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 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Hi User:Beeblebrox.
Why did you revert my deletion proposal edit for the List of alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities article?
As you said, I do want to accomplish WP:MERGE because the article is so small and can fit right into the other article, Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities.
I also don't understand the problem with loosing the list article's history.
Can you explain that to me, as per WP:MERGE it clearly states that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary..."?
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Purely a procedural decline. Regardless of the "form" of the article, it is important that the work that went into creating it be properly attributed to it's authors. I'm fairly certain that the license under which Wikipedia is published requires this, and that a history merge may be required, but it's possible I'm not 100% right in that as I've never done a history merge. I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that's not really related to speedy deletion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you know of any administrators (or users) that know how to merge a history of an article too, and get his/her opinion on my idea. I'm keeping the list in my sandbox. ATC ^{. Talk} 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I though about this a bit, and I think there's a fairly simple solution. Why not just go ahead and do the merge, and leave the current article behind as a redirect? Just note in your edit summary where the merged content came from, and I think the licensing problem is solved. If you'd rather do it the other way for some reason, you could try using {{adminhelp}} to get an admin to do the history merge. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've occasionally been the target of impostors, like that guy today. His usual pattern is to not only impostor me, but to try and implicate someone else. That happened with Axmann8 last summer, when a banned sockmaster (possibly Pioneercourthouse) made a bunch of impostor accounts. Then late last summer Axmann8 himself did some socking, which complicated matters. Then there was a character named Ron Liebmann that followed me around for a long time and did some impostoring, but only to users who were on his "enemies list", so I don't think this is him. Most likely it's PCH, as we call him; but trying to stick with WP:DENY, it really doesn't matter as long as he gets whacked. It's theoretically possible, but unlikely, that it was a sock of Belchman. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't one Bugs enough? tedder ( talk) 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Some would say more than enough, and that probably includes the wife. :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had some impostor/hater accounts recently myself. I take it as a sign that I'm on the right track. By the way, I thoroughly shut down the account, hardest possible block, so now we just sit back and wait for the next one to pop up. I look forward to blocking User:BaseballundInsekten any time now. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that he was definitely after me, as I know a little Spanish, and he went after Belchman because we had argued recently. That's the impostor's pattern. He might have edited that Axmann8 sub-page just to make someone think he wasn't the Axman. If he had half a brain, he would have discovered that "Bugs" in the context of Bugs Bunny doesn't mean insects, it means "crazy". But I had posted on Alison's page just yesterday, with a joke signature with pictures of bugs, so that's probably where he got the idea. If it's not Axman, it could be one of the socks she blocked recently... or they might all be Axman. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I was just posting on Belchman's page to that effect. The connection to Axmann may be real or a red herring, but I don't think we really need to bother looking any further into it either way since they are hardblocked now. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe a red armband with a white circle and a black double-cross in it. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We should have a scoring system- like claims of admin abuse, sockpuppets named after us, etc. tedder ( talk) 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a contest any of us would want to win? Maybe as a Red Badge of Courage or something. They need a barnstar with a hand holding a hammer and whacking a mole over its pointy little head. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an "award" that you don't really want to win. (uh oh, time to tag my posts as "typing under the influence") tedder ( talk) 02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Been wanting to do that template. :) In case you think he's not watching this discussion, he created a sock called Calcetín ( talk · contribs) (Spanish for "sock") and went after Censei since I had just mentioned him. Hmmm... who else should I mention. How about User:Jimbo Wales? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the Axmann8 impostor had some Spanish names among his socks. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Who mentioned CENSEI? and it is all caps by the way. How about a little respect for significant contributors to the book? Calcetín ( talk) 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Censei was also a notorious sock. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Baseball1015 ( talk · contribs), a sock of John254 ( talk · contribs), was doing somewhat the same stuff and was blocked by Alison a day or two ago. That would be a good starting point for SPI, if someone wanted to. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like I just took back the lead, since the "Colonel Sanders vandal" is now editing my user page. One of these days we should find a psychologist who specializes in pointless obsessive behavior and tell them all about our long term vandals. I'm sure there's a paper or even a book that could be written on the subject. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, can you help with a vandal and his/her sockpuppets please. Cheers.-- Jcmenal ( talk) 04:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the concerns that you expressed about Fred at RPP are entirely valid. These edits that I just deleted at List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes are classic Simulation 12 sockpuppet edits. I suspect that the reason for requesting that the page be unprotected is that he realises he's close to detection and wants to open up the page for the next incarnation. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 04:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And these reversions, especially the edit summaries, are classic Simulation 12. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, from the looks of the SPI case, the clock is ticking on our friend Fred. It's funny that I actually tried to ignore this one, and he (actually apparently it's a she, as I just found out) just kept popping up and making it harder and harder to ignore. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've actually raised an SPI case on Checker Fred now. While doing so, I noticed a comment from a clerk that seems to link Extremeguy and Fred. [1] I can't view the url, so I'm basing that on the comment and the url itself. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, thank you for protecting Creation according to Genesis. User:Ben Tillman has just processed a request for the article to be reverted to a much earlier state and for unprotection. Actually, no consensus has been reached, IMO. Tillman is given to bullying and rude remarks, a milder example of which you can see in his "laughable" characterization just prior to his Talk page request for unprotection. I don't know where to go from here. Please advise. Thanks, ─ AFAprof01 ( talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

23:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Logo avo transparent new.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Smallman12q ( talk) 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems the logo has changed...should we also include the this old logo? Smallman12q ( talk) 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that use different variations for their logo see page 1, see page 1. Should the article have a short gallery for these logo variations? Smallman12q ( talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really needed, the logo is not as important as it would be if this were a famous brand name or something. If there's a new one it's fine with me if that's what is used in the article. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 09jamieboro ( talk · contribs) unblock request, I think you broke the templates. I tried to fix the mess. Please check. THanks! -- Tyw7  ( Talk •  Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the blocked user made that mess with this edit [2]. I think they intended to post another unblock request. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was very naive to do what i did. I wanted to change all of the notices, but I was afraid that editors would complain about this too. So at this point it is damned if i do damned if I don't. Sigh sorry for the confusion. Ikip 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That is often the way around here. Maybe some big red letters or something on the pages linked in the notice will stop any further issues here. Frankly I'm relieved that I already missed whatever previous discussion/argument/whatever there was about this. I honestly wasn't looking for drama, but, well you know the rest of the story and I'm sure you don't need to hear any more about it at this point. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

They are all being replaced by liberalism categories which i created, so their is no need for them. -- TIAYN ( talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. How was anyone supposed to know that if you just add a blank speedy deletion template? Also, do you have any sort of consensus behind these renamed categories, or are just acting alone? This is the kind of information that you need to add to the speedy deletion tags themselves if you want these categories deleted. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not particularly easy to delete a category. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look here and compare it to this. Editing pattern is also familiar. Quack. I'd have done it myself if I was still an admin, but oh well. I contacted you since you're more familiar with TrEeMaNsHoE. — ξ ^xplicit 02:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it all right, good catch. Beeblebrox ( talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I overreacted on that guy...I should have ignored him, just caught me on a crappy day. Apologies for not being a good wikiguy today.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And I didn't notice you had already been warned/received good advice to leave it alone. These things happen, as long as you learn from it and don't do it all the time there's probably no serious harm done. Beeblebrox ( talk) 09:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you make sure when applying warning notices as you did to user Mike Searson that you include a link to what it is you are warning about. This makes it easier to follow not just for the editor being warned but also for other Wikipedians. Mikes behaviour is at the heart of a current WQA and being able to follow the line of reasoning leading to any warning he has received is important. Cheers. Weakopedia ( talk) 10:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I retracted the warning after seeing the previous discussion on the issue it's pretty much a moot point. I leave warnings/notices to communicate with the user I am talking to, not as an evidence gathering tool for some future investigation anyway. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't bother informing the user that you are warning exactly what it is that you are warning them about then your warnings are a waste of time, your and theirs. The fact that doing what you are supposed to in the first place subsequently aids other editors of this project to follow your reasoning is secondary - first just follow the warning procedure and the rest will take care of itself. Weakopedia ( talk) 07:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Could this conversation be any more pointless? He knew what I was talking about, and it was a duplicate warning that was quickly retracted anyway. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you decided that he is notable and not to delete the article. Of course I accept this decission. But can you tell me, which criterium of notification he fullfills? Thank you. 145.253.118.83 ( talk) 11:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I did not decide he was notable. I interpreted the results of the deletion discussion. There is a detailed rationale at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andriy Slyusarchuk. Basically many of the arguments to delete the article were based on what language the sources were in and if he is telling the truth about his abilities. Those are not valid reasons to delete an article and were discounted. I'm afraid I'm not sure what "criterium of notification" is supposed to mean, but if you have any other specific questions about my closing rationale I'd be happy to answer them. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I mean, why this person should be notable. The Wikipedia guideline for the notability of people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29 states as the very first guideline: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" None of that is true for Mr. Andriy Slyusarchuk. The Guideline about references " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_article_does_not_cite_any_references_or_sources" states "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." but all references in this article are not translated. My problem is, that I deal a lot with excellent memory (its my job) and media asking me about it. They read this article and believe it and then tell me, that someone memorized 5100 digits in two minutes and why I still say the World Record is 405 digits in five minutes. The sources are all Ukrainian and not-scientific. This guy is a liar. People are not experienced with excellent memory, so they do not know this when they read the article. The article contained claims, that he can read and influence minds as well, but that got deleted, because everyone knows its b***sh**. Therefore my question: Which point of The Wikipedia guideline for the notability of people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29 does Mr. Andriy Slyusarchuk fullfill justying the existence of an article about him? Memoryexpert de ( talk) 07:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have already explained that my role was only to interpret the result of the discussion and make a proper closing based on that result. If you feel that my decision was in error, you are welcome to pursue a deletion review. If there are factual errors in the article, you should discuss them on the article's talk page and edit the article according to whatever consensus emerges there. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox . I feel my choice to edit Wikipedia was the right one thanks to the decisions like yours. The claims of Andriy Slyusarchuk have been a point of major interest for me for the last couple of years and I did my best to summarize my knowledge about the phenomenon of this person in a Wikipedia article. I hope it helps other people to get familiar with the refs and arguments of both skeptics and supporters of Andriy's claims. I'm sorry there are about no reliable critical or debunking reviews of this subject on the Internet, but I'll be happy to see such reviews included into the article as soon as they are found. Thanks. NazarK ( talk) 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And Memoryexpert de, I'm sorry to say that, but your attempts to remove the information about A.S. are closer to fanatic censorship than to a neutral encyclopedic style. Your above remarks made me laugh. lol. No offense, though, I understand your point and it should be there in the article. Please do try and find a reliable debunking source to be referenced. I'll be happy to see it included. NazarK ( talk) 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you won't make the list for pointing out something I already knew about talk pages. However, the instructions on your link say I did the right thing. I appreciate your catch on my poor execution, though. I am not familiar with how to properly format it. If you could revert your undo and fix my formatting, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for your help. Srwm4 ( talk) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

