Jump to content

User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 10

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 6 August 2009 (adding recent inactive threads). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

User:DanB

Beeblebrox, my bad; thanks for the advice. No, Bob gave no edit summary whatsoever for removing the content I entered; that was the issue.

I had this in mind, from the Fermi's Paradox article: "Religious and philosophical speculation about extraterrestrial intelligent life long predates the modern scientific inquiry into the subject."

The improvements I see might be: (1) to place the content under the section labeled, "Human beings were created alone", but the content disagrees with the label. And (2), to quote the original documents myself, from The Ante-Nicene Christian Library in 23 vols, Eerdman's, 1951, for Origen, and the Mandaean book The Ginza (Arabic). Very old documents.

References #38 & #39 already refer to religious texts.

Under the heading, "They choose not to interact with us", the content was intended to address or to respond to the conjectures in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, as follows:

"Earth may have been set as an explicit experiment that contact would ruin" The documents say, "Yes".

"...all it takes is a single...civilization to decide to act contrary..." The documents say, No, it won't happen. Because:

"all civilizations follow the lead of some particularly distinguished civilization" Yes, this takes place. God's, so to speak. It's a matter of trustworthiness. He trusts them to do what He would do.

The quotes do respond to the conjectures made.

In a fast read, most likely missed by Bob.

If, rather than quotes from ancient writings, a current denomination's religious belief is expressed, 26 of 1,248,168 words - rather a detail in the LDS scriptural canon - lay to rest the underlying question of Fermi's Paradox: "Are we alone in the universe?"

D&C 76:24 "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."

Occam's Razor in operation? Include if you wish.

Anyway, I don't know that we should deny these old writings appropriate expression.

Regards, Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.123.198 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:N2icv

thanks for that help!

User:William Allen Simpson

As per your advice I posted at wp:ani, but please see the result that there was no admin input there. And opening an Rfc is a very big step I'd not like to take at this point.

One user replied on wp:ani "I'm not an admin, but I don't think the advice to come here was correct. I have certainly seen people blocked at WQA in spite of refusing to participate in the process. Here at ANI this issue seems to be falling under the radar. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)" Do you think there is reason to reopen the discussion at wp:wqa? Do you perhaps have any other suggestions? Debresser (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid my only suggestion at this point is to let it go, try to avoid further conflict with Mr. Simpson, and re-report at ani if there are further insults, providing diffs of your previous attempts to resolve this. Since he ignored both processes, there is little to no chance that wqa can help. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

thx

thx for reverting the vandalism to my talk page - that was SO quick! :-) Flatterworld (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

- Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Linguistixuck's accusations

I've been waiting for this user to calm down, so that discussions could be fruitful. Linguistixuck has falsely characterized my edits. Linguistixuck themself admits my only edit to Mary Gilbert [1] and my only edit to Lost Nation, Iowa [2] were "understandable". Which means Linguistixuck's complaint rests sole on my only edit to Tim Buckley. The actual difference [3] clearly shows that my edit summary of "rv to remove random allcaps word" is not a false edit summary. Linguistixuck's version has the line "WORK with Guibert suffering from his infidelity and difficulties arising from the pressures of his music career." which I reverted to the previous version which made sense and lacked the Allcaps work.

In response, Linguistixuck has accused me of going on a "revert rampage” [4], then added an uncivil title bar [5], called my edit of Lost Nation “crap” [6], threatened me demanding an immediate response [7] [8]. Twelve minutes later, Linguistixuck accused me on the Incidents noticeboard [9] and then later reported me here. [10]. Linguistixuck appeared to have calmed down in this edit [11] and said that they “consider things settled” yet only six minutes later, he accuses me of “BS edit summaries” [12] , among other things. Edward321 (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary of reverting my reversion

Hello. I think the edit summary of reverting my reversion was inadequate, because you identified it as vandalism. How was it vandalism? Impala2009 | Talk 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I more or less explained this on your talk page. Your edit added vandalism that had just been removed back into the article. So, although your intent may have been to revert a vandal, in your haste you actually ended up adding some very nasty content back into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Impala2009's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE:Skeet Skeet

The chorus to the song uses the phrase "skeet skeet, motherfucker!", which popularized the term as a catchphrase. It may have existed prior to the song, but it's this song (a #2 hit) that introduced it into the vernacular. Chubbles (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CFA D.7 Cricri

