinking he just was not aware of the way wikipedia works, placed it in the discussion area. Anyway everything is fine now. Parisinos (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you get rid of the red link in imputation (statistics)? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

... and I should add: I've restored the red link. I've also deleted the "technical" template you added. It's hard to see how it could be too technical when the article doesn't give any details or specifics at all. I'd like to see those "technical" things added. I've added the "expert" template to call attention to the need for that. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the red link because it's a red link. It doesn't do anything, it just sits there being red. When there is an article about it, then its time for a blue link. As for the technical tag, Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and I didn't think an average reader would be able to understand the article, the expert tag works fine for me too. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That is directly contrary to Wikipedia policies, if I understand correctly. If there ought to be an article, the link should be there as an invitation to click on it and create the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If you could direct me to a page stating that policy, I would love to see it, although I would also be horrified because I have removed tons of redlinks, it's kind of a hobby, and you are the first person who has seen a reason to object. I believe if you want to invite someone to create an article, this page is the place to do it. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Red link. Here's a quote:

Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.

I'm really surprised to find someone unaware of this; it's so much a part of the whole spirit of Wikipedia. It is absolutely wrong to say that that "requested article" page is the only place to request an article. It is likely not to be seen by experts who could create the article. Such an expert may be reading an article on a related topic and see the red link that he would never see on the "requested article" page. At any rate, I'm shocked to see your attitude that is so opposed to Wikipedia conventions. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). I quote:

If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article, then the link should be kept as an invitation for an editor to begin the appropriate article with this title. Such links do not have an expiration date, beyond which they must be "fixed".
Michael Hardy (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In short: removal of red links merely because they are red links is destructive. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold the phone

You are adding new remarks so fast I can't get a word in on my own talk page. Firstly, please assume good faith. I am not "opposed to Wikipedia conventions" although I am a very firm believer in going with my gut. Sometimes my gut is wrong, of course, and I don't claim to have read every word of the billion different "guidlines" of Wikipedia. Perhaps I have occasionally been overzealous, in light of the links you have provided, but note also that this rule is meant to be treated with common sense. Check [this nightmare] out. This thing was painful to even look at before. And, as I mentioned, I have done lots of this and you are the very first person to object in any way, so, perhaps a "guidline" supports your view, but I'm not so sure common consensus does. You make an interesting point, however, and I will keep it in mind in the future. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The practice of regarding judiciously chosen red links as valuable seems to have been such a fundamental part of Wikipedia culture since Wikipedia began early in 2001 that I'm surprised by the suggestion that it's not common consensus. If it's not, it needs to get more widely explained for the benefit of those who don't know about it (if such persons really exist). Michael Hardy (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess you just don't believe in WP:AGF. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you say that? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The end of your previous message reads :" If it's not, it needs to get more widely explained for the benefit of those who don't know about it (if such persons really exist)." I have been explaining to you that I really had never heard of this before, but you keep insinuating that I'm not telling the truth. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK now your just being silly. [this link] deserves to be red. This woman did nothing notable outside being on a couple of albums with this band. You can see that I just gone done merging in two other articles related to this band that did not have notability on their own. You need to calm down with this. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I never thought you were not telling the truth. What I was suggesting is that there may or may not be others who were, and still are, unaware that red links are valued when they link to articles that ought to exists.

As for the link to the musician, I restored that only because it looked as if the red link may have been deleted merely because it was a red link. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm about done going around in circles about this, but I'll just say putting a link back just because I removed it is exactly the type of behavior you have been trying to call me out on, as well as reflecting an assumption of bad faith, that is that any red link de-linked by me must be a mistake. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been trying to call you out on anything. I was trying to err on the side of caution. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
whatever Beeblbrox (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "whatever" link links to a page titled "complete bollocks". That would seem to imply I'm being dishonest. Is there some reason for that? Should I take it you don't agree with the "assume good faith" policy? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thanks for reverting that attack, i very much appreciate it. I guess with all the reverting i have been doing it was bound to happen but like thats going to stop me. Keep up the great work and dont let the vandals bring you down. Thanks again Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting a vandal on your userpage is pretty much the equivalent of the anti-vandal barnstar, means you're doing a good job. Keep it up! Beeblbrox (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

DUH!!