*ahem*.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Userpage is deleted, talk page is blanked, if there's nothing further and user really is "vanishing" then we're done. Hopefully this isn't a "fake out vanishing" because the incivility is wearing a bit thin, and blocked users can't exercise WP:RTV. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is blank, but not yet deleted. If you can offer some help instead of flaming me, it would go a long way to curing the civility issues. Srwm4 ( talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not flaming you, just making sure you realize that responding to incivility with more incivility is not going to help you or anyone else. I have provided a link to RTV on your talk. Deleting user talk pages is extremely rare and probably not going to happen in this case. You can slap a "retired" template on there if you would like to make it clear you are leaving. All that's left for you to do to "vanish" is to ask for user name to be changed if you want that done. WP:CHU can help you with that. Goodbye and Good Luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the IP allowed to continue editing? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of the CU results, they should be caught in the autoblock of the named account. It's only a day off of course, but I think it sends the appropriate message to use only one identity at a time and not to lie about it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so the named user's IP is also disabled for a day? Is that why the pink block is showing on the IP even though the previous block expired? Or is that a bug? More to the point: If the same IP somehow edits during the named user's block time, would that suggest the checkuser was mistaken? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame it on being a bug. We have enough Bugs already. tedder ( talk) 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You can have too many bugs, but you can never have enough Bugs. :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Or Gashouse Gorillas!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that too, I don't know why that is still showing up, usually autoblocks or more or less invisible. I guess it is a bug. And if they edit today, then I suppose that would mean the CU was somehow in error, but they seemed pretty sure about it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some initial doubts I had, diminished as I observed more and more stereotypical sock-like behavior. Oddly, the IP did some calmly worded editing after the named user signed off. At least he did for awhile. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was unusual. Had he been a little less condescending in his initial communication as SWRM4, I would have probably taken him at his word. Since he's been unblocked he's been for the most part civil, apart from calling me a liar about me apologizing about my behavior. And since I didn't withdraw the SPI, I'll have to assume I'm still on his "hit list". That's the second one this year for me, last time was a Hit-Team of Cuban assassins because I used a picture of a Cuban Peso in the Cyclura nubila article.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He answered a question on my talk page this morning, might have been before CU was complete.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I did the block only about an hour ago. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

76.24.147.114 ( talk · contribs)
Srwm4 ( talk · contribs)
FYI... ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Splat5572/U.S. Route 95 in Arizona was found during the course of the MfD and mentioned in it as also needing deletion on the same basis. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 18:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What was the issue with this sign? Your deletion log summary is very vague - and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would have appreciated warning the image was facing deletion. Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The file was claimed to be public domain when it was not. It was tagged for 18 days as being a possibly unfree image so there was plenty of time to comment. The deletion discussion is here: [3]. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of File:TweakVista.png was incorrect. I had permission to upload the image under the stated license (which was later converted to include CC-BY-SA), and I did so in the correct manner. A message to OTRS is not required for those works which you yourself have created. Please undelete it. GreenReaper ( talk) 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

I don't know what I just did. I moved Worcester (MBTA station) to Union Station (Worcester, Massachusetts) over a redirect. Everything seemed fine for a second, then I pressed the "back button" on my browser to re-open the "this page has been moved" form so I could check for any double redirects that may have been created. Apparently that was a mistake because now both pages are circular redirects and I can't find the content anywhere. Anyone know how to fix this? Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the 'deleted edits'? [4] tedder ( talk) 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I just started panicking. Got it now. Thanks! Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Good thing I stalk your page. And yeah, I'm post-coffee (mmmocha!). tedder ( talk) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So when you moved Union Station, you wiped out the page history on the redirect page and the "new page". I don't know if you have the tools, but could you please fix this? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 20:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, one misplaced click and I made a big fat mess of the whole thing. Let me see if I have the admin-fu to fix it... Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed I guess I don't suck as bad as I thought. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We all have those days. Yesterday, I wiped out the Umass page trying to put in a new logo. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 21:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I blocked ClueBot. Twice. In the same day. tedder ( talk) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but ClueBot's an asshole. Half Shadow 21:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've created a user space draft, which I'm hoping to have moved to /Nimsoft. The content is available for preview at the following url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rbudde/nimsoft-draft

Currently, the Nimsoft space is currently locked, due to some prior submissions that didn't meet guidelines. If this would be something you could help with, I'd greatly appreciate it. Best, Randy

Rbudde ( talk) 23:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The version I deleted did not have any content at all, and when I saw it was the third try, I protected the page. Your userspace draft seems a lot better than any of the deleted versions, although the language in the lead section is a little on the techspeak/promotional side. That can be fixed however, and I don't think your draft would qualify for speedy deletion anymore at this point, so I guess I'll drop the protection, but just FYI this is by no means a guarantee that the article will be kept in the long term. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nimsoft is now live. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you for your assistance. I've also made some slight changes to the lead section as an initial attempt to address your feedback. Rbudde ( talk) 19:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on the Seward's Success, Alaska article. I stumbled on it after querying the Newsbank database searching for articles on monorails of all things. I couldn't believe the scope of the project either and am pleased that others out there enjoyed learning about it too. You're right about articles like this being the reason why I am on here too. I started editing to create Mississippi Aerial River Transit and I'll keep digging and see what else comes up in the future for articles on unusual things like Seward's Success in the future. Cheers! Patriarca12 ( talk) 16:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to make the call, though make sure the user is clear that continued violations will result in a reblock, by you, myself or any other admin. J Milburn ( talk) 20:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I normally do in such cases, I tell them to consider themselves permanently warned not to do it again. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone is copied couple of articles belonging to Tabriz monuments to other article with similiar names (without using move option intop of the pages). For example, Saat Tower or Ark of Tabriz which is copied from Arg of Tabriz, another article is Ghari bridge whicch is copied from Ghari Bridge. These article are copied by same user and then he created a new article and pasted previous materials inside. Is there a way to recover those pages and other similiar pages which are faced the same proble?? Is there any rule in Wikipedia preventing this kind of stuffs?-- M karzarj ( talk) 21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Those did appear to be cut-and-paste page moves, but since the original articles are still there, I converted them to redirects back to the original articles. I frankly don't know which is the correct title, but if they need to be moved to those titles in the future any admin can override the redirects and move them there properly. I left the user who made the copies a message regarding this. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, just letting you know that I have left replies at User talk:Apparition11#Your review and User talk:Zhang He#"one little mistake". Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/ Mistakes 23:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for giving me my editing ability back.