This is a significantly developed aircraft - see the difference in performance as listed in the CFA article. I am therefore re-creating the article. If you interfere, I will mark it as Vandalism. RuthAS (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • There were only ten ever built, and the parent article is a only a stub so it would make more sense to expand it instead of splitting it, and I don't appreciate being threatened by you as nothing I have done here was vandalism and I left a polite explanation on your talk page of my actions. You don't own the article, any user is free to "interfere." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesnt mwatter how many were built. Many other articles cover single examples of aircraft. The CFA D.7 was designed and built by an independent company, its airframe was modified, it had a more powerful engine, its weights and performance differed. RuthAS (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome! Onetwothreeabc (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Palin

(posting here instead of the article talk page, since it's not really about the article, just a thought I had)

Re political suicide: they'd be surprised what someone can get away with when the American public has such selective hearing. Her interview with Katie Couric in 2008 should have been political death, but somehow she survived that one and still had a career. Now and then on the Internets I see non-joke comments like "Sarah Palin/Carrie Prejean 2012!!" that just make me embarrassed to be a United Statesian... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Palin and ancestry

I need to solict your advice and feedback. What is the proper way/process to engage someone to to resolve a dispute? How do I engage them without it turning into a battle? I am new to Wikipedia and need advice on this matter. Thanks --Dranster (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • There are several processes. For a dispute between two users, a third opinion can be very helpful. For more involved disputes a request for comment is a good way to gather consensus. You are wise to try and not turn it into a battle, a lot of new users don't get that and end up getting in awful, pointless fights with other users. Generally, if a conversation has gone two or three rounds without anyone changing their position, it is time to seek outside opinion. I'll continue watching the page and will help out if I can. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of advice. Your right: I don't want to end up in a pointless fight. I fact, I am waiting a couple of days before responding. Thanks again --Dranster (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Drydevilsclub.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed I clicked on the cc-sa license when I uploaded it, but for some reason it didn't show up. Fixed now, it's also labeled as being self-created, and the metadata from my camera matches other files I have created. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for censoring my objection to a double standard

You either mistook my statements as a complaint against uncivil articles, or just wanted to censor my complaint. I only used it to draw a comparison that there is a double standard with names and "offensive" should not be valid criteria. I was hoping for a meaningful discussion on the "discussion" board on the same policy. Thanks for erasing my words so that they essentially mean nothing. Thanks!!!! 68.108.17.61 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I merely closed the discussion, for the reasons I specified both on that page and on your talk page. Everything you wrote is still there, I didn't "censor" anything. As I said, you seemed more upset with "objectionable" articles than the actual username policy, and you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, because bringing up a disussion is "disrupting wikipedia to make a point". I said


"Usernames that are offensive should be allowed because wikipedia is not censored"
guy1: "Yes but we are civil." (justifying restriction of name content)
Me: "So civility applies to usernames and not articles?"

I really don't care that "Oral sex" has pictures I don't agree with. It's like you calling me a bad name. It might offend me, but I respect that right you have to say those things, whether they offend me or not. I just wonder why articles are given carte blanch (which is fine, read what I said again if this isn't perfectly clear), and usernames are given the shaft if they look like they might offend someone.

It's disheartening that I'm having this discussion here, and not with the community under the username policy, I was hoping to see other editor's thoughts on this. But that's ok, if you felt the need to close my discussion, I respect your right to disrespect me and my ideas (that don't mean a dang thing apparently). 68.108.17.61 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this conversation still going on? I recall seeing somewhere recently that some guy was complaining about an image of 2 guys having oral sex in Oral sex ... which is strange, since none of the 3 images show 2 men. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Georgit

Excellent call on this one. Some would have taken it to AfD for the neologism, but it seemed to me (and to you I guess) that the WP:NEO was only a WP:Coatrack to promote a website. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI Reports

Just for the record, notifying editors when you post about them on ANI is not optional - it's now required so you should've notified the Talk:Centrifugal force editors you were referring to at the start. Exxolon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

Curious why you decided the way to go was to ask for administrative action when you have not chosen to actually engage in any conversation on the article talk page. It appears you have adopted the role of a disciplinarian (self-appointed) rather than having any real difficulties in changing or adding content at Centrifugal force. Brews ohare (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Because you and David have been jamming up the talk page for over a year with your never ending arguments. There's no article content dispute that could legitimately require this much conversation. And I don't wish to discuss it here as conversation is already ongoing at ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Brews ohare (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you cannot blame it on myself and Brews. Have a look at what FyzixFighter has been doing. Why not try to pin FyzixFighter down on the convective term in equation 3-12 in Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics'. That's what it's all about. There's no point in window dressing excercises like getting a topic ban on myself and Brews. You need to get to the root of the problem and then you'll see why it has continued for so long. You cannot ban selected editors until you comprehend what the dispute is about. David Tombe (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • All I have done is point out the perceived problem and asked for community input on it. Whatever consensus for action or lack thereof that forms out out of that is fine with me. And the discussion of this will not be on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:University of Milan

