This is an archive of past discussions. 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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
When did you want to move into that? Steven Walling at work 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox:
Thank you for the very constructive suggestion in the AfD debate regarding Argentine people of European descent. It's the only way forward from here, because this new article can't be there without the previous one's edit history. Let me assure you I made no such move (nor did I think it was quite ready to be moved when it happened),
Please go ahead and delete it, as you suggested, and I'll move the revised edition in its place. The revisions Pablozeta and I worked on are thoroughly referenced, with no one having the color of his skin assigned to him/her, and with nothing but the history of how these people got there, from where, in what numbers, and with what other influences, including an overview of some of the changes and contributions to the nation's culture. The compilation of Argentina's communities is complete but for one entry, and this would be it.
Let me know if there's anything you feel needs attention.
My Regards, Sherlock4000 ( talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, since it seems you have expressed a small interest in Alaska Airports -- I hope you don't mind if I ask for your help. Since the merger of
Frontier Flying Service,
Era Aviation, and
Hageland Aviation Services becoming
Era Alaska, Alaska Airports are VERY outdated. Here is what needs to be done:
It's a lot of work, and I cannot do it on my own. I would love any extra help I could get. If you have any questions on anything I mentioned, or are in a state of utter confusion, just ask me. All the best, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The Webcams_Website article was deleted and its AFD discussion terminated. Usually AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached, I understand, but shouldn't there be a voting process instead of using various weak arguments to reach this sort of radical decision? For instance, the initial cause which started the Webcams_(Website) article AFD was: Non notable website, most of the various references are for the facts throughout the article and not actually related to the subject Talk 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC).
Here's Beeblebrox discussing in another AFD (Closing the Black Golden Globe winners AFD): I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focusing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not Beeblebrox. I believe you have not treated Webcams_(Website) AFD as serious as you yourself claim to usually do.
I strongly believe you should take a second look at the debate page after examining the issues discussed here. I consider that the page should be undeleted, so that we don't have to reach deletion review. Makeet ( talk) 16:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
First. fact that the consensus at this AFD, as I saw it, was that the sources used were of poor quality and did not demonstrate sufficient notability for the subject. Not was any consensus on AFD page, and nobody do not want to analyze all my sources and to look at my entire article, to read my explanation where I describe the structure of my Webcams_(Website) article.
If you think this [11] is the sort of thing we should be using to research our articles I'm afraid you have grossly misunderstood what Wikipedia does and does not consider a reliable source That article are only a part, from a section of my article, and again you don't want to look at entire project, it's only a one part of an entire.
It was my intention to comment under yours but the RfA had closed. I can not see how, "placing the request", compelled you to such a strong conclusion. There are remnants of concern which fester, where none were necessary. Personally, I would check your candor, against your own POV, and reconcile differences which bring you to state such a thing. My76Strat ( talk) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hiya,
Regarding that recent hoax, which I won't name and draw any attention to - do you think any further action might be necessary...if you know what I mean? I emailed OS about it...I was slightly concerned. Sorry to be cryptic, but I think you'll know what I mean - and I use your talk for probably fastest way to mention it. You can email me, or whatever (especially if you haven't the faintest idea what I am blathering about). Cheers, Chzz ► 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Responded on my talk. Steven Walling at work 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
....quiet there...Perhaps it doesn't need closing, it is a very complicated discussion and issues are being raised and acted on and refined as we can and let it develop naturally as it flows without specific closure, as in. - address and tweak the issues raised like, the what is a reviewers responsibility and what it a reviewer actually supposed to do - and what is a reviewers legal responsibility, and what is the ongoing scope of the tool, clarify those issues and then after third phase feedback then format a final keep or reject with the updated guidelines and scope. The final keep or reject will need closure but will be a simple consensus closure that anyone experienced and uninvolved will be able or willing to close. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see my reply at User talk:Kaldari#PC RFC questions. Kaldari ( talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I had mentioned you here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I wanted to mention that I quoted you in an AN/I here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The article French flush-cut saw has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Onthegogo (
talk)
14:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can whip up some phase 2 eye candy. In the meantime, I'd appreciate your response on this, seeing that it's what you modeled the phase 3 process on. You might also be interested in commenting on this in the interest of moving Chzz's proposal forward. Thanks. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 04:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox -
Yesterday, I created a stub of an article on Skyline (musical group). It was speedily deleted. I would appreciate it if you could email me a copy of the article ( mailto:paulmlieberman@alum.mit.edu) (or usify it, though I've never worked with a usified article). I think this group has an important place in the history of newgrass, and establishes connections among several important musicians. I'll work on making the article worth having in Wikipedia before I reinsert it.
Bloody Viking ( talk) 13:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
HiBbeeb. You might be interested in this. If you think it's crap, don't hesitate to say so on its talk page. There are also some links to some others. -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
An administrator blocked a user, and the block has already expired. However, the administrator thinks now this block should be eliminated from the user's block log.
Thank you in advance. Eliko ( talk) 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I've added a comment to your comment on Talk:Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Basically, can you cite the relevant sections of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that support your claim? As far as I understand - and I could be wrong - merely observing differences between what 2 sources (the show, historical) relate, without passing judgement on which of those sources is 'best' - counts as neither OR nor synthesis. All the best. Catiline63 ( talk) 01:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The budding task force is here. When there are a few more names on the list I'll move the page to project space.-- Kudpung ( talk) 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this template was removed without an edit summary or talk page note by a new user. Can i replace the template? Pass a Method talk 21:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you helped me once before by challenging content and I benefited from double referencing the subject material. Could you help me with the article Micheal Fitzgerald. I have worked hard to add references and validate 3rd party sources. It is part of an initiative I am involved which is to improve the motorsport articles on Wikipedia. The article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia.However particular users seem to be continually adding mischief citation requests and the like when articles of a similar nature and content have few if the bare minimum of references to begin with. Every time I further add references, further citation requests are added. I never imagined this article would take up so much of my time. I need to start working on other articles and contributions. I need help to understand if there is a mischief campaign. Thanks in advance. Hunterscarlett ( talk) 02:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, someone is fucking up the Dutch football squad page. Last good edit was http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Netherlands_national_football_team&oldid=421809548. Please revert to that version, I didn't succeed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.229.184 ( talk • contribs)
There is a band named Broadway from Florida. Personally I enjoy the band (not to mention listening to them right now as I write this) and while I would like nothing more at this moment in time to have a Wikipedia article for the group, I'm unsure if it still fails Wikipedia's instance on notability. Numerous attempts have been made for the article to be created by several different users (even the band's own record label) to the point where the slot Broadway (band) has been officially salted for almost two years now. However, at this moment in time I have found the article become created once more in this location Broadway (Band) (take notice of the "Band" capitalized to get around the lockdown). Now that the explanation is down, I can get down to business on asking this of you. Would it maybe be considered notable enough to have its own article at this point? If so, then unsalting the "Broadway (band)" slot and moving the page to that title would be in order otherwise, delete the page right now on sight. -- GunMetal Angel 19:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for the incomplete explanation. I added more details to the explanation. Kruger1191 ( talk) 03:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
After you agreed with me, Kingpin literally bowled me over. I'm keeping quiet, just thought you'd be interested. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I chose to add myself to the mediation. If you feel my reasons are unsound, please go ahead and remove me from the list, I just want to participate myself as I have been more involved than you give me credit for (in October particularly). I also chuckled slightly at the comment on the list page: "Comment: Yes, the Mediation Cabal is mediating an entire site-controversial RFC, for the very first time in its history." =) CycloneGU ( talk) 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
May wanna chime in here. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated. I know it's been a long, tough process for everyone. I'm going to try and make sure the current phase gets closed this week, and then we can try to move forward. Until that happens, why don't you take a break and edit something fun for a change? ;-) I'll try and do my part to get the data I promised, and dive in to look at the options for a final stage again. Steven Walling at work 06:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
CycloneGU 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.