Hello, Beeblbrox. I know that the article "Cure" did not belong to me, but I wrote that down, because I wanted User: The Transhumanist to find it. I signed up to write that article for an Award, and I wanted him to see that it was written. Also, why did you delete it?????? I am trying to earn a barnstar, and you do not realize how hard it was to write that one! P.S I am not new. I know Wikipedia's rules.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Trying to earn a barnstar? That is not a reason to create an article. The article was a dictionary definition type article on a subject already covered by another page here and at Wiktionary, so I redirected it to the relevant page. I noted all that in my edit summary, which is something you should be doing as well. I see you are already looking in to coaching as an administrator, you will never get there by grade grubbing and not using edit summaries. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Trying to earn a barnstar is a very good reason to write an article. Yes, I am looking into becoming an admin, and I will become one if I decide to, which I did.I did not need to leave an edit summary, because I wrote the article, which is plain to see WITHOUT an edit summary. Check the history, if you REALLY want to know what other people have been doing, which frankly I don't. You can talk to The Transhumanist, and ask HIM what happened with the article. By the way, I was talking about one type of cure, medical.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. And, I do remember providing a space for complaining on my talk page, and you didn't put your comment there... please do. Thank you.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that one should try to earn barnstars; that's just something that happens. However, the redirect was to a somewhat long disambiguation page that doesn't have any link to an article about cures in the medical sense, and the article was not just a dictionary definition. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember asking you to adopt me Michael. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonetheless, this page is where this discussion was happening. I noticed it because this page is still on my watchlist. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, you have a point, never mind. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If trying to earn barnstars is the motivation for a user to create pages, improve pages, etc., then I'm all for it. Different people are motivated in different ways. Some go for awards, some just let them happen. Sure, barnstars aren't Pulitzers or Nobel prizes, but they're symbols of appreciation (artwork to spruce up thank you notes), and they're something you can be proud of. I challenged anyone to create the article cure, and offered to award a barnstar to anyone who did an excellent job creating it, and Princess Janay stepped up to accept that challenge. She's fairly new at this Wikipedia thing (having started in January), so please be patient - she's still learning the ropes (so am I for that matter, and I've been here over 2 years!). The article needs work, but it is a good start - it gives us a base to work with. I'm sure she plans on working on it some more. I couldn't find the ownership issue being discussed above, but it doesn't appear that Janay meant to claim ownership of the article, she just didn't know that the procedure she used ran counter to our style guidelines. No harm done, I'm sure it won't happen again. By the way, I hope the Princess goes for many more barnstars that I've offered. I look forward to awarding as many of them as she earns. The Transhumanist 19:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's also her utter refusal to do the simple common courtesy of leaving an edit summary, the YELLING IN ALL CAPS WITH LOTS OF UNEEDED PUNCTUATION!!!!!, and general lack of civility, i.e. the title of this section. A quick read of the five pillars would be a good idea for the "princess". By the way, if you read the above discussion, she says that she's not new to Wikipedia and already knows all the rules. I agree with you, that she does not, any more than you or I or Jimbo himself does. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to ramble on and on here, but it really isn't a case of biting. I left a level 1 notice on her talk page, which is specifically used to avoid biting situations. I was bitten, but good too, when I was pretty fresh here, so I know how much it sucks. Constructive criticism, such as I have tried to give, is exactly what new users need, provided it is done in a civil manner. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no call for insults, however subtle (like "princess"). It takes some Wikipedians time to realize how important edit summaries are (it did for me). By the way, I used caps and bold type for emphasis in an MfD once, not knowing it was considered screaming at the top of your lungs.  :) If I remember right, I think I even increased the size of the font. >:) Then I striked out like this everything I had contributed to the discussion. :0 And I got reamed over it.  :( Hopefully, we can instruct Janay on Wikiquette before she gets herself into a similar situation. Covering the details as you did above isn't rambling, so don't worry about it - it's easy to see we're all acting in good faith here. I think we can agree that Princess Janay needs some friendly coaching. I wish I had someone like you to take an interest in my Wiki-wellbeing when I started. She is lucky she ran into you, as there are many who would not be as sympathetic. I'm confident, that between us, we can point her in the right direction. The Transhumanist 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the People's Republic of China/Temporary

Fair enough - I guess that one of the speedy delete requirements is engaged here. So I didn't need to list it for deletion as I did!

One thing - don't add as minor edits, as some people hide them. John Smith's (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, I just have to find another article that qualifies as a speedy... Beeblbrox (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No Prob :-)

No problem. It just ticked me off when you said the stuff about my wanting to be an Admin. :-)--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Afd

Hello. Recently, I found you left a message on my talk page. Might I ask you what on earth you are talking about? I don't think I did anything wrong. Maybe I am mistaken. Thanks. archanamiya · talk 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well. But if its alright with you, I'm going to remove the warning (It looks bad on me). archanamiya · talk 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It's your talk page, do whatever you like, but I was much more concerned that you take what I have said to heart when voting at AfD or any other editing here. All the rapid editing you are doing may make your edit count go up fast, but ask yourself, is that more important than the good of the project? I don't mean to assign motivations to you without really knowing, but I hope you are not just boosting your edit count to look good for the Awards center or RfA or something... Beeblbrox (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PROD on Party service

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Party service, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

oops Beeblbrox (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

croomie?

r u a croomie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo2012 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dean Karr

Since you restored the article, I added useful tags to it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

talkback

i answered your message in my talk page, sorry i don't have twinkle so i can't use Easy talkback --DashyGames (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox/Archive_1&oldid=1263038585"