What exactly happened with Talk:University of Milan? I didn't realize that it was a talk page when I requested the speedy delete, but I didn't think unregistered users were able to create pages. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unregistered users can't create articles, but they can create talk pages. It's kind of funny to me that there had never been any discussion on the article in five years of it being on wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hello! Your submission of Shanta Creek fire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC) {{helpme}} I've expanded the article and added section breaks, but there are some formatting errors with the "edit" tabs in the article and I have no clue how to fix them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re. Shanta Creek fire
Hiya. The problem is due to the 2 images and the infobox being squashed up; it's called "bunching". I've done a quick-fix by collapsing the navbox and shuffling things around a little; there are lots of options, depending on what you want to achieve - see WP:BUNCH.
Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Give it a go, but if you do still have problems, let me know how you want it to look, on my talk page, and I'll help sort it out.  Chzz  ►  18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

No problem, I was beginning to appreciate all the attention. LOL AreaControl (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother with Doctor666.

The bot's already reported him to AiV. HalfShadow 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RE

Cheers, I'll keep that in mind :)

Onevalefantalk 22:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother 2009

I note that User:Darrenhusted has removed your close note on the poll at Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK). He is also attempting to argue that the fact that the section didn't change for about 3 weeks was "consensus by silence". He also continues to harrass everyone who votes Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK). I wouldn't mind, but I don't even watch the damn programme. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. Guess it'll just have to run its course.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaska airlines

Can you please review User:RoyDickson's additions to History of aviation in Alaska? He's adding tons of names to the list, and I don't know enough about this to judge whether they're worth including or not. You also may want to review some of his new articles:

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll take a look I guess, but frankly it's become tiresome banging my ahead against the brick wall of lack of understanding of how common and not particularly notable tiny airlines are in Alaska... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The user doesn't really seem to get the picture; I've had to point him to notability guidelines several times, and I don't think he's read them. Anyway, if you want you can take these to AfD, and if they are deleted that way there will be stronger ways (with consensus) to keep the user from adding more of this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bridgerecords

As noted at UAA, use of the name to promote is clearly a violation, but if we start actioning fans we'd have to block all those people with Mac, Sony, Nike, and an immense list of other names people are fans of. Nja247 17:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • But since they created an article about an artist on that label, persons editing that article will probably perceive a conflict of interest. If it was "Bridgerecordsfan" I never would have reported, but the name itself implies they represent the label. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This is getting to be a questionable way to go about things actually. Are we going to block users' editing Microsoft related, or Honda related articles with usernames that have the company name in it as it's implied they're affiliated? Note I'm not looking for you to answer necessarily, it's a problem with the current wording of the policy that I have, which I am seeking to address. Nja247 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Shanta Creek fire

Updated DYK query On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shanta Creek fire, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Please accept my gratitude for your welcoming message.--Spiritual Collector Of The Moonlight (talk)

You're welcome! --Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Six degrees of Wikipedia/Archive 1

Resolved

Sorry, I didn't think Mizabot would mind that pagename. But since it was wrong, feel free to delete. Thank you Prapsnot (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi there, BROX, VASCO here,

I am that anon editor - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.129.64.117) - sometimes i forgot to log in, and i also happen to have a standard IP. Regarding your reprimand, i'll only say the following: maybe it was an exaggerated summary on my part, but i did not insult that user, in no way. Also, i have been having a bad day, having discovered, after three years of fighting vandalism on WP and improving articles (esp. soccer) with my heart and soul, my user page has been for the first time, vandalized.