I'm sending you this to cheer you up. I hope it works!
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}}!
Have a cup of tea with that. Sit and relax for a few minutes. Then come back and read what I have to say. Unless you disappeared for the nite after the message at 6:10 (UTC), stop reading and come back after taking a moment.
All right, feeling better? I just want to comment on what happened in the last hour as I type. I noticed you request the mediation withdrawn. I noticed some negative attitude, which could easily be taken not only as exasperation but as attempts of bad faith. I know you didn't mean them that way, but I could pick up on the bad faith quite easily. As another conscientious editor who merely wants the best out of the proceedings, I can understand why you went flying up the wall with steam coming from every possible crevice of your body (I'm trying to be humorous here, laugh please). However, I think the best thing for you to do is stop trying to direct proceedings. I am getting the vibe that some people are not happy because you seem to start a lot of the different discussions about PC in various places, and they think it's not productive to do that. I respect their opinion, as I do any editor who provides conscientious reasons for their opinion. What I have a hard time respecting is someone just giving up.
I'm going to suggest take a break from the PC debate for a day or two. Let Phase 3 close. Then we'll figure out what to do next. I'm going to check out the talk page and see what's going on, what people seem to think we need to do next. I've made my suggestion to Chzz again about writing everything again, this time with community input based on the last trial. I'm even volunteering to spearhead that effort as I think I can keep a clear head regarding it. Maybe we can actually do something productive here rather than just repeat viewpoints back and forth over and over. That gets nothing done.
Take a Wikibreak if you need to. We'll still be here when you return. I hope I can make you feel better with this message. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 06:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hiyas there Beeble. A very quick question about the above page, and this recent edit that was made to it. I remember very vaguely (It was over two years ago) that there was a persistent sockpuppeteer who would use a load of accounts to vandalize article's related to special education. I just came across the above edit on a similar page, which you protected from sockpuppeteering, and where a relatively new editor made a similar style edit to what i remember from that previous case.
I really have no clue if this editor is related to the above blocked (banned?) editor, or even to the sockpuppetry that caused the protection. Any chance you could have a look at it? Thanks in advance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. I've just been reading over the RfC you started a while back on moving the questions to the talk page. I see it was never summarised and closed, but it looks as if there was either no consensus or a slight lean towards opposition. It was nevertheless a worthwhile exercise, and my question is: do we need to thrash this out again by the task force, or shall we rule it out as a possibility? -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I've sent you an email. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. Have you any idea why for admins the Twinkle CSD dropdown is set at 'delete' by default? It's still causing me problems, I've had to undelete several pages I just wanted to tag. I suppose I'll get used to it. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the RfC/U; you are correct that it wasn't going anywhere. I didn't want to suggest closure myself, especially since Tenmei seemed to be regularly re-editing xyr section. It's a shame that no one ever tried to respond to xyr points, but, such is life. Qwyrxian ( talk) 21:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about this, but I am curious to know what was lacking for an actual conclusion to be achieved in this RfC. Since I did not have prior experience in this process, I want lo learn what I could have done in order to reach a satisfactory consensus instead of a closure with no conclusion. After stating the dispute, receiving Paralympiakos response and the participation of other editors in the request for comment, what was the next step? I honestly did not know what was supposed to follow. I kind of assumed that an administrator would comment on the situation once the time had run out and he would draw conclusions based on the endorsements and comments in the talk page. What could I have done as the person that opened the request for comment to have reached a conclusion? What was missing? I really want to know because I honestly was lost since there is nothing more in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2. Jfgslo ( talk) 05:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
designing a chair that itself has no article undoubtedly the Supporto should have an article as a design classic, or at least a section in Scott's article. Taking this lack to imply lack of notability of the designer is of course an easy thing to do. I have noticed that assumption being used somewhat worryingly on albums and musicians. The musician gets deleted as a copyvio (when it may even be that the WP article was the original) and the albums follow as by "A band so non-notable they don't even have an article". The categories get deleted as empty, the navbox as unused.... All perfectly "sound" steps in themselves, but the net result is a nice collection of pages vanishes like the wyrm Ouroborous.
Rich
Farmbrough,
10:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for noticing that it actually was sourced and only the reflist template was missing. Was much too hasty (and probably irritable), should leave patrolling be for the evening. Moocha ( talk) 18:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Per this; it exists, just at Limited liability company. I'll go make that a redirect now. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Update; seems it exists as a redirect too, just with lowercase instead. 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from the patronising remarks. I do not need others to tell me when I need to be ashamed. Nyttend ( talk) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Just Step Sideways/Archive 21. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Beeblebrox.
Did you know that the article Argentines of European descent exist? If you do, why did you delete the redirect of White Argentine to it? The two concepts overlap in a major way. SamEV ( talk) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
Sorry, I blocked User:Stanginperformance as a clear role account before seeing your message at UAA. If you want to unblock him to discuss a name change feel free, but my guess is that he's gone for good after his promotional article was deleted. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No sweat, that was a good call. Cheers! -- joe decker talk to me 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK--in "User(s) blocked Beeblebrox " you should really consider some punctuation. I thought pigs were flying. Phew. Drmies ( talk) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I just wanted to thank-you for leaving such a detailed review on my user review page, your time is much appreciated, and I have already started addressing the issues highlighted. Thank-you once again, Wikipedian2 ( talk) 11:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny ( talk) 19:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox,
I don't know if you remember me, but you once thought I was a sockpuppet. I was exonerated and I am glad for that, but now I need your help. I've sent this exact following message to another admin named Janggeom to see if that person could help too. I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but I have no idea who to turn to or what exactly to do.