YourBrain ( talk) 01:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Be sure not to let that little brother of yours near your account again. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This user FetchFan21 might be a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checker Fred ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fred, as far as I am concerned you are a sock. Don't push your luck. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm inclined to think protection is overkill. This isn't a dispute between equally valid or invalid edits. The warring is entirely driven by one tendentious editor who keeps re-adding unsourced and highly unencylopedic material against consensus, and can't/won't accept Wikipedia's verifiability requirement. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 21:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The only exception to the edit warring policy is blatant vandalism. Anything else is a content dispute. Since there is an RFC in progress on the talk page, the hope is that these disputes can be resolved without the need for blocks being handed out. If a consensus is reached and the user acts against it afterword, then it will be time to look for a block via WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But as far as I tell, a consensus has been reached on the RFC - on 4th February [5]. despite explanations of WP:V etc, that user has restored the disputed material a number of times since, and stated that they'd rather be blocked than cooperate (see User talk:Global.Geo.Historic.Data#Editing procedures). WP:ANI time? Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Often protection is enough to show a user that we're not fooling around about this stuff. If there's no urgent need to edit the article, it's probably best to simply let the protection run and see if the user will come to the table and discuss during the protection period. If not, and they resume their disruptive editing when the protection expires, then it's probably time for a block. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this: Last time I checked, removing copyright violations is not considered edit warring. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you. -- 13 ² 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See the above section. The section you link to makes no mention of copyright violations. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

According to that section and the copyvio policy page: "Enforcing certain overriding policies" -> "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." and "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known."

Also, from WP:3RR, for exceptions: "Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy."

Please explain how this is not covered under the page I asked about. Thank you. -- 13 ² 23:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine whatever, it really doesn't matter. The page is protected to try and stop the problem, whatever we choose to call that problem. If they continue disrupting the page after the protection expires report them for that. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced information is one thing, deleting the entirety of the page because 'the information is incorrect' or 'representatives of the subject want it gone' is another entirely. I have no interest in the subject, but there's a right way to do things and a wrong way... Half Shadow 23:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I agree, which is why I protected the page. Not sure why you felt the need to post this here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just on case I was asked anything about it. I know nothing about the subject matter, I was simply responding to the disruption. Half Shadow 23:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really an area that interests me either, but with all the furor over unsourced BLP articles right now, it's really best to have some sources. Anyway, hopefully a race fan who isn't on the guys payroll will come along and fix it up. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a representative of Scott Tucker and we have been requested to remove personal details from the entry: DOB, age, residence, birthplace, alma mater etc. until these details are verified and confirmed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoodman0310 ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Beeblerox, just a heads up...I accidentally reported you for vandalism. I removed you as soon as I realized the mistake. I apologize for the error. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 23:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No harm was done. I've made a similar mistake myself in the past. Thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead. Make sure he knows he's going to be watched carefully. DS ( talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've been practicing my skills in that department quite a bit lately. Here's hoping anyway... Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I note you responded to my Gay Hendricks speedy deletion request with a rollback. That seems a reasonable solution seeing as at least one prior contributor has returned to work on the page and hopefully improve it. However, just for your reference, the backstory is that (from my possibly imperfect recollection) the page was previously nominated for deletion on the basis that it was a BLP consisting of entirely unsourced material that appeared to be original research and of doubtful notability. The result of that discussion was Keep, on the basis of promises that the article would be improved. When no work occurred on the article over forthcoming days, I removed all unsourced statements in accordance with policy at WP:BLP. (Deleting the article outright would not have been in the spirit of the AfD.) Since that time (several months ago) the only edits to the article have been to tag the subject as "known homosexual", and the article remains both unsourced and an orphan. My delete request was following up on that earlier AfD; I intend to watch the page over coming days and see whether it improves, and if not take it back to AfD. Thanks! - DustFormsWords ( talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that IP. :) I stumbled into this whole thing when I saw the first IP leave a message on 5asq's talk page. I hope it doesn't go on for much longer. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like your page protected for a few hours I'd be happy to oblige. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, they've only edited my talk page once. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

aside

"The most boring troll ever." Ya know, the quality of trolling around here has really gone downhill the last couple of years. "Fascist"? That is sooo 60s. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it chalks up there with cries of "admin abuse" and confusion about what is notable and why. tedder ( talk) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No creativity, and what is it with them pointing out their socking, like it's something to be all proud of? Not getting caught is a much more difficult task. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Trolls R Us is accepting the ones who couldn't cut it as busboys at McDonald's. It's kinda sad, really. :'( ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of this one from a comic who unfortunately I cannot recall his name: "I saw a sad sign the other day: 'Slow Children at Play'. But I felt happier when I realized they can grow up to get good jobs: 'Slow Men at Work'." ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you declined my last protection request, but it is getting a bit silly with IPs persistently adding vandalism. I also suspect that few people have this page on watch, so it seems to rely on me to revert - and I'm not always around! Do we have to live with it or can it be protected until they get bored and go away? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The current level of vandalism is not high enough to warrant protection, normally there needs to be multiple instances each day. I've watchlisted the page myself now, and I'll try to help keep a lid on it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your onpoint message on User:FisherQueen's talk page. It was somewhat helpful. I really felt demeaned, but I am moving on. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 22:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also deeply offended. Frankly I would rather be on the receiving end of an obscene tirade than an accusation of being a nazi, even if based on the "pop culture" use of the word, but I think the point has been made and acknowledged and we can safely put it behind us now. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. Half Shadow 23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I was stating why I perceived so many people to be passionate, to the point of hostility in some cases, about the Brendan Burke article (which made FisherQueen so exasperated that he felt that he had to respond with "fuck you" to one of the editors). I was not trying to: "USE LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS to make it clear that "I was" RIGHT and anyone that disagrees with "my" CAPITAL LETTERS must be WRONG". I was using the capital letters for emphasis -in a way to mirror the emphasis that a human speaker would use when naturally speaking.

I thought this was a common enough stylistic element that its use would be apparent.

There is no right or wrong here (assuming you really believe that people are acting in good faith when they comment on, or edit an article). I merely wanted to explain why so many people were upset regarding certain editors of Wikipedia, and their perceived tendency to trivialize people or events that the populace at large may have a lack of knowledge about. If my writing style offended you, that was not my intent. If it prevented you from understanding my intent, then that too was a failure on my part.

I simply wanted to elucidate the passion that those who have followed this story since it broke have about Brendan's accomplishments. It would be a shame if the article were deleted due to a lack of due diligence. Thank you Lou2u ( talk) 07:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that redirect -:)... Modernist ( talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Did I post this one here before? [6] It seems to fit all of us sometimes. :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, actually I saw that when you posted it at a previous WGB discussion. Reminds me of my ex wife. "We can work it out, I really mean it this time, I won't blow any more of your friends this time..." Sorry, having a flashback. I should thank her, I used to be very naive about such things. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Vaguely reminds me of a W.C. Fields quote about a woman who drove him to drink. I'll have to see if I can find that. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And here it is, after Gloria Jean asks "Uncle Bill" Fields why he never married: [7] ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This morning, I created a new page, symptoms of influenza. It was blanked and redirected a short while later. I would appreciate it provide me a copy of this article in my userspace. Thank you. Immunize ( talk) 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Click here for your new subpage. I don't mind at all doing this, but just for future reference you actually could have done it yourself as the page has not been deleted and the page history is still available. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Immunize ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In both your unblock notice and your post to WP:AN you referred to an Arbcom motion regarding CoM. Unfortunately I can't find any such motion upon visiting WP:RFAR and drilling down. Can you point me to it? Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Butting in ... rudely? helpfully? Anyway, think what Beeblebrox is referring to is here Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Statement_by_ChildofMidnight Gerard ^PFAW 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I sort of guessed that he actually meant the probation page but he specifically mentioned Arbcom several times. I'm not always the brightest bulb in the chandelier so thought perhaps I had missed something. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an educated guess on my part, too. It's the enforcement page for an Arbcom decision, isn't it? Gerard ^PFAW 04:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. It was an alternative to arbcomm taking a case, or thinking about taking a case William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerardw is correct, that is the ArbCom action I was referring to. As I try to stay away from ArbCom if I can, it seems I was imprecise or inaccurate in my description of what processes are in motion overt there. Also see my message to CoM below regarding his unblock. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the Yehuda Amichai‎ article. I note you commented "Just a reminder, the only exception to the edit warring policy is blatant vandalism" - I did try the warning and AIV route, but that was rejected on the grounds that it's a content dispute rather than vandalism. Can you advise on what to do if User:Afalpi fails to take part in the mediation discussion and carries on in the same manner once the protection is lifted? -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If they continue to edit war after protection is expired, they can be blocked for that. So can anyone else who edit participates in an edit war. That was my point. Asking for protection and/or pursuing dispute resolution = good, edit warring = bad. Hopefully a settlement will be reached on the talk page and it won't be a problem any more. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks - if necessary, I'll request further protection and escalate DRR. -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: What's the correct procedure for reporting an editor who resumes an edit war after protection has expired? (My Twinkle ARV link only has limited 'vandalism' reports)? -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'm very upset about your entry in my block log, which is already cluttered with bullshit. There was unanimous recognition that the block was not warranted and inappropriate for a variety of reasons. So why you would enter something about unblocking me to participate in another forum where I'm being harassed over the same edits I have no idea. Please make a proper entry that reflects the consensus. I'm very unhappy about this and disappointed that you would misrepresent the outcome of my request to be unblocked. What the heck were you thinking? Not good. Please make sure you're absolutely clear that the unanimous consensus was that the block and it's reasoning were faulty. I'm getting smeared enough as it is without you adding to the problem. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