Please be careful with your accusations in the future, am only trying to help, sorry for any incovenience,

Have a good week, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"you don't know how to make a good structured sentence in English, fine, but don't correct those who can!!!" is a personal attack so I'm afraid I won't be taking your advice to "be more careful" as that is the exact advice I was trying to give you. As far as your user page being vandalized goes, that has happened to me probably seven or eight times now, it's no reason to be rude to your fellow Wikipedians. In fact, many vandal fighters, myself included, take it as a "badge of honor" and an indication that you are doing something right. So, keep fighting the good fight with the vandals, but try to not to let it ruffle your feathers so much when they respond like that. They are mostly bored teenagers with limited imaginations who don't like it when their childish behavior gets reverted. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting talk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Obviously this has gone on way way too long and now includes a personal attack on me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is with you reverting concerned talk by the subject of a BLP, Jay Brannan? BLP is very serious, and censoring the subject of one who has concerns about it is quite astounding. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I explained it on his talk page, but basically, here's what happened:he added a remark to the talk page right as I was preparing to archive it. He did not add a new section at the bottom, but put it up in the middle of the other remarks, and did not sign it. When I scanned the page to see how old the talk was, the most recent timestamp was almost a year old, so I archived everything to make way for the new conversation I thought was yet to begin. When he mentioned that I had archived his remark right after he made it, I went back and looked and noticed my mistake, and apologized, but I deliberately did not re-post [13]it because, like all his other posts, it was merely insults aimed at pretty much all Wikipedia editors and no specific information about what was wrong with the article[14]. As you can see from his talk page and the article talk page, I tried again and again to get him to identify what the problem is with the article, and he refused to do so. Another user Zhang He, complicated the situation by blindly reverting anything Jay posted, unfortunately contributing to the illusion that there was deliberate "conspiracy" against Jay. So, do whatever you like, undo the archiving, keep going around in endless circles asking him to be more specific, whatever, I really don't care about that page or that user anymore. To summarize, there was no deliberate "censorship" on my part and as far as I can tell there is not a legitimate BLP violation either. Good luck with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that I found the conversation on his user talk page, I understand that you removed his new comment by mistake when you archived. But you should have put it back when you de-archived. He's not savvy about Wikipedia, and has had a frustrating experience with being reverted in the article (properly, bu the doesn't understand), so obviously reverting even his speech where he finally tries to talk about it is going to make him think that everyone's against him. He's tried editing the article and not gotten what he wanted, so he tries discussing, and you and Zhang He delete even his discussion. I don't much blame him for thinking that it'd be no use to be specific about what's wrong, because his experience is that someone will delete even his contributions to the talk page. -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think your poor editing choice contributed to putting him in an emotional state where he became abusive. I'd have been spitting nails if I tried to vent about my own BLP and people didn't even let me do that. Now he seems to have split, so it's too late. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. I was right to revert his edits to the article, they were his own unsourced criticisms of Wikipedia, utterly inappropriate for an article. My actual editing of the article was did not involve any "poor editing choices" and I think Jay and myself can split the blame for the minor error on the talk age, which again, did nothing but accidently remove his misplaced unsigned insults. After his personal commentary was removed from the article he was extremely unhelpful and rude as can plainly be seen if you look beyond being star struck by him and actually look at what he said and did. He's gone? You won't see me shedding any tears. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I plainly said above that the article was reverted properly. He came already mad, but then you and Zhang He reverted even his talk, which was flawed because he's not Wiki savvy, and by doing that you convinced him he was right about Wikipedia editors and that to participate further would be pointless. If that hadn't been done, he might have been in a state of mind that made the situation more productive. I'm not saying it was all your fault, but if you don't regret how it turned out, I think that reflects incredibly badly on you. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
As you said, he came already mad, and nothing but the immediate deletion of the article would satisfy him, and he was incredibly rude. We call that trolling, no matter who it comes from, and Wikipedia is better off without it. Further discussion of this will serve no purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
He attempted to start a section that stated that the subject of the article has issues with the article's accuracy, so I don't think he'd have only been satisfied with deletion. Tagging articles with dispute notices is far from trolling, so... The guy just doesn't really know how to use Wikipedia, and so his edits get reverted. So he gets a persecution complex and thinks other editors won't let him do anything, and then two editors don't even let him talk about it. Maybe he wouldn't have been reasonable even if he hadn't been shushed, but there was an opportunity here to show him that Wikipedians are not what he thinks, and boy howdy did that not happen. -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • How many different ways do I have to say it? I don't care and I don't see any point in continuing to discuss this. By the way, I was the one who put the NPOV tag on the article and I only removed it when he wouldn't identify the problem. Do whatever you like with this user and his article, leave me out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
If you don't care about this, Wikipedia would be better off without you. Sociopath. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
DO not comment on my talk page ever again. If you want to keep pursuing this, do so through proper dispute resolution channels. Any further edits here by you will be reverted without being read. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox/Archive_10&oldid=306465096"