I'm not sure I understand the result here. How does one implement the remedy of "severely chop"? Is returning it to a redirect or a stub appropriate? On a related note, I'm not sure how you came up with this as consensus. Maybe some explanation of your reasoning here might be helpful, especially in light of the number of policies this article is said to violate. aprock ( talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I read you advice and I think it's to the point. By the way, IAR is one of the five pillars (WP's rules aren't etched in stone). – BuickCentury Driver 09:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
That was brave rev del'ing on that. ARBCOM would have used that as the "final straw" excuse to desysop me, which is why I only reverted. Pedro : Chat 20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Ludvikus#Mentorship -- and let's discuss it there. -- PBS ( talk) 12:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox. I'm confused by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenrehte Technologies, Inc. as "keep". The only person who argued for keeping the article was the creator. How could you possibly find that as a consensus for keeping the article? Powers T 15:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This page does not correspond to my work. Armando V.D.B. Assis. May you explain why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assis,_Armando_V.D.B._On_the_Cold_Big_Bang_Cosmology._Progress_in_Physics,_2011,_v._2,_58-63. still exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.64 ( talk) 21:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This page does not correspond to my work. Armando V.D.B. Assis. May you explain why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assis,_Armando_V.D.B._On_the_Cold_Big_Bang_Cosmology._Progress_in_Physics,_2011,_v._2,_58-63. still exists? (There is a point . at the final of the URL, instead of the previous one)- Carol had created this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.64 ( talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You must have read mu mind. Before I turned over and went to sleep last night at around midnight my time, I had an idea to send a similar questionnaire to all NOTNOW on the sortable table. You posted your message to Ant 35 minutes later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The IP belongs to the sock of an indef'd user named Editor XXV. The IP's block is theoretically expired, but it's staying blocked due to autoblock. Will the autoblock last indefinitely, or will it go away after some fixed time period? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. A month has passed since your message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Series of RFC's need closing. My request for closures at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts was archived and no admin addressed it. Is there a better venue for requesting RfCs to be closed? Cunard ( talk) 00:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I closed this as "keep" as it had been listed for 21 days with only 2 editors commenting, both "keep". However, this is a BLP and the !voters seem to be commenting on coverage of her work more so then on her personally. I don't think this could have been closed any other way but if coverage on her specifically isn't found I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to renominate this in a month or so. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Biker Biker ( talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There are two types of calories. 1 Calorie = 1000 calories = 1 kcal. Capitalization identifies the large-C calorie from the small-c calorie. Eventually joules (abbr. J) will supplant both. Dger ( talk) 21:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This page was not created before. There are several pagen within Wikipedia about Unorthodox subjects. The Cold Big bang page did not reach a consensus. This page, Unorthodox (Cold) Big Bang Cosmology, is about Unorthodox Cosmological model. An user may insert examples. Why did you delete the page under CSD G4 since this criteria does not fit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.224.174 ( talk) 01:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
May you send me a copy of the deleted page Unorthodox (Cold) Big Bang Cosmology. Thank You. Carolingfield ( talk) 01:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Any chance you can give me more information on why Ride Snowboards was deleted? Also, is it possible for me to get the last revision of the article before it was deleted? I want to edit it some more to make it suitable for another time. Thank you. Bear PIG man 2 ( talk) 23:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You are an admin I have dealt with before, and I appreciate your level-headed approach to things so I would appreciate some advice. I'm not reporting this at AIV but I'm concerned to see such a vitriolic personal attack as the last reply posted at Talk:Chevrolet Vega by Barnstarbob - the one beginning "Stop making me the villen" and ending "And NEXT TIME, reserve your threats for some one else. Payback can be a bitch." . What if anything should I do? All I have been trying to do today is see if this person will engage in the forthcoming RFC brought about by the lock down of the article. Once I got that last reply I decided it wasn't worth persisting in trying to get a sensible reply so I have backed off. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought you might hassle me for reverting your disruptive comment on the MOS talk page as vandalism, but some other dude is hassling me instead. Go figure. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Surprised to see this comment from you Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Can.27t_believe_anyone_actually_cares_enough_to_debate_it_at_all_and_don.27t_even_want_to_know_what_the_result_of_this_RFC_is. I've been around (seasonally) for a few years and you always struck me as one of the calmest, most reasonable admins; that comment strikes me as discordant with your body of work. In any event, left reply there. Gerardw ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
Your essay work at WP:ROPE has been one of my major influences for years, both on and off Wikipedia. Don't let a blocked sock let you think any differently, your essay matters. Tathar ( talk) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
Hi! Would you care to clarify who you meant by your comment here? Maybe it should be obvious, but at least I can't find a user that would fit your description. Regards, Jafeluv ( talk) 12:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The webcomic Lackadaisy has been nominated for a major award, the Eisner Award. [7] [8] I was going to add the nomination to the article, but see it was deleted (barely) in February. Would you have any objection to me restoring the article, and adding the Eisner nomination? I believe it meets the standard for notability. -- El on ka 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
inuse}}
on it after restoring while you add new content and sources and you should be good to go.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I see that you were the admin who unblocked User:M4pnt ( contributions) back in October. He had been using multiple accounts, but it seemed like a fair case of a lack of understanding the rules. Anyway, I've recently noticed a new user, User:Mtlv0 ( contributions). This user's edits begin 2 days after M4pnt's left off, and seem to be on the exact same articles or types of articles (European/Swedish death metal musicians/bands/albums, and UFC-related articles, including specific fighters, albeit different fighters per account). Mtlv0's edits on the death metal articles I'm watching/editing are very similar to M4pnt's. I personally don't know how to determine whether two accounts are the same person (using the whois feature, for example), so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. I could be completely wrong here, which is why I figured starting a note on your talk page would be better than making wild accusations and starting a sock-puppet review. I'm also not saying that anyone should be blocked (except any puppet accounts if they do in fact exist), but maybe reminded again about the multiple accounts policy (if it is the same user, Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to stick, he needs reminders every so often). Lastly, if this entire post is out-of-bounds, then please accept my apologies and feel free to delete and ignore it. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 01:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
...please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination). Drmies ( talk) 02:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox,
User:Iaaasi often requests checkusers at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 in a surreptitious manner, whilst he is a twofold indef-blocked and community banned user. The last time that happened was 3 days ago via a Ip [9] and then via a registered sock account [10]. I tried to obstruct the checkuser request of the sock of Iaaasi with making about 20 reverts on that page as banned users have no right to edit Wikipedia, but his exertions were eventually successful in launching the process again. Originally, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 was opened by CyanMoon, who is one of the detected sockpuppets of Iaaasi [11], just like YellowFF0, who was the second submitter of the page. [12].
Would it be in order to request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 to be semi-protected so that the page to be possible to edit only by established users?