2010-02-13T02:45:53 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) unblocked "ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to allow him to participate in ArbCom case related to his actions) seems very clear, and appeared to reflect the consensus of discussion. However, CoM disagrees; and by his edits he has shown that he intends to disregard your unblock conditions. I think it would be desirable for you to clarify your position William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(@CoM) I'm sorry this has upset you so much. The message I left on your talk page when unblocking you was pretty clear I think, and reflects both reasons for your unblock, but you are right that I failed to include the primary reason in the log, and that primary reason you are unblocked is because of the discussion at WP:AN. Additionally, at no time did I state that this was a conditional unblock only to allow participation in the ArCom case, there are no terms attached to the unblocking. I apologize for any inconvenience this matter has caused you, I had in no way intended to insinuate that the ArbCom proceeding was the sole reason for your unblock, it was just an oversight on my part. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know what to believe Beeblebrox. Truly I don't. your unblock statement is already being used by the blocking admin to justify further going after me at the climate change forum where I'm being retried for the same stuff. Obviously I'm upset and frustrated. If you look at my edits before this all started you will see I was doing article work. I've been trying to avoid conflict and waiting very patiently for admins to deal with the nastiness in the Climate topic area so that I can edit there collegially without attacks and baiting. I thought I did a good job of avoiding responding to the many many provocations although I have been outspoken about the biased enforcements that have been noted my many good faithe ditors. If you would clarify your unblock and add yet another entry in my block log I would appreciate. If not, well I guess it is what it is. But I don't think it's right, and the fact that it's already being used to abuse me by the same admin who issued the block is telling. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just re-read the blocking policy to make sure I wouldn't just be making things worse, and it seems there is precedent for making such a block, so I'll block you for one minute or whatever in order to clarify the matter. As for the attacks based on the unblock, if you could point out where this is occurring I'd be happy to set them straight about it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate it. I'm very frustrated right now as a lot of nasty and untrue things have been said about me. So I'm going to try to take a break. Take care and have fun. :) I hope you won't miss me too terribly. ;) In the meantime, keep the faith, I don't expect to be gone long. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

talk page stalker/Peanut Gallery returns: Hard to know for sure as I am not privy to CoM's existing relationship with editors, but on his talk page this [ [8]] seems less than helpful. In addition there were multiple edits, since struck out, by a user determined to be a sock User:संपादक. In addition there were the comments at WP:AN but which, if any, are attacks and which are comments is a matter of interpretation. Gerard ^PFAW 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured he was referring to BozMo's claims at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, and have tried to clarify the situation: [9]. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of courtesy I should mention I give an opinion on this unblock on my talk page. :

Certainly I am not fussed about my nose. However there is a correct procedure for appealing blocks, you put an unblock notice and an admin considers it. When you are involved with a group of other people in a large scale content dispute under probation per Climate Change deciding instead that you want the block posted on AN/I whilst it is still current so editors who was engaged on your side can all say how injust it was, in my view was a process failure but life is too short to worry about it. And yes, I guess being told would have been more courteous. I was told when I became an admin that if people did not call you Hitler sometimes you were failing to do your job and I don't often run into this kind of thing so I am not going to be weeping into my porridge. -- BozMo talk 07:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Vladimir Tod seems to be a fictional character in three published books by Heather Brewer where I redirected it before the creator restored the version with CSD template.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

huh. Ok, let me have a look at restoring it as a redirect then. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure if this whole thing is notable. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I put a AFD tag here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nodar_Kumaritashvili&action=historysubmit&diff=343844459&oldid=343844024 He is not notable but an article called Death of Nodar might be. Cassandra 73 removed the tag. If he disagrees then discuss it. It is not like an AFD tag is on Michael Jackson or France articles.

This is blockable. If not, then anyone can wipe out your user page on the excuse "I disagree". Why are people so mean. Please administrate and block Cassandra 73 or at least put back the AFD tag. Revenge No ( talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be like doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ABeeblebrox&action=historysubmit&diff=343847684&oldid=343847481 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revenge No ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, don't mess with my talk page just to prove a point. Secondly, I'm on my way out the door right now to go to a Homebrewing competition, so I'm pretty much booked solid for the rest of the day. You can request any edits you want done to the page by using Template:editprotected on the talk page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Beeblebrox. Just wanted to follow up on the speedy tag I placed on Anja Juliette Laval. I considered an unsourced BLP of a pornographic actress, which would certainly be a bad thing if it was wrong, to fit WP:CSD#G10. I did that for a couple of them, but then I switched to prodding the articles as such: [10] What do you think about that line of tagging instead? NW ( Talk) 20:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems valid to me. Frankly I think the vast majority of porn actors don't meet the bar for inclusion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I did mention my argument for why this performer meets WP:PORNBIO on the talk page for that article. It kind of bugs me that nobody even seems to bother to read the talk page and so much takes the time to discuss the issue before speedy deleting. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the G10'ing of unsourced porn bios. If G10 is going to be declined, or PROD is to be used instead, then the allegations that would be harmful if untrue--such that so-and-so appeared in adult films--should be removed until and unless sourced. In some cases, that would make the articles A1 or A3 candidates, so just G10'ing the entire thing is probably more appropriate than a trim-and-prod. Jclemens ( talk) 02:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think I should just speedy these articles if people are going to do things like this. Thoughts on how to deal with issues like this? NW ( Talk) 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There's been a request at RPP to extend the protection on this article as the dispute hasn't been resolved. To save me wading through the history, I thought you might be able to make a quicker decision, so I thought I'd raise it here. Cheers. Ged UK  10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended for two days. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that. Could you please help by telling me what I need to do if I see the edit war continuing - how do I report it for admin attention? -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Would it be considered improper for me to notify the other involved editors that an RfC is in progress? -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If they were already involved, it wouldn't be canvassing if you sent them a neutrally worded message about it. Edit warring can be reported here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After doing some thinking, I realize that you were only trying to help, so I will allow you to continue posting. However, please do not be patronizing and all that stuff. It's not just you, though. I don't like it when anybody patronizes me. Also, thank you for the help on the "Archives" section on Apparition's talk page. - Zhang He ( talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you seem like a nice guy who's got his Wikipedia act together, but other than that, I'll admit you're kindof a random user to be asking this question.

I noticed that Wikipedia's policy is to NOT enforce self-requested blocks. Instead, they refer you to a JavaScript-based "wikibreak enforcer" which may be used instead, but all that does is keep you from logging in, it doesn't prevent you from creating alternate accounts or using Wikipedia anonymously (although, come to think of it, the same could be said about blocking users too).

I'm curious, do you know why Wikipedia doesn't honor such requests? I'm interested because I'm borderline OCD, and a voluntary block option would be helpful, since staying off Wikipedia is not always a simple matter of will power. Interestingly, the IMDb has a similar policy; they refused to ban me from the message boards, and gave me an alternative that, much like the wikibreak enforcer, is more or less ineffective in keeping me off the site.

If you think it's inappropriate that I'm bugging you about this, I apologize. If you don't mind, but don't know the answers either, any advice on where to ask these same questions would be appreciated; sometimes it's difficult for me to figure out what questions go on what pages. Thanks. Minaker ( talk) 22:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the policy, which you can see here, says that such requests are generally not granted, it does not say it can't or shouldn't be done. I think the logic behind it is that Wikipedia is not therapy, and indeed it isn't, and often persons requesting such blocks end up asking for them to be lifted before the agreed upon term. However, I personally think it's more or less harmless to block someone for a while at their request, and I'm willing to do so under the following conditions:

• It has to be for a substantial length of time, not just one or two days.
• You will be hardblocked, meaning you will not be able to edit your talk page or use Wikipedia's email system to request unblock for the duration of the block
• You agree not to try and evade the block. If I find out there has been sockpuppetry occurring the deal is off permanently.