-- Nmate ( talk) 12:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
On 15 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Randy Roth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Randy Roth was convicted of faking a boating accident in order to cover up the murder of his fourth wife? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for intervening to keep the editorial process going at our article on 9/11. Can I ask you to keep an eye on this editor as well? He had a spate of edit-warring on the article back in February, followed by this recent disruptive revert while an RfC is actually in progress on the talk page. He already knows about the Arbcom remedies as he has been blocked once already for his behavior there. While prompt edit-warring is an obvious threat, slow motion and tag-team edit-warring by experienced editors should also be regarded as sanctionable, in my opinion. See what you think, and thanks again for taking on this task. Wow! I just saw this which I see you reverted so you are already aware of this. I see you warned him back then and received this in reply. I believe civility was one of the recommendations of the 2008 Arbcom case, wasn't it? -- John ( talk) 05:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
On 19 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Laurence Marquette, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that serial killer Richard Laurence Marquette was the first person to be an eleventh name on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) 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. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 09:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox,
I would prefer not to edit-war, so I am bringing this up here. I think that for the good of the outcome of this Afd that the info you tried to remove should remain there so a fair judgment can be made. If the Afd is closed as a keep, feel free to remove it afterwards, and I will not revert it anymore. Sebwite ( talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I'd like to thank you for the hook you came up with for my DYK. It did a good job.Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 01:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
this post. Actually it is sort of mentioned in the this section (last item), it's just that it's titled as: "Mexican-American War vs Mexican–American War"; which is kind of where this all got started. Took me a while to find it, but I thought I had seen someone post something about those "short horizontal lines" on that page a while back. How's it going Beebs? Hope all is well, Cheers. — Ched : ? 06:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at User_talk:Phantomsteve#deleted page not having a log entry? and confirm whether the log was oversighted? It is either that or some kind of bug. Yoenit ( talk) 07:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
When the RfC at 9/11 attacks runs its course, are you planning on closing it? Or should we seek an admin at WP:ANB. Either works for me, but I was just curious. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi!!Beeblebrox. I was away on vacation and logged in toady to see notification re Babaria page. I just wanted to say thanks and for your timely intervention. Jethwarp ( talk) 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi!!Beeblebrox. I was away on vacation and logged in toady to see notification re Babaria page. I just wanted to say thanks and for your timely intervention. Jethwarp ( talk) 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you pulled the plug on both of these pages, despite some rather intense efforts to save them and an outcry from many readers. I have to ask: did you consider the sources included in these articles, including publications like the Oregonian and Cinematical, before deleting them? Hawthornestreetblues ( talk) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Saw this diff and grinned. Thanks Beeblebrox. :) Steven Walling 01:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
After the deletion of the individual character article for Captain Teague and its subsequent redirect to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters, I have edited this image into the latter article and it is no longer orphaned. -- Ifrit ( Talk) 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb, I agree 100% with your statement here - so true. That's why it's almost impossible to get anything done. I just hope RFA2011 doesn't get snarled up the same way. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I just was troubled by the fact that user was driven away by block and wanted to know whether a name like that would be allowed according to policy. Sorry for not checking. – BuickCentury Driver 19:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I was not personally attacked, had a bit of a go at Argumentum ad hominem directed at me but all in good humour, hope I didn't offend anyone unnecessarily, so I would ask that the deleted bits be put babck. Regards Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this but perhaps it needs further action? Then this was followed by this. HeLmiT ( talk) 10:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, as you know AKG looked into my latest block and the bans associated with it, and came to conclusion neither were warranted. Later after my email exchange with you, and by my request AGK modified my block log, and now he's getting reminded about this all the time with the latest reminder made in the thread that in no way is connected to me. I would not like an absolutely innocent person to suffer because of me. AGK is a fair, thoughtful and honest administrator. He declined my ban appeal, when he felt I did not deserve to get my ban lifted, just a few days ago he chided me publicly. He does not deserve to be talked about as he is supporting me in one way or another or prefers me to other users. He is not. He changed my block log, when I asked him to because I have been constantly harassed over the silly bans Gwen added to my block log, with the latest episode of such harassment being here (and it is 2 months after my bans were lifted and without me posting anything to any of these boards at all!)
Anyway to make a long story short, I would not like AGK to suffer because he did a fair adjustment to my block log. He is guilty in nothing. He is not my friend, and he is not my supporter. He is just a fair person, and this offense:-) is not punishable even on wikipedia :-) So, to stop this unfair treatment of AGK, may I please ask you to oversite the change he made to my block log? If somebody should suffer because of my unfair block log, it should be me and me alone.
Sorry for the long post, and thank you for your time and your understanding.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am right now considering a self block request. If I want it, I will let you know shortly. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 22:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I also mentioned you here. Thank you.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I very clearly specified I blocked him not because of the report to WQA, but for his comment there. I strongly disagree with an unblock, and will take this to WP:ANI. Prodego talk 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Prodego talk 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course Maunus and I would rather not have encountered the dispute and ill feeling, which is why we've both refrained from making further remarks for over a week now. You should know that articles can be the subject of intense conflict where personal interest and time is concerned so bringing it back up over a week later and judging the editors who took part has absolutely no relevance to the AFD as a keep. It is obvious to anybody that it is best NOT to engage in nasty disputes but they are often unavoidable. The fact is that Maunus should have had more tact in the first place in approaching these articles and maybe I should have not shown concern about his tagging of articles without doing any research first?. But the fact you felt you had to berate us for civility and shame came across as highly condescending and inappropriate in the context. With the recent Prodego scenario it also seems you showed him the same condescending tone in your message to him. If a nasty comment or negative comment is ever next to my signature its because there are so many warped things about this website that at times it becomes impossible. I respond to others in a fashion that they respond to myself. Had you simply closed the AFD as a "Keep", Further discussion neede don naming convention. This would have been perfect. But you had to go off on one, hence this aggressive response.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. Excellent comment you made here. I can think of a few other places where such a comment would be highly pertinent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, because you were involved with the issue concerning my block log I'd like to notify you please about this thread that is going to be presented to AN in 24 hours. Thank you.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. Given your involvement on Talk:2005 Ahwazi unrest, I was wondering if you could look into a few possible policy violations happening there. I did set up a request for move/merger at Talk:2005_Ahwazi_unrest#Requested_move per your closing comment on the AFD and subsequent suggestions, but User:Greyshark09 refuses to go along with the due process, and is displaying signs of WP:OWN, by making sweeping blind reverts of 23 of my edits there with an inflammatory edit-summary [15], when almost all my edits were accompanied by a rational/policy citation in the edit summary [16], making personals attacks against me on the talk page [17] [18], some of which are based on my perceived nationality [19] (which is a false assumption anyways), and canvassing votes from like-minded editors on the talk page of another article. [20]. He's been warned twice now to AGF and avoid personal attacks [21] [22], but he continues with the uncivil accusatory tone. Kurdo777 ( talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donna Tubbs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Tubbs(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JJ98 ( Talk) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. I see you've not been editing a lot for the last few days. Are you very busy in RL? Did you get my mail? Regards, -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Update: Please see this. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I just received word from my employer, the US Environmental Protection Agency, that I am authorized to set up a Wikipedia account and make suggestions to improve content of yours that's related to our regulatory purview. I believe the username for my account is consistent with the majority of comments/suggestions on the username discussion page. You recently closed out that discussion as moot because I didn't contribute further. Sorry...the government moves at a much slower pace than Wikipedia and it took a while to get authorization to set up an account. I just wanted to let you know that I have finally created the account and will begin suggesting edits to some of your content. If you could modify the status of the username discussion from moot to something reflecting the actual consensus of the group, I would appreciate it. Also, if I misinterpretted the consensus and you feel my username is inappropriate, please let me know. Regards, USEPA James ( talk) 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
When did you want to move into that? Steven Walling at work 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox:
Thank you for the very constructive suggestion in the AfD debate regarding Argentine people of European descent. It's the only way forward from here, because this new article can't be there without the previous one's edit history. Let me assure you I made no such move (nor did I think it was quite ready to be moved when it happened),
Please go ahead and delete it, as you suggested, and I'll move the revised edition in its place. The revisions Pablozeta and I worked on are thoroughly referenced, with no one having the color of his skin assigned to him/her, and with nothing but the history of how these people got there, from where, in what numbers, and with what other influences, including an overview of some of the changes and contributions to the nation's culture. The compilation of Argentina's communities is complete but for one entry, and this would be it.
Let me know if there's anything you feel needs attention.
My Regards, Sherlock4000 ( talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, since it seems you have expressed a small interest in Alaska Airports -- I hope you don't mind if I ask for your help. Since the merger of
Frontier Flying Service,
Era Aviation, and
Hageland Aviation Services becoming
Era Alaska, Alaska Airports are VERY outdated. Here is what needs to be done:
It's a lot of work, and I cannot do it on my own. I would love any extra help I could get. If you have any questions on anything I mentioned, or are in a state of utter confusion, just ask me. All the best, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The Webcams_Website article was deleted and its AFD discussion terminated. Usually AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached, I understand, but shouldn't there be a voting process instead of using various weak arguments to reach this sort of radical decision? For instance, the initial cause which started the Webcams_(Website) article AFD was: Non notable website, most of the various references are for the facts throughout the article and not actually related to the subject Talk 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC).
Here's Beeblebrox discussing in another AFD (Closing the Black Golden Globe winners AFD): I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focusing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not Beeblebrox. I believe you have not treated Webcams_(Website) AFD as serious as you yourself claim to usually do.
I strongly believe you should take a second look at the debate page after examining the issues discussed here. I consider that the page should be undeleted, so that we don't have to reach deletion review. Makeet ( talk) 16:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
First. fact that the consensus at this AFD, as I saw it, was that the sources used were of poor quality and did not demonstrate sufficient notability for the subject. Not was any consensus on AFD page, and nobody do not want to analyze all my sources and to look at my entire article, to read my explanation where I describe the structure of my Webcams_(Website) article.
If you think this [11] is the sort of thing we should be using to research our articles I'm afraid you have grossly misunderstood what Wikipedia does and does not consider a reliable source That article are only a part, from a section of my article, and again you don't want to look at entire project, it's only a one part of an entire.
It was my intention to comment under yours but the RfA had closed. I can not see how, "placing the request", compelled you to such a strong conclusion. There are remnants of concern which fester, where none were necessary. Personally, I would check your candor, against your own POV, and reconcile differences which bring you to state such a thing. My76Strat ( talk) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hiya,
Regarding that recent hoax, which I won't name and draw any attention to - do you think any further action might be necessary...if you know what I mean? I emailed OS about it...I was slightly concerned. Sorry to be cryptic, but I think you'll know what I mean - and I use your talk for probably fastest way to mention it. You can email me, or whatever (especially if you haven't the faintest idea what I am blathering about). Cheers, Chzz ► 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Responded on my talk. Steven Walling at work 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
....quiet there...Perhaps it doesn't need closing, it is a very complicated discussion and issues are being raised and acted on and refined as we can and let it develop naturally as it flows without specific closure, as in. - address and tweak the issues raised like, the what is a reviewers responsibility and what it a reviewer actually supposed to do - and what is a reviewers legal responsibility, and what is the ongoing scope of the tool, clarify those issues and then after third phase feedback then format a final keep or reject with the updated guidelines and scope. The final keep or reject will need closure but will be a simple consensus closure that anyone experienced and uninvolved will be able or willing to close. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see my reply at User talk:Kaldari#PC RFC questions. Kaldari ( talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I had mentioned you here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I wanted to mention that I quoted you in an AN/I here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The article French flush-cut saw has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Onthegogo (
talk)
14:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can whip up some phase 2 eye candy. In the meantime, I'd appreciate your response on this, seeing that it's what you modeled the phase 3 process on. You might also be interested in commenting on this in the interest of moving Chzz's proposal forward. Thanks. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 04:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox -
Yesterday, I created a stub of an article on Skyline (musical group). It was speedily deleted. I would appreciate it if you could email me a copy of the article ( mailto:paulmlieberman@alum.mit.edu) (or usify it, though I've never worked with a usified article). I think this group has an important place in the history of newgrass, and establishes connections among several important musicians. I'll work on making the article worth having in Wikipedia before I reinsert it.
Bloody Viking ( talk) 13:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
HiBbeeb. You might be interested in this. If you think it's crap, don't hesitate to say so on its talk page. There are also some links to some others. -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
An administrator blocked a user, and the block has already expired. However, the administrator thinks now this block should be eliminated from the user's block log.
Thank you in advance. Eliko ( talk) 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I've added a comment to your comment on Talk:Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Basically, can you cite the relevant sections of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that support your claim? As far as I understand - and I could be wrong - merely observing differences between what 2 sources (the show, historical) relate, without passing judgement on which of those sources is 'best' - counts as neither OR nor synthesis. All the best. Catiline63 ( talk) 01:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The budding task force is here. When there are a few more names on the list I'll move the page to project space.-- Kudpung ( talk) 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this template was removed without an edit summary or talk page note by a new user. Can i replace the template? Pass a Method talk 21:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you helped me once before by challenging content and I benefited from double referencing the subject material. Could you help me with the article Micheal Fitzgerald. I have worked hard to add references and validate 3rd party sources. It is part of an initiative I am involved which is to improve the motorsport articles on Wikipedia. The article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia.However particular users seem to be continually adding mischief citation requests and the like when articles of a similar nature and content have few if the bare minimum of references to begin with. Every time I further add references, further citation requests are added. I never imagined this article would take up so much of my time. I need to start working on other articles and contributions. I need help to understand if there is a mischief campaign. Thanks in advance. Hunterscarlett ( talk) 02:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, someone is fucking up the Dutch football squad page. Last good edit was http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Netherlands_national_football_team&oldid=421809548. Please revert to that version, I didn't succeed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.229.184 ( talk • contribs)
There is a band named Broadway from Florida. Personally I enjoy the band (not to mention listening to them right now as I write this) and while I would like nothing more at this moment in time to have a Wikipedia article for the group, I'm unsure if it still fails Wikipedia's instance on notability. Numerous attempts have been made for the article to be created by several different users (even the band's own record label) to the point where the slot Broadway (band) has been officially salted for almost two years now. However, at this moment in time I have found the article become created once more in this location Broadway (Band) (take notice of the "Band" capitalized to get around the lockdown). Now that the explanation is down, I can get down to business on asking this of you. Would it maybe be considered notable enough to have its own article at this point? If so, then unsalting the "Broadway (band)" slot and moving the page to that title would be in order otherwise, delete the page right now on sight. -- GunMetal Angel 19:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for the incomplete explanation. I added more details to the explanation. Kruger1191 ( talk) 03:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
After you agreed with me, Kingpin literally bowled me over. I'm keeping quiet, just thought you'd be interested. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I chose to add myself to the mediation. If you feel my reasons are unsound, please go ahead and remove me from the list, I just want to participate myself as I have been more involved than you give me credit for (in October particularly). I also chuckled slightly at the comment on the list page: "Comment: Yes, the Mediation Cabal is mediating an entire site-controversial RFC, for the very first time in its history." =) CycloneGU ( talk) 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
May wanna chime in here. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated. I know it's been a long, tough process for everyone. I'm going to try and make sure the current phase gets closed this week, and then we can try to move forward. Until that happens, why don't you take a break and edit something fun for a change? ;-) I'll try and do my part to get the data I promised, and dive in to look at the options for a final stage again. Steven Walling at work 06:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
CycloneGU 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.