I was actually thinking of creating a category for admins to add themselves to Category:Administrators willing to consider to requests for self blocking. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How should we go about improving this article? Shadowjams ( talk) 10:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this your way of contesting my decline of your speedy nom? As I said, [11] I was able to pull just enough context out of it to establish what it was, so it does not qualify for the specific criteria under which you nominated it. I also added it to relevant WikiProjects [12] in the hope that those who have some knowledge of Arab tribal topics might be able to improve it. Improvements can be made in the same manner as they are made to any other new stub article, by searching for sources to verify and expand the content, by cleaning up the article and clarifying the language, by finding relevant internal and external links that may be appropriate to add to the article, that sort of thing. Many Wikipedia articles started off in a pretty pathetic state, and many are created by users whose grasp of the English language is somewhat lacking but that does not mean they do not have valid contributions to make. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your other improvements to the article. My concern was that the article, which was patrolled and untagged, would be left without any further attention.

I'm not offended by your removal--it's not my way of contesting a decline. I am only concerned about the occasion when CSD patrollers remove speedy tags from problematic articles without some other indication that the article needs attention. For example, that might be as simple as a tag, or as complex as a full cleanup. I didn't know what sources you'd found from your edit summary either, which added to my confusion.

Your later edits to the article, of course, negate all of my concerns. Thank you. Shadowjams ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re this:

21:10, 17 February 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Wickland (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) ‎ (blocked other account indef, making this the standard one week first timer sock block)

21:08, 17 February 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sumbuddi (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (user has indicated they will not be using this account and have a new one, this will "keep them honest")

I think you should read this: User talk:Daniel_Case#Error. Thanks 86.179.106.212 ( talk) 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Really sorry to bring up the Yehuda Amichai RfC again, but despite your warning to not make accusations of sockpuppetry without being prepared to file WP:SPI, User:Afalpi is effectively continuing to do so by referring to me as "Gila Brand , Korny ONear,Boing Dear" [13] - he/she alleges that I, Gilabrand, and Korny O'Near are socks. And Afalpi is showing no sign of good faith at all - editing past discussion to emphasise POV, re-inserting old versions of my comments as if I'd signed them (though admittedly there was a valid point in that one - just executed incorrectly and in bad faith), and repeatedly accusing me of "manipulation". What should I do about this? -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'll just ignore it - thick skin and all that -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added another to my personal list, and thought it should be noted to other sysops in the category for consideration. Of course, it is entirely your own choice... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it's the person you declined for unblock yesterday. I had forgotten about two doppelganger accounts I created in 2008, this and Paragon of Night Skies (I forgot to tag them, I was new then), and I figured I should let you know about that before I get myself in deeper shit for block evasion. Please do what you will with these two accounts. I used the Paragon of Night Skies one today once to fix a small vandalism on History of Sierra Leone (I happened to be on that page logged out, saw it, logged in, undid the vandalism, then logged into this account to post this). Also, and if you would respond on your talkpage to this, would it be a good idea for me to create a new account that can't be traced back to my original for a fresh start? I don't want to cause any more disruption than I have already, so if you think that's a good idea or if I should do something else, let me know. I wasn't behind either account that was listed on my main talkpage, but I can understand why you would think I was. This isn't me evading my block, I just wanted to give you full disclosure; I'll post this at Mr.Z-man's talk page as well, then I'll log out for good. I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and sockpuppet with an account this similar to my original. My apologies once again. Paragon of Arctic Winter Night ( talk) 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with even this [14]. There is still an open sock puppet investigation and there is still a matter of apparent proxies he used to harass users with zero acknowledgment that he's done anything wrong.. I don't really think any kind of courtesy should be extended to him.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My search for the road of least drama does not always succeed. This seemed a good way to just be done with it, but if you have other plans, be my guest. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 04:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox. Thanks for pointing that out. It should have been an A7. In my haste I didn't notice that the nominator had mistagged the nomination. I should have been paying more attention. Thanks for letting me know. Best wishes, Rje ( talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

After the beating I took over just nominating such articles, I'd hate to see it happen to someone else who was after all only acting in good faith. A7 works just fine in this case though. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to my notice the surreptitious deletions on this article. mukerjee ( talk) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not salt this. If userfied to its author, I am willing to work with him in trimming the article to remove fluff and promotion, and in cleaning it up with him and explaining how it might eventually be returned if notability can be (eventually) properly sourced.. as no doubtthe author is feeling a common newcomer's angst. At the very least the author might gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and at the most we might gain a suitable article. I'd be sure to keep you in the loop and get your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was just thinking that I would not make any further comment in the current debate and when this AfD concludes I would unwatch this page. This is my second go-round with this article, and that's as far as I usually like to take these things. If you think you can actually get it up to par go for it, but don't feel obligated to keep me updated. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As you are not opposed to a redirect, please undelete so that we can merge the sourced content. Thank you. Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The only content cited to a source was one sentence which is still viewable at the AfD and apparently you have access to the book it came from anyway, so I don't think I'll be doing that for you today. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This article unquestionably has potential due to its high-level of notability and verifiability. Thus, it would be much appreciated if you undeleted it so that we can improve it further or make the most of what is there for thinking how to merge and add content elsewhere. Thank you for reconsidering! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 23:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was to delete the article. Therefore, the article has been deleted. If you feel strongly that this was an error on my part, I'm sure you know where WP:DRV is by now. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping that this reasonable request will be fulfilled without needlessly starting another discussion elsewhere as there was clearly no consensus to delete it:

The nominator was okay with a merge by saying "it should be merged" and as for it being a "minor" part of MOTU, that is not factually correct. It is the main headquarters of the villains and appears as a playset, a game, in the cartoon, in comic books, etc.

The first delete claimed it was "entirely" original research. When I added a source, this claim was no longer true.

This one again was refuted as the claim of there not being a "single" source was addressed by adding a source. It passes WP:V because it is verifiably through dozens of published books and WP:N because of both these multiple sources and the practical reality that it is a major setting adaptaed into toys, games, etc. Calling it trivial is subjective as to myself and others it is non-trivial but a memorable aspect of childhood and a major setting from a major fictional universe and toy franchise.

As for the final delete, as it mentions being covered elsewhere, it provides no reason why we would not redirect there, nor any reason why would not WP:PRESERVE the edit history.

Even if we dicount the keep vote that did provide an argument, we still have three keep arguments that do provide rationales with only an equal number of deletes that are either refuted or do not offer any reason not to keep the edit history under a redirect. Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is so typical of how you operate. You initially asked that I restore the article so that you could merge the sourced content. That was all that you asked in that request. When that request was denied based on there being only one sentence of sourced content, you suddenly come up with a bunch of other reasons that are not in fact the reason you initially stated for wanting this undeleted, including your own childhood memories. I had the unlicensed rip-off hand-me-down version myself, I think my grandmother got it from someone she worked with and it sucked compared to the real deal, although it was very nice of her to get it and give it to me. Does that mean we should have an article about that too? Please don't actually answer that. Take it to DRV or let it go. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion was one of the more obvious cases of what should be a "no consensus" close that I have seen in a while, but rather than call you on that, I thought it better to start off being polite and just nicely ask that it be undeleted and redirected and that we make the most of whatever we can for the time being. When that reasonable request was rebuffed, then it became necessary to point out that there was no consensus to delete, because the subject is unquestionably notable and verifiable per the available sources, which means it is improveable, and because it is not a hoax or libelous, there is no actual need to delete it. I shouldn't have to start a DRV on something like that. I would much rather give someone a chance, if not a few chances, to do the right thing as a courtesy to a colleague first. As we are not on a timeline, I'll allow you a day or so to reconsider before starting a DRV (besides, American Idol will be on momentarily...). And again, if you hopefully do reconsider, I would certainly appreciate it. Thank you. Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 00:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A.N. asked my opinion, and I think the best way to resolve this is by a compromise. Since it is well established at the RS noticeboard in many discussions that the facts of a plot can be taken from the work itself, even if it was not well sourced enough to show notability ,there is no reason to prevent restoring the history and changing to a redirect. And even if you think it actually unsourced even so, there is no rule against having unsourced content in undisplayed versions of an article, or behind a redirect. We would not do it for copyvio or libel, but this is nothing of the sort. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how that would be a compromise. However normally when someone asks me for a copy of a deleted article I do provide it, so User:A Nobody/Snake Mountain is my solution. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like a copy of my article, treatment of lung cancer. Thank you. Immunize ( talk) 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the log, this was deleted as unambiguous copyright infringement. As such I can't provide you with a copy of it. We can't have copyright violations anywhere on Wikipedia, even in user space. If you think the initial finding was incorrect, you should discuss the matter with the deleting admin User:TimVickers. If that doesn't work out you could pursue a deletion review, but if it really was a copyvio it's not going to be undeleted. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My plan for this article was to change the article enough that it was no longer a copyvio, and then move it into the article space. Immunize ( talk) 18:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to change it so it's not a copyvio before posting it anywhere on Wikipedia. I see from your talk page that this has already been explained to you multiple times in the past. This is one of the most serious offenses you can make on Wikipedia as it exposes the project to legal risk, and it is one of the few things that is absolutely not negotiable. You need to understand and abide by it if you wish to continue contributing here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You recently blocked User:Jake9624 for 72hrs for persistent vandalism. Wouldn't an indef block be more appropriate for what seems to be (from the point of a humble rollbacker) a vandalism only account. Thanks! Acather96 ( talk) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally I like to give them a chance to learn from their mistakes. Their editing history is very brief, so "persistent" may be an overstatement. One single future act of vandalism after this block expires would certainly be sufficient to merit an indef block. Usually, they just go away when blocked, but some return to vandalize again, and every once in a while we are lucky enough to actually get through to a vandal and they reform and become good contributors. If I have to issue two blocks instead of one to find out which of these three paths they will take I think it's worth the effort. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here, have a cheeseburger:

Acather96 ( talk) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was actually just thinking of making bacon cheeseburgers for lunch since I happen to have everything on hand for once. Thanks! Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the full protect. Things have been getting hectic, not just the content dispute, but also IPs adding the name of the trainer, something consensus has said is inappropriate. This handles both issues. Thanks again. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• It seems you missed a few points in my above message,mainly about being brief and pursuing dispute resolution. Click here for a listing of the various venues for dispute resolution available to you. I don't intend for my talk page to be the venue where this is sorted out. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your work and your efforts. All the best in your life.

Maria 64.134.69.162 ( talk) 20:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

While you're complaining about me not showing enough good faith, you sure haven't gone out of your way to show me any. I explained why I was suspicious. He has been around here long enough to not mark those edits as minor, repeatedly. Then I came to ANI and ASKED FOR A SECOND OPINION. But you have griped about it enough, haven't you? You make it sound like I'm there demanding he be banned for life. I wrote him a note, explained my reasoning and then came and asked what others thought. So I don't know where you get off with this "going straight for the pitchforks" crap and the repeated complaining. Show me where you've assumed the least bit of good faith towards me. Oh wait, you haven't. Niteshift36 ( talk) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say at any point that you were acting maliciously, you just jumped the gun and went straight to the drama board before attempting to discuss the matter one-on-one with Omni. Never assume malice when ignorance will suffice, it seems likely that Omni didn't know that using preferences to mark all edits as minor is frowned upon. Frankly I don't know why we have that as an option at all, it seems to cause a lot of problems like this. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: I've begun a discussion of the wider issue here [16]. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• You did imply that I acted maliciously and made a big deal about it more than once. I asked for a second opinion. That's all. You talk about "causing problems like this", except there was no problem caused by posting at ANI and asking for input. I could see your attitude if I was there demanding a block or something. I asked for input. The "drama" didn't start until you started telling me how wrong I am for even asking the question. Should I have done it on some obscure talk page? As it turns out, the whole matter DID need admin involvement, since the image was a copyvio and it got deleted. So maybe I'm not so wrong for going to the ANI. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar check: Shouldn't that be, "Does as I says, and not as I does"? :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check: why are we still talking about this? Let me try again to make my point clear. You should try discussing a matter directly with a user before going to ANI. If the only problem was with the copyright status of the image (not mentioned at all in your original post) we have speedy deletion and discussion of possibly unfree files for that. I really don't see what is to be gained by continuing to discuss this matter. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice close on this discussion. How long did it take you to go through it all and determine the outcome?--~ TPW stands for ^{(trade passing words?)} or _{Transparent Proof of Writing} 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I spent about twenty five minutes reading everything, even the stuff that didn't make any sense, then maybe another five or ten evaluating the various arguments, and a few more to write up the close. I'm not at all busy today so it was a nice mid-morning diversion actually. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to nominate the Department of fun for deletion at the miscellany for deletion page, failed, and then tried again, and it still is not working. Please help. Immunize ( talk) 21:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(replied on user's talk page) Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article extensively! I did the Google News search for "ConocoPhillips Alaska" solely, but I guess in a lot of media in Alaska it is simply referred to as "ConocoPhillips" - BTW, is Anchorage convenient to where you are? The article needs a photo of the ConocoPhillips HQ in Anchorage, so if weather permits, and you are willing to do it, it would be great if you could fulfill the request! WhisperToMe ( talk) 12:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but I live in the Kachemak Bay area, Anchorage s about a four hour drive from here. I may be going there within a month or so though and I've been making a list of things up there and along the way that I can snap pictures of. Google is an awesome tool, but it doesn't seem to pick up APRN stories, which is where I get a lot of my local news. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! If you want, when you go to Anchorage, you could also take photos of the headquarters of the airlines headquartered in Anchorage ( Alaska Central Express, Era Aviation, Hageland Aviation Services, and PenAir) - the buildings are around Anchorage Airport. WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I could probably do that, but if I disappear afterwards I expect you to contact Homeland Security and explain to them why I was taking pictures at the airport. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Under most circumstances it should be okay to take photos at airports. I uploaded a shot of the Air France HQ at CDG recently, and I've uploaded several airport shots at George Bush Intercontinental Airport. I think the only places not okay are those where one is not allowed to enter. WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I was just kidding, although you never know what TSA is going to do. I got yelled at once at our local airport because I misunderstood some directions and drove my car across the end of the runway, and I actually know a guy who got a DUI at the Seldovia airport because he and his girlfriend were driving up and down the runway as fast as they could while drinking whiskey at 3AM. I'll try to avoid doing anything that stupid in Anchorage. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never been to Alaska before, so it would be interesting to see the rural Alaska airports. It seems very odd that someone could just drive down the runway like that!

One more thing: I found Alaska Airlines also has offices at Anchorage Airport - the address is here: http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/company/csr/as-foundation.asp - I google map checked and found that the building does have Alaska Airlines logos on it.

When it comes time for your trip, bon voyage :) - Hopefully the TSA will be fine with the photography!

WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'm slammed as the eviialllllll deletionist and blocker-off. I just don't see what's so horrible about a magical hobo. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither did I. There was one report I said didn't merit a block, as the name only hinted at a company name and didn't spell it out, and you blocked them a moment later. Then I put a softblock on a spam name that hadn't made any edits directly promoting the entity their name represented, and you came along and changed it to a hardblock. Minor things, really, but it makes a guy feel like their decisions are meaningless when they are so casually overridden. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, didn't mean to be so brusque. Which two do you mean? (I'll admit I'm a bit tougher when the edits and the name make it clear what the name means; but perhaps I should be using a different block template. (BTW, leaving the lab now; may not be back on until sometime Monday.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The first one I chalked up to you probably not seeing my comment at UAA, I know I sometimes have lots of tabs open at once when trying to clear out reports, and it was a borderline case anyway. I soft blocked User:Williams+Asti. Their name probably does represent the real world organization of the same name, but there didn't seem to be a direct correlation with their edits, so I gave them the old "pick a new username" block, which you then turned into a spam hardblock one minute later. And now they've got conflicting block messages on their talk page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me protect the wiki page of Evan Bourne? it's been vandalized too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugiohmike2001 ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there are enough sources to write about BP's Alaska subsidiary? (Its website is alaska.bp.com ) - If there are, it would be interesting. At some point I'll look at the sources that you used for ConocoPhillips Alaska and I'll see if I can write one about the BP subsidiary too... WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I really do not understand why it is hard to beleive i have taken the pictures myself, do you want proof? do you want me to send you all the pictures in an email or somthing, do you want to know the make of my camera and the location in which i took each picture. Search everywhere on the internet i assure you you will not find them, i have taken them myself. I really do not understand how anyone can ever post anything on here without it being removed. On here it seems like you HAVE to use copyrighted images, and people have no other choice. Those images are mine. So now what am i supposed to do? I have unfairly been blocked for somthing i have not done!!!! This is ridiculous!!! I now have an un-finished article!!! Who else can i speak to about unblocking my images and proving the TRUTH? Signed Smiless--xo ~~Smiless-xo~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiless--xo ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not blocked, as is evident by the fact that you just made this post. But your confirmed user status has been rightly revoked for uploading images with no licensing information. I'll be honest with you, I don't believe you took the product shots such as File:Nubianjak3.jpg. Actually I know you didn't. I found it here [17] quite easily, along with several other images you claim to have made yourself. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And I just found that you even claim that you are the creator and copyright holder of the logo of Nubian Jak, directly contradicting the copyright notice on their website. Did you also want to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge which you built and own? Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(reposting comment user removed while I was still writing my reply. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC))I don't understand what you want from me, nubian jak .com is our website, that is our website and our picture, i havent just taken it from there, please email info@nubianjak.com to confirm this, even write to them, they will 100% confirm, i work for the company nubian jak and these are our images, i can email from the actual email address to prove this, i havnt taken the image form the website that is already our image i took that myself, many for the images look professional because they have been photoshopped onto a green background, lightend, tinted etc, its not just been done form a camera phone, it has been taken with a real quality camera, just because it looks professional doesn't mean i have not taken it? I really do not know any other way to prove this other than to email the company direct and anyone will tell you.

I already left this link on your talk page, but I'll give it to you again CLICK HERE for information on donating copyrighted materials, which is what any image that is posted on the Nubian Jak website is, to Wikipedia. And you did outright lie when you said I could search anywhere on the internet and I would not find these pictures, as you have now admitted they are in fact used on a copyrighted website. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi sorry i didnt know how to reply to your last post, so i made a new section, do i just click edit? I dont know what you want from me in regards to the pictures, because those really are my images, nubian jak . com is the company i work for and i have taken those images, we put the images up on that website and now want to use them for wikipedia. Just because they look professional and not look like camera phone quality doesnt mean i did not take them, i have a decent camera and have photopshopped most of the images to look better changing background etc? i have not just taken the images from the website, they are my images, you can email the company and they will confirm this 100% info@nubianjak.com i really do not know what else to say about this, other than if you contact or write to them they will tell you, or do wikipedia perhaps have an email address? i really do find this a very hard and distressing proccess, just making a simple article can cause so much problems!!! i'm sorry but there must be some way tyo prove this, who else could i speak to? and what can be done about this? because i really do need to finish the article, thanks signed smiless--xo ~~Smiless-xo~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiless--xo ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Already replied above. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

okay i will see what i can do about this thanks for your help, signed smiless--xo

- FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Really,what grounds are they "absured"? Bolegash ( talk) 23:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim that these users are bots and not human editors. What is that based on? And please don't answer that here since you've chosen to take this to ANI. Answer it there will it will make a difference. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, on the page protection request page, you gave a reason for not semi-protecting the Dan Hardy article. I would like to point you in the direction of that page again, in case you've had the chance to read my response. The Hardy page is being littered with vandalism and non-neutral statements that have been a pain to reverse. Could you possibly take a look at the edits I've quoted and maybe give me an explanation if you still think it's not worth a page protection. Thanks. Paralympiakos ( talk) 23:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually if a few days go by with no vandalism we consider the article "reset" so to speak. That happened in this case with no edits between the 26th and the 1st. There have been three reversions since then. One was certainly vandalism, one was a changing of some stats in the infobox, and one was an insertion of some POV statements. All were caught and reverted very quickly, which is another factor considered in evaluating protection requests. If it keeps up like that for a few more days, request protection again and it will probably be granted. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, cant you see that this AfD is ignorance-driven, aggravated by failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Also, see the comment by Lechatjaune, just above my vote, that all those shrines are listed in that source, and see the (now deleted) article, where I RS sourced several shrines. I believe your closure argument is a little hasty. Check this GBooks for "shinto shrines brazil" [18] which returns 700+ hits. Although I could't care less about Shinto in general, and specifically if there are shrines in Brazil or not, and I hate to waste my time on this darn Wikipedia crap, it begins to stir principal values. There is no deadline! and failure to look for sources is no valid reason to delete bona-fide articles. Please relist and let me waste some more time forwarding additional arguments. Power.corrupts ( talk) 10:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't care, and you think it's crap and a waste of time, but you'd like me to please relist it because it offends your values to see it closed as delete? I think I'll pass, I'm not interested in the never ending deletionists-vs-inclusionists feuds. If you feel strongly my decision was in error you can take it to WP:DRV. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you so wish, ok. Please userfy for me to examine content and prepare the case. Power.corrupts ( talk) 09:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Power.corrupts/List of Shinto shrines in Brazil. I would add that the only difference between the original and the deleted version is the addition of sources. Not one single word of actual content was added. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I dont get your comment about content? Your closure deletion rationale was it was not verifiable, my objection was that there are three RS in the article, refuting that rationale. Do we misunderstand each other? Power.corrupts ( talk) 11:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I've always felt that adding sources without actually making any changes to an article is sort of an empty gesture. I suppose it could be argued that it's different for a list, but my point was that there seems little to say about the subject, being that the list was just a list of redlinks, and it is somewhat doubtful that the shrines are notable unto themselves so a list of nonexistent articles about which nothing is really said is not much of a loss for Wikipedia. But the closure of the afd is more about the result of the debate than what I happen to think about the subject. I find myself wondering if a more general article like Shinto in Brazil or Shintoism in Brazil (not sure which of those would be correct) could be made that would actually be of some use to our readers.I haven't really checked the sources, and really nine shrines in a country with a population 190 million would seem to indicate that it's not a widely adhered to religion, but it seems a better starting point than just a bare list of shrines. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Empty gesture? - if articles are up for deletion for lack of sources, spending some time identifying and adding sources is no small contribution. Not that I don't understand you, I prefer good content too. But the reality of Wikipedia is that most articles are work in progress, waiting for some volunteer to pass by and contribute. It's extreme incrementalism in practice, and I'm surprised that it works at all. We cannot delete stuff merely because it's currently in a bad shape, also codified in WP:PRESERVE. For this system to work, I insist, there is no deadline! North Asia was a stub for almost five years before an interested editor passed by, despite it is major geographical region of the world. It's imperative that we attempt to look for sources before articles are deleted as unsourceable. There is no evidence that this was attempted for this AfD. Nor for the AfDs for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shinto shrines in Canada and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shinto shrines in the Netherlands for that matter (please userfy) which also were also deleted on mostly technical grounds after shallow reasoning. These piecemeal and somewhat myopic deletion activities lead to an overall loss of content (basically the reason why I'm here at your page). I agree that merging the stuff into an article Shinto(ism?) outside Japan could be a good idea, only problem is that I have no knowledge of Shinto whatsoever, and for that reason a more narrow Shinto shrines outside Japan would be less time consuming. You know what, instead adding my keystrokes here, I'll show you what I mean at User:Power.corrupts/Shinto shrines outside Japan. best Power.corrupts ( talk) 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Whew, did it, and exhausted my interest. To me, it's quite obvious that it is more complex than a case of nine shrines in Brazil. Comments? Power.corrupts ( talk) 21:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

NerdyScienceDude :) ( ✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 13:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All I was looking for is a quick response. If you want to ignore me, simply remove this from your page. Just wanted to make sure you knew I had these two doppelganger accounts, this and Paragon of Night Skies (I used this one once about a week ago to fix some stupid vandalism on the Congo page, and nothing else, as I don't want to be seen as evading my block). Also, I want to know if you think it's a good idea for me to create a new account that can't be traced to my original, or what I should do otherwise to cause the least amount of disruption. Thank you for your time. My apologies for the disruption I've already caused. Paragon of Arctic Winter Night ( talk) 04:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I should think it was obvious that if you didn't want to be seen as evading your block you shouldn't be using block-evading sock accounts with very similar names and then pointing it out. Since this was apparently not obvious to you I have gone ahead and blocked those accounts. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox. Because you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard ( talk) 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

might i have the previously deleted version of Twin (windowing system) restored in my user space, as advised by a fellow on my talk page at User talk:Jerome Charles Potts#Twin (windowing system), please ? In case you don't go read the blurb on my talk page, what happened is that i recently created the said article which had been previously deleted; i'd like to see the original version, to possibly salvage stuff from it. (I selected you from the list at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles because of Zaphod.) Thanks in advance ? -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 07:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done User:Jerome Charles Potts/Twin (windowing system). Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! -- Jerome Potts ( talk) 05:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't kmweber still banned from WP space? I noticed you wished for a comment from him on the MfD about his userpage. Gigs ( talk) 02:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently so, it's listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions but it seems like pages in his user space would be a common sense exception. Looks like he violated the topic ban last week and nobody noticed. [19] Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, just found a rather long ANI thread on the subject. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I couple weeks ago you deleted Chimes Aviation Academy due to an AfD. I certianly don't disagree with your close, but believe the article is salvageable. Rather than simply userifying it myself, I wanted to make sure you wouldn't have a problem with that first.

Thanks, ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi its gobbleswoggler here. i read your message that i thought was a bit harsh but anyway i just wondered if you would consider helping me with more advanced things on wikipedia? please consider this. thanks Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what would you like to know? I can tell you that there a few basic things that most users want to see in an RFA candidate. Some experience with the various deletion processes is valued, and I don't see any participation in deletion discussions in your edit history. Experience in other admin areas is also something looked for, such as reporting vandals or page protections. I see you have just requested rollback, that is a good starting point, you may also want to activate WP:TWINKLE or WP:HUGGLE which are tools that automate several complicated processes for you. Experience with dispute resolution is also valued, and can be gained by providing third opinions or participating in requests for comment or Wikiquette alerts. Also, and I can't stress this enough, be patient. Don't be in such a hurry to become an admin, build up some experience, look for feedback through editor review or other users before submitting another RFA. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of my students are working on an article as part of a classroom assignment, and you posted a confrontational note on the article talk page with WRONG written in capital letters. They are aware of the WP:OWN policy, and are trying to work out an article that can be posted. It is unhelpful of you to be so confrontational to newbies when they are trying to be cooperative. Please see Wikipedia:Civility etc. They are trying to create their first article. I'd appreciate some helpfulness here. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Try to take the remark in the context and spirit in which it was made. I was replying to the statement just above it which attempted to restrict who could edit the article. That reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works, and it's important for users to understand right off the bat that it does not work that way. I also followed up on that remark by posting to the talk pages of the two users [20] [21] informing them of how to create draft articles in their user space. Anyone who tries to own an article on Wikipedia needs to have it explained to them in no uncertain terms that it just doesn't work that way. I don't believe I was confrontational, just firm, and I did try to point them in the right direction. For the record I think it's great that you are using Wikipedia as a teaching tool, there is a lot of potential benefit to the project and we can always use more eager content contributors. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Your remark wouldn't have mattered to me that much, but they are newbies and quite unsure of themselves re this project. I've seen your follow up and it will be helpful. There is no reason not to use WP as a teaching/learning tool. Students will use it, and these students are bright, so I hope they will learn to contribute as well as take. Please feel free to follow up with them and offer constructive suggestions. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox! I'm contacting you because I noticed you were the last admin to deny this troublesome IP's unblock request, but "it" is at it again, and I have inquired what his motives are here (I expect the page to be blanked, however). My question is simple: can't I remove this POV tag as vandalism, since the IP is just running around tagging a narrow scope of articles with no discussion (and has quite a history of this)? Other editors (including myself) are actually trying to improve this article, and I can't see this IP's tag as "genuine" or in good faith. Thank you! Doc9871 ( talk) 07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on their talk page. This is certainly moving into the realm of disruptive behavior, and it's fairly pointless to label a page as having a disputed POV if you don't bother explaining what the specific objection is. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Methinks it's "tag abuse", and the articles he tags all seem to have a similar theme (hit-and-run POV pushing itself?). Cheers! :> Doc9871 ( talk) 08:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping track 72.53.86.52's agenda-pushing drive-by taggings and disruptive editing behavior. Apparently they prefer manufacturing controversy to playing by the editing rules. AtticusX ( talk) 08:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, this case is over. Now what do I do? Remove the tag? Cheers, -- Darwinius ( talk) 05:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and it's usually a good idea to leave a link to the discussion in your edit summary while your at it. I went ahead and took care of it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 05:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Darwinius ( talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, I requested a speedy deletion of the above page found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MMACKNIGHT/Pugwash,Irish_band under db-g2. Could you let me know the reasons you reverted it back to 'Under construction'?

I'm creating the same subject's Wikipedia entry at the following address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugwash_(band). I feel that as the page under construction by MMACKNIGHT has not been touched in almost two years, contains very little information (some of it innaccurate), is very poorly written and contains no references, it is merely taking up space on Wikipedia and is a very strong candidate for deletion. Google is directing internet users to the MMACKNIGHT page and, as I am carrying out the construction of a page for the same subject, I feel they would be better served by being directed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugwash_(band).

Regards, -- Djangology99 ( talk) 11:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You tagged it as a test page. I don't see how it qualifies as one, it seems to be an attempt at an encyclopedic article, not just a test. I don't believe it meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Consider WP:MFD instead. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

JokerXtreme ( talk) 13:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox ( talk · contribs), I would like a copy of the deleted list List of causes of fever that was deleted per AfD discussion. Thank you. Immunize ( talk) 16:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done User:Immunize/List of causes of fever. You seem to be acquiring quite a few such subpages. There was a fairly strong consensus to delete this list, if you aren't able to overcome the issues identified at the AFD, it could be deleted from your userspace via the WP:MFD process. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You can delete user subpages? By the way, I do not intend to move this article back into the article space. Immunize ( talk) 00:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, then what was the point of userfying it for you? The point is supposed to be that you believe it could be an article, or provide content for an article, not just a collection of pages you would rather hadn't been deleted. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well-maybe I will move it back into the article space, but it will be quite a challenge. Immunize ( talk) 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:IBen/TB mono ( talk) 23:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am going to guess that my mistake with 24.233.217.153 ( talk · contribs · block user) was blocking with {{ anonblock}} from the pulldown menu and then tagging the user page {{ sockpuppet|GayleNuffer}}, when I should have blocked using the notation {{ ipsock|GayleNuffer}}? Since none of Gayle's socks (either IP or registered) have ever requested an unblock before, I foolishly just took the "easy" route.

For an example of Gayle's obsession, see the edit history of Jack Swigert; virtually every reverted edit in the past five months was either an IP or "new account" used by Gayle. The list of socks themselves is as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GayleNuffer.

Thank you, — Kralizec! ( talk) 00:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was actually referring to FisherQueen's unblock decline, in which she told the user they could still create an account if they wished. The log is quite clear (now that I've had my coffee) that account creation was blocked. So, was it a mistake for me to go ahead and lower to a soft block? Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that was my mistake. I meant to do an anonblock, but screwed that up too. — Kralizec! ( talk) 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we delete this edit? While untrue this could have damaging effects to me in my real life and I would prefer to be safe then sory then let something like this just stick around. [ [22]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 01:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this has been dealt with , the revision is removed from public view. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. I have a quick question for clarification. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breaking Back as 'redirect'. I assume that this is because a picture and part of the first sentence from Breaking back were moved to Mongol Empire; am I correct in this assumption? Is it your opinion that the redirect is necessary to preserve edit history? Do you have an opinion on Breaking Back (note capital letter)? Cnilep ( talk) 16:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more about helping users find content than preserving the edit history. Redirects are more or less free and if one help a user find what they were looking for just one time then it was worth creating. Typing in either capitalization will redirect the user to the same place. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for the clarification. Cnilep ( talk) 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI. – xeno ^talk 19:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you erred in deleting the speedy tag on Jhames Labrador, for the reasons I set out on the talk page; I restored the tag. I'm mostly an inclusionist, and would be pleased to be wrong about this, hence I'm bringing it to your attention to give you an opportunity to re-delete the tag if I am wrong. TJRC ( talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are correct. The ins and outs of crossover between the two licenses get blurry sometimes, I was not aware of that deadline. Good work finding it, too bad that left no choice bu to delete it, but maybe a new article could be worked up that doesn't infringe. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Beeblebrox. I see you blocked 'em for edit warring. I took the content he'd added as vandalism. I'm I just ignorant of Kermit? It looked like rubbish to me. IF I'm right, I'd before indef blocking 'em. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not positive, I know there has been a major PR push lately because they just released The Muppet Show on DVD, and they have been making a lot of tv appearances, but it's not too likely that Miss Piggy really did have an affair with Bill Gates. Hopefully this will just be the end of it but if they keep it up after the block expires I would be more than willing to go for the indef block. Beeblebrox ( talk) 05:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I received a message that says that I have new messages on your talk page, but I can't find them. Minaker ( talk) 01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is rather busy lately, the conversation is now at User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 14#self-requested blocks. Beeblebrox ( talk) 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On what basis would you have blocked participants in an entirely civil discussion about the content of an article? Please review and correct your actions. bd2412 T 02:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I protected the article from editing in response to an edit war, I didn't block any of the participants. Despite your claims on the talk page there was in fact an edit war occurring that had gone way beyond 3 reversions. Looking at the edit history from the period before the protection, I count twelve reversions by Sinistral and off2riorob. If that's not an edit war, what is? Beeblebrox ( talk) 07:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then the only bad actor was Sinistral - but the matter was under control in the discussion. bd2412 T 12:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems we have different understandings of what constitutes edit warring. It is not possible for an edit war to involve only one user, by definition it involves at least two users, whose edits are "correct" is not relevant unless one user is a blatant vandal whose interest is clearly to harm Wikipedia. That's not what I see here, I see one user repeatedly placing controversial information into an article, and another user repeatedly reverting it. Yes, there was a discussion, but there was also an edit war. The idea of the protection is to make sure the discussion continues without the edit war. If the discussion has come to a conclusion and agreement has been reached on whether the disputed information should be included, then it would be appropriate to unprotect the article before the protection expires. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I came late to the exchange and didn't realize it had gone on to that extent, so I mistook your comment as applying to my exchange with off2riorob. I sincerely apologize for my error. bd2412 T 23:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your apology is of course accepted, it's always nice to meet an admin who can admit to a mistake. I'm relieved to find our understanding of edit warring is not so divergent as it appeared. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:22, 16 March 2010 (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.