I'm sending you this to cheer you up. I hope it works!
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}}!
Have a cup of tea with that. Sit and relax for a few minutes. Then come back and read what I have to say. Unless you disappeared for the nite after the message at 6:10 (UTC), stop reading and come back after taking a moment.
All right, feeling better? I just want to comment on what happened in the last hour as I type. I noticed you request the mediation withdrawn. I noticed some negative attitude, which could easily be taken not only as exasperation but as attempts of bad faith. I know you didn't mean them that way, but I could pick up on the bad faith quite easily. As another conscientious editor who merely wants the best out of the proceedings, I can understand why you went flying up the wall with steam coming from every possible crevice of your body (I'm trying to be humorous here, laugh please). However, I think the best thing for you to do is stop trying to direct proceedings. I am getting the vibe that some people are not happy because you seem to start a lot of the different discussions about PC in various places, and they think it's not productive to do that. I respect their opinion, as I do any editor who provides conscientious reasons for their opinion. What I have a hard time respecting is someone just giving up.
I'm going to suggest take a break from the PC debate for a day or two. Let Phase 3 close. Then we'll figure out what to do next. I'm going to check out the talk page and see what's going on, what people seem to think we need to do next. I've made my suggestion to Chzz again about writing everything again, this time with community input based on the last trial. I'm even volunteering to spearhead that effort as I think I can keep a clear head regarding it. Maybe we can actually do something productive here rather than just repeat viewpoints back and forth over and over. That gets nothing done.
Take a Wikibreak if you need to. We'll still be here when you return. I hope I can make you feel better with this message. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 06:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hiyas there Beeble. A very quick question about the above page, and this recent edit that was made to it. I remember very vaguely (It was over two years ago) that there was a persistent sockpuppeteer who would use a load of accounts to vandalize article's related to special education. I just came across the above edit on a similar page, which you protected from sockpuppeteering, and where a relatively new editor made a similar style edit to what i remember from that previous case.
I really have no clue if this editor is related to the above blocked (banned?) editor, or even to the sockpuppetry that caused the protection. Any chance you could have a look at it? Thanks in advance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. I've just been reading over the RfC you started a while back on moving the questions to the talk page. I see it was never summarised and closed, but it looks as if there was either no consensus or a slight lean towards opposition. It was nevertheless a worthwhile exercise, and my question is: do we need to thrash this out again by the task force, or shall we rule it out as a possibility? -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I've sent you an email. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. Have you any idea why for admins the Twinkle CSD dropdown is set at 'delete' by default? It's still causing me problems, I've had to undelete several pages I just wanted to tag. I suppose I'll get used to it. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the RfC/U; you are correct that it wasn't going anywhere. I didn't want to suggest closure myself, especially since Tenmei seemed to be regularly re-editing xyr section. It's a shame that no one ever tried to respond to xyr points, but, such is life. Qwyrxian ( talk) 21:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about this, but I am curious to know what was lacking for an actual conclusion to be achieved in this RfC. Since I did not have prior experience in this process, I want lo learn what I could have done in order to reach a satisfactory consensus instead of a closure with no conclusion. After stating the dispute, receiving Paralympiakos response and the participation of other editors in the request for comment, what was the next step? I honestly did not know what was supposed to follow. I kind of assumed that an administrator would comment on the situation once the time had run out and he would draw conclusions based on the endorsements and comments in the talk page. What could I have done as the person that opened the request for comment to have reached a conclusion? What was missing? I really want to know because I honestly was lost since there is nothing more in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2. Jfgslo ( talk) 05:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
designing a chair that itself has no article undoubtedly the Supporto should have an article as a design classic, or at least a section in Scott's article. Taking this lack to imply lack of notability of the designer is of course an easy thing to do. I have noticed that assumption being used somewhat worryingly on albums and musicians. The musician gets deleted as a copyvio (when it may even be that the WP article was the original) and the albums follow as by "A band so non-notable they don't even have an article". The categories get deleted as empty, the navbox as unused.... All perfectly "sound" steps in themselves, but the net result is a nice collection of pages vanishes like the wyrm Ouroborous.
Rich
Farmbrough,
10:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
Thanks for noticing that it actually was sourced and only the reflist template was missing. Was much too hasty (and probably irritable), should leave patrolling be for the evening. Moocha ( talk) 18:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Per this; it exists, just at Limited liability company. I'll go make that a redirect now. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Update; seems it exists as a redirect too, just with lowercase instead. 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from the patronising remarks. I do not need others to tell me when I need to be ashamed. Nyttend ( talk) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Just Step Sideways/Archive 21. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Beeblebrox.
Did you know that the article Argentines of European descent exist? If you do, why did you delete the redirect of White Argentine to it? The two concepts overlap in a major way. SamEV ( talk) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
Sorry, I blocked User:Stanginperformance as a clear role account before seeing your message at UAA. If you want to unblock him to discuss a name change feel free, but my guess is that he's gone for good after his promotional article was deleted. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
No sweat, that was a good call. Cheers! -- joe decker talk to me 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK--in "User(s) blocked Beeblebrox " you should really consider some punctuation. I thought pigs were flying. Phew. Drmies ( talk) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I just wanted to thank-you for leaving such a detailed review on my user review page, your time is much appreciated, and I have already started addressing the issues highlighted. Thank-you once again, Wikipedian2 ( talk) 11:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny ( talk) 19:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox,
I don't know if you remember me, but you once thought I was a sockpuppet. I was exonerated and I am glad for that, but now I need your help. I've sent this exact following message to another admin named Janggeom to see if that person could help too. I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but I have no idea who to turn to or what exactly to do.
I'm not sure I understand the result here. How does one implement the remedy of "severely chop"? Is returning it to a redirect or a stub appropriate? On a related note, I'm not sure how you came up with this as consensus. Maybe some explanation of your reasoning here might be helpful, especially in light of the number of policies this article is said to violate. aprock ( talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I read you advice and I think it's to the point. By the way, IAR is one of the five pillars (WP's rules aren't etched in stone). – BuickCentury Driver 09:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
That was brave rev del'ing on that. ARBCOM would have used that as the "final straw" excuse to desysop me, which is why I only reverted. Pedro : Chat 20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Ludvikus#Mentorship -- and let's discuss it there. -- PBS ( talk) 12:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox. I'm confused by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenrehte Technologies, Inc. as "keep". The only person who argued for keeping the article was the creator. How could you possibly find that as a consensus for keeping the article? Powers T 15:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This page does not correspond to my work. Armando V.D.B. Assis. May you explain why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assis,_Armando_V.D.B._On_the_Cold_Big_Bang_Cosmology._Progress_in_Physics,_2011,_v._2,_58-63. still exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.64 ( talk) 21:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This page does not correspond to my work. Armando V.D.B. Assis. May you explain why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assis,_Armando_V.D.B._On_the_Cold_Big_Bang_Cosmology._Progress_in_Physics,_2011,_v._2,_58-63. still exists? (There is a point . at the final of the URL, instead of the previous one)- Carol had created this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.246.64 ( talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You must have read mu mind. Before I turned over and went to sleep last night at around midnight my time, I had an idea to send a similar questionnaire to all NOTNOW on the sortable table. You posted your message to Ant 35 minutes later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The IP belongs to the sock of an indef'd user named Editor XXV. The IP's block is theoretically expired, but it's staying blocked due to autoblock. Will the autoblock last indefinitely, or will it go away after some fixed time period? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. A month has passed since your message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Series of RFC's need closing. My request for closures at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts was archived and no admin addressed it. Is there a better venue for requesting RfCs to be closed? Cunard ( talk) 00:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I closed this as "keep" as it had been listed for 21 days with only 2 editors commenting, both "keep". However, this is a BLP and the !voters seem to be commenting on coverage of her work more so then on her personally. I don't think this could have been closed any other way but if coverage on her specifically isn't found I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to renominate this in a month or so. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Biker Biker ( talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There are two types of calories. 1 Calorie = 1000 calories = 1 kcal. Capitalization identifies the large-C calorie from the small-c calorie. Eventually joules (abbr. J) will supplant both. Dger ( talk) 21:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This page was not created before. There are several pagen within Wikipedia about Unorthodox subjects. The Cold Big bang page did not reach a consensus. This page, Unorthodox (Cold) Big Bang Cosmology, is about Unorthodox Cosmological model. An user may insert examples. Why did you delete the page under CSD G4 since this criteria does not fit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.224.174 ( talk) 01:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
May you send me a copy of the deleted page Unorthodox (Cold) Big Bang Cosmology. Thank You. Carolingfield ( talk) 01:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Any chance you can give me more information on why Ride Snowboards was deleted? Also, is it possible for me to get the last revision of the article before it was deleted? I want to edit it some more to make it suitable for another time. Thank you. Bear PIG man 2 ( talk) 23:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You are an admin I have dealt with before, and I appreciate your level-headed approach to things so I would appreciate some advice. I'm not reporting this at AIV but I'm concerned to see such a vitriolic personal attack as the last reply posted at Talk:Chevrolet Vega by Barnstarbob - the one beginning "Stop making me the villen" and ending "And NEXT TIME, reserve your threats for some one else. Payback can be a bitch." . What if anything should I do? All I have been trying to do today is see if this person will engage in the forthcoming RFC brought about by the lock down of the article. Once I got that last reply I decided it wasn't worth persisting in trying to get a sensible reply so I have backed off. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought you might hassle me for reverting your disruptive comment on the MOS talk page as vandalism, but some other dude is hassling me instead. Go figure. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Surprised to see this comment from you Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Can.27t_believe_anyone_actually_cares_enough_to_debate_it_at_all_and_don.27t_even_want_to_know_what_the_result_of_this_RFC_is. I've been around (seasonally) for a few years and you always struck me as one of the calmest, most reasonable admins; that comment strikes me as discordant with your body of work. In any event, left reply there. Gerardw ( talk) 11:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
Your essay work at WP:ROPE has been one of my major influences for years, both on and off Wikipedia. Don't let a blocked sock let you think any differently, your essay matters. Tathar ( talk) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
Hi! Would you care to clarify who you meant by your comment here? Maybe it should be obvious, but at least I can't find a user that would fit your description. Regards, Jafeluv ( talk) 12:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The webcomic Lackadaisy has been nominated for a major award, the Eisner Award. [7] [8] I was going to add the nomination to the article, but see it was deleted (barely) in February. Would you have any objection to me restoring the article, and adding the Eisner nomination? I believe it meets the standard for notability. -- El on ka 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
inuse}}
on it after restoring while you add new content and sources and you should be good to go.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I see that you were the admin who unblocked User:M4pnt ( contributions) back in October. He had been using multiple accounts, but it seemed like a fair case of a lack of understanding the rules. Anyway, I've recently noticed a new user, User:Mtlv0 ( contributions). This user's edits begin 2 days after M4pnt's left off, and seem to be on the exact same articles or types of articles (European/Swedish death metal musicians/bands/albums, and UFC-related articles, including specific fighters, albeit different fighters per account). Mtlv0's edits on the death metal articles I'm watching/editing are very similar to M4pnt's. I personally don't know how to determine whether two accounts are the same person (using the whois feature, for example), so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. I could be completely wrong here, which is why I figured starting a note on your talk page would be better than making wild accusations and starting a sock-puppet review. I'm also not saying that anyone should be blocked (except any puppet accounts if they do in fact exist), but maybe reminded again about the multiple accounts policy (if it is the same user, Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to stick, he needs reminders every so often). Lastly, if this entire post is out-of-bounds, then please accept my apologies and feel free to delete and ignore it. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 01:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
...please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination). Drmies ( talk) 02:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox,
User:Iaaasi often requests checkusers at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 in a surreptitious manner, whilst he is a twofold indef-blocked and community banned user. The last time that happened was 3 days ago via a Ip [9] and then via a registered sock account [10]. I tried to obstruct the checkuser request of the sock of Iaaasi with making about 20 reverts on that page as banned users have no right to edit Wikipedia, but his exertions were eventually successful in launching the process again. Originally, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 was opened by CyanMoon, who is one of the detected sockpuppets of Iaaasi [11], just like YellowFF0, who was the second submitter of the page. [12].
Would it be in order to request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 to be semi-protected so that the page to be possible to edit only by established users?
-- Nmate ( talk) 12:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
On 15 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Randy Roth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Randy Roth was convicted of faking a boating accident in order to cover up the murder of his fourth wife? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for intervening to keep the editorial process going at our article on 9/11. Can I ask you to keep an eye on this editor as well? He had a spate of edit-warring on the article back in February, followed by this recent disruptive revert while an RfC is actually in progress on the talk page. He already knows about the Arbcom remedies as he has been blocked once already for his behavior there. While prompt edit-warring is an obvious threat, slow motion and tag-team edit-warring by experienced editors should also be regarded as sanctionable, in my opinion. See what you think, and thanks again for taking on this task. Wow! I just saw this which I see you reverted so you are already aware of this. I see you warned him back then and received this in reply. I believe civility was one of the recommendations of the 2008 Arbcom case, wasn't it? -- John ( talk) 05:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
On 19 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Laurence Marquette, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that serial killer Richard Laurence Marquette was the first person to be an eleventh name on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) 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. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 09:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox,
I would prefer not to edit-war, so I am bringing this up here. I think that for the good of the outcome of this Afd that the info you tried to remove should remain there so a fair judgment can be made. If the Afd is closed as a keep, feel free to remove it afterwards, and I will not revert it anymore. Sebwite ( talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I'd like to thank you for the hook you came up with for my DYK. It did a good job.Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 01:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
this post. Actually it is sort of mentioned in the this section (last item), it's just that it's titled as: "Mexican-American War vs Mexican–American War"; which is kind of where this all got started. Took me a while to find it, but I thought I had seen someone post something about those "short horizontal lines" on that page a while back. How's it going Beebs? Hope all is well, Cheers. — Ched : ? 06:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at User_talk:Phantomsteve#deleted page not having a log entry? and confirm whether the log was oversighted? It is either that or some kind of bug. Yoenit ( talk) 07:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
When the RfC at 9/11 attacks runs its course, are you planning on closing it? Or should we seek an admin at WP:ANB. Either works for me, but I was just curious. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi!!Beeblebrox. I was away on vacation and logged in toady to see notification re Babaria page. I just wanted to say thanks and for your timely intervention. Jethwarp ( talk) 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi!!Beeblebrox. I was away on vacation and logged in toady to see notification re Babaria page. I just wanted to say thanks and for your timely intervention. Jethwarp ( talk) 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you pulled the plug on both of these pages, despite some rather intense efforts to save them and an outcry from many readers. I have to ask: did you consider the sources included in these articles, including publications like the Oregonian and Cinematical, before deleting them? Hawthornestreetblues ( talk) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Saw this diff and grinned. Thanks Beeblebrox. :) Steven Walling 01:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
After the deletion of the individual character article for Captain Teague and its subsequent redirect to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters, I have edited this image into the latter article and it is no longer orphaned. -- Ifrit ( Talk) 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb, I agree 100% with your statement here - so true. That's why it's almost impossible to get anything done. I just hope RFA2011 doesn't get snarled up the same way. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I just was troubled by the fact that user was driven away by block and wanted to know whether a name like that would be allowed according to policy. Sorry for not checking. – BuickCentury Driver 19:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I was not personally attacked, had a bit of a go at Argumentum ad hominem directed at me but all in good humour, hope I didn't offend anyone unnecessarily, so I would ask that the deleted bits be put babck. Regards Crusoe8181 ( talk) 10:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted this but perhaps it needs further action? Then this was followed by this. HeLmiT ( talk) 10:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, as you know AKG looked into my latest block and the bans associated with it, and came to conclusion neither were warranted. Later after my email exchange with you, and by my request AGK modified my block log, and now he's getting reminded about this all the time with the latest reminder made in the thread that in no way is connected to me. I would not like an absolutely innocent person to suffer because of me. AGK is a fair, thoughtful and honest administrator. He declined my ban appeal, when he felt I did not deserve to get my ban lifted, just a few days ago he chided me publicly. He does not deserve to be talked about as he is supporting me in one way or another or prefers me to other users. He is not. He changed my block log, when I asked him to because I have been constantly harassed over the silly bans Gwen added to my block log, with the latest episode of such harassment being here (and it is 2 months after my bans were lifted and without me posting anything to any of these boards at all!)
Anyway to make a long story short, I would not like AGK to suffer because he did a fair adjustment to my block log. He is guilty in nothing. He is not my friend, and he is not my supporter. He is just a fair person, and this offense:-) is not punishable even on wikipedia :-) So, to stop this unfair treatment of AGK, may I please ask you to oversite the change he made to my block log? If somebody should suffer because of my unfair block log, it should be me and me alone.
Sorry for the long post, and thank you for your time and your understanding.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am right now considering a self block request. If I want it, I will let you know shortly. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 22:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I also mentioned you here. Thank you.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I very clearly specified I blocked him not because of the report to WQA, but for his comment there. I strongly disagree with an unblock, and will take this to WP:ANI. Prodego talk 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Prodego talk 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course Maunus and I would rather not have encountered the dispute and ill feeling, which is why we've both refrained from making further remarks for over a week now. You should know that articles can be the subject of intense conflict where personal interest and time is concerned so bringing it back up over a week later and judging the editors who took part has absolutely no relevance to the AFD as a keep. It is obvious to anybody that it is best NOT to engage in nasty disputes but they are often unavoidable. The fact is that Maunus should have had more tact in the first place in approaching these articles and maybe I should have not shown concern about his tagging of articles without doing any research first?. But the fact you felt you had to berate us for civility and shame came across as highly condescending and inappropriate in the context. With the recent Prodego scenario it also seems you showed him the same condescending tone in your message to him. If a nasty comment or negative comment is ever next to my signature its because there are so many warped things about this website that at times it becomes impossible. I respond to others in a fashion that they respond to myself. Had you simply closed the AFD as a "Keep", Further discussion neede don naming convention. This would have been perfect. But you had to go off on one, hence this aggressive response.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. Excellent comment you made here. I can think of a few other places where such a comment would be highly pertinent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, because you were involved with the issue concerning my block log I'd like to notify you please about this thread that is going to be presented to AN in 24 hours. Thank you.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. Given your involvement on Talk:2005 Ahwazi unrest, I was wondering if you could look into a few possible policy violations happening there. I did set up a request for move/merger at Talk:2005_Ahwazi_unrest#Requested_move per your closing comment on the AFD and subsequent suggestions, but User:Greyshark09 refuses to go along with the due process, and is displaying signs of WP:OWN, by making sweeping blind reverts of 23 of my edits there with an inflammatory edit-summary [15], when almost all my edits were accompanied by a rational/policy citation in the edit summary [16], making personals attacks against me on the talk page [17] [18], some of which are based on my perceived nationality [19] (which is a false assumption anyways), and canvassing votes from like-minded editors on the talk page of another article. [20]. He's been warned twice now to AGF and avoid personal attacks [21] [22], but he continues with the uncivil accusatory tone. Kurdo777 ( talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donna Tubbs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Tubbs(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JJ98 ( Talk) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. I see you've not been editing a lot for the last few days. Are you very busy in RL? Did you get my mail? Regards, -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Update: Please see this. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I just received word from my employer, the US Environmental Protection Agency, that I am authorized to set up a Wikipedia account and make suggestions to improve content of yours that's related to our regulatory purview. I believe the username for my account is consistent with the majority of comments/suggestions on the username discussion page. You recently closed out that discussion as moot because I didn't contribute further. Sorry...the government moves at a much slower pace than Wikipedia and it took a while to get authorization to set up an account. I just wanted to let you know that I have finally created the account and will begin suggesting edits to some of your content. If you could modify the status of the username discussion from moot to something reflecting the actual consensus of the group, I would appreciate it. Also, if I misinterpretted the consensus and you feel my username is inappropriate, please let me know. Regards, USEPA James ( talk) 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |