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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Blanked this, as it really did amount to a tangent (as opposed to what I seem to be accused of filling articles with). Moved it to User:RadioKAOS/Sandbox/Philosophy in the hopes that I can one day turn it into a coherent essay on the positive and negative aspects of one's individual motivations for doing this. Let's just say that a lot of users tend to validate the criticisms of those who believe that this is just a form of video gaming for autistic teenagers. RadioKAOS ( talk) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Shall this article be broader right now? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please place a copy here for me User:Morning277/sandbox/DASSCH. -- Morning277 ( talk) 20:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Per your closing-ish note on the AN discussion on unblock policy, I have changed the policy to reflect that consensus, noting "Any user may discuss or comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the review (either declining or unblocking).". Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, just a note to let you know that I've moved your question here. Regards -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
At WP:RFPP, you indicated that you blocked the users responsible for the edit warring. I saw the request, but ended up acting as an editor rather than an admin. The person you blocked User:Hanckock is only half of the problem, and technically the better half, in that at least the name he was putting was the one used in newspapers (not that he was sourcing them, mind you, but at least it was correct). The IP you blocked, however, is the one adding some completely random name, possibly based on some sort of "birth record look up website" which definitely doesn't meet WP:RS. I think you can get the IP on a 82.132.249.0/26 rangeblock (only 64 users); alternatively, semi-protection on the article would work (although I think I see productive IP edits in the past). Qwyrxian ( talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
...since I couldn't go back to sleep after being woken up by my roommate's boyfriend for no reason. Picture a cross between John Belushi's character Ron Decline from All You Need Is Cash, and the drunk guys that Bob and Mark (of KWHL fame) portray in that bit which ends with "Hey Joe Beer. When you can't afford Natural Ice.", and you get an idea of what I have to put up with there.
Anyway, I had a concern for quite some time, and I was looking for an individual admin's opinion before I took this question further. I see something come across my watchlist a little too often for my comfort. Namely, an article will see an edit or series of edits by an IP, but one which acts just like an experienced Wikipedia editor, as opposed to the usual sort of clueless newbie edits you normally come to expect from IP users. Perhaps not coincidentally, these edits will result in large portions of the article in question being gutted, or the tone or context of the article will suddenly take a drastic turn. The actual question is this: would an editor have to go to probably more trouble than it's worth to document these changes in order for there to be a sockpuppet investigation, or is this the sort of thing that any admins are paying attention to? I have a lot of articles on my watchlist that I suspect few other editors watch, and therefore they appear to be easy targets for this sort of thing. I see that there is a sockpuppet noticeboard, but I don't know if I want to take on more tasks which may achieve only negligible results. I already have enough on my plate on here, not to mention the real world. Anyway, let me know.
While not the reason I'm bringing this up, I pretty much gave up on improving Mr. Whitekeys after all the vandalism, and everyone throwing up the BLP shield as validating the notion of pushing the article more in the direction of subtle promotion rather than a proper biographical article. That problem doesn't seem to be limited to that article; I see that in any number of biography articles of people of marginal notability. The pro wrestling version of WP:NOT would be "Wikipedia is not a Baron Von Raschke promo", yet "dat is all dat da people need to know" manifests itself more often than is necessary. Getting back to Whitekeys, I would think the fundamental issue there is this: he can give his real name and date of birth to an ADN reporter, and the ADN can publish it in an article ( link here), yet it's a BLP violation or crime against humanity to repeat that information on Wikipedia? Whether or not it was Whitekeys himself who vandalized the article, one thing is for certain: the person is savvy enough about the Internet to realize the difference between that information being buried in the lifestyle section of a Sunday newspaper, and being featured front and center in a Wikipedia article. Judging from his recent activities, an update would be helpful. There is also the issue of his departure from KTUU, which is another can of worms. The whitewashing of details concerning Schurz Communications taking over the station and replacing a number of the station's longtime staff and management, also "due to BLP concerns," seems suspicious to me because it's too coincidental with the current article reading like a commercial for Schurz. RadioKAOS ( talk) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Remember closing the discussion at Sean Combs? It's rolled on, anyway. See:
Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 07:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi!, this is my account allowed by the WP:COMPROMISED
Please, can you look at the unblock request one more time. It's not about the message you think. I explained everything the best way I can at my talk page. When I was explaining the whole thing there was a misudnerstanding that someone removed some message in order to hide it from me. It's not that. The message I'm talking about was never removed and you may see it on my talk page. The whole thing is messed up. Can you please read my explanation in detail. Thx -- FuchsWusten ( talk) 02:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think my IP address is constantly changing. So, sometime It shows that Your IP is blocked by checkuser. This glitch is very annoying. Can you help me in this matter ? GiantBluePanda ( talk) 21:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Noted your contributions to the special education article (e.g. correcting the wrong view that LD is diagnosed as a medical condition) but now it is heading towards an edit war. Not sure if it is possible to talk sense into the two editors who claim (and have, as history shows for some time back and forth on this article) that it is biased. As someone who has worked on it (and I think education articles need more attention anyway) I'd like to avoid and edit war. I'm hesistant to work on it, as there has been reverting by these people to anyone they see as biased. Not sure what you can do but since you are an admin I thought it best to get perspective here. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Some information in this article about the graduation at the age of 15 from sources [ [1]], [ [2]], and [ [3]]. Also i see no support in regards to him learning languages and cant find exactly where in the history it was added. Seems to be a fabrication based upon the sources list.(posting here as i have no honest idea how to edit a protected page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkytabby ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. Just curious of the sudden blocking of both accounts, one of which I had just given Rollback to as a legitimate alternate account. I am aware of the bit of drama that was stirred up over the whole cabel thing awhile ago, but didn't seem pertinent to wanting to have the right transferred to a "public" account. I saw he was semi-retired, rather than plain retired, so I granted it. I wouldn't had if it was retired as it wouldn't have been an Alternate, but rather a new account. Did I miss something big? Kindly Calmer Waters 03:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox. You indef blocked Jeffwang but left a temporary notice on his talk page. I don't know which one is a mistake, but you might want to clarify that. Thanks! Ryan Vesey 04:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a request for an account with the user name Beberox. It does appear to be a fairly common user name out there on the internet. It doesn't have enough similarity for it to automatically have picked your user name as a conflict but it did remind me of you. So i though to ask if you think it might be seen as impersonating you or if you would be ok with it. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 07:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For blocking Jeffwang. Electric Catfish 11:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC) |
Can you please unlock the page. We have an agreement. -- Wustenfuchs 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Howdy Beeblebrox. Are you familiar with the 'bigdelete' permission? I've been toying with the idea of proposing moving that permission from a meta-only function (i.e. stewards) to an en-wiki function, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. My thinking was that this should be added to the oversight group, but I didn't want to sign you guys up for extra work if you didn't want it. I suppose it could just as easily be a 'crat function or an entirely separate user right (or even just bundled into the standard admin package), but it seemed like a more natural fit for the oversighters since that involves a different type of "super-deletion". Thoughts? 28bytes ( talk) 03:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Switch off internet in case of political dissent.jpg | The defender of freedom of expression on the internet barnstar |
I am awarding you this barnstar for your comment, "We can't led Assad decide who is allowed to edit here." Thank you Beeblebrox Ryan Vesey 03:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hi beeblebrox. You closed this rfc. Now a question has arisen whether this edit is in accordance with your close. Could you please take a look and clarify. Perhaps User_talk:RegentsPark#Can_you or on the article talk page. Thanks. -- regentspark ( comment) 01:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the scope of this article without merging. I just moved portions. Is that okay? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You might also consider the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus. -- Amble ( talk) 23:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
We'll have these Metropolitan area articles for some 50 + cities in India. — Vensatry (Ping me) 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi :-) thank you for putting yourself forward for the FDC. I want to draw your attention to the list of questions that people can answer to help the Board of Trustees learn more about the people volunteering for the committee. [5] Look forward to seeing your answers. Sydney Poore/-- FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I made a minor amendment to your closing statement in the YRC RFC to clarify one word which I felt could have given rise to a misunderstanding about the timeframes [6]. Hope this is OK with you. Prioryman ( talk) 07:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I already thanked you, but I just wanted to make sure.
Ahem...
Thank you for participating in my RfA. Although you abstained, I appreciate your sentiments and I hope I'll continue to see your name pop up around Wikipedia.
Take care. =) Kurtis ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I'm not at all familiar with Wikipedia administration, so perhaps you could explain to me why you closed this discussion. I don't see consensus. I thought we were making good progress before Naapple declared "This conversation has gone on long enough," and, "The End." -- Nstrauss ( talk) 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I've opened a new AN/I discussion here. Sorry to keep pestering you on this issue; I wish there was a less painful way to do this. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for clarifying. I may have made similar mistakes a few times more. However, I will be more cautious. Cheers!-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for locking the CBS Records article. This incarnation of CBS Records is not related to the former CBS Records entities which changed their names to Columbia Records regarding the label and Sony Music Entertainment regarding the company. In 1988, CBS sold CBS Records to the Sony Corporation and CBS gave Sony only a temporary license on the CBS name which forced the name changes and eventually allowed CBS's parent company CBS Corporation to form a new CBS Records in 2006. The dispute has to do with the insertion of too much material which actually belong in either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Please re-lock the CBS Records article as Norton changed it back BEFORE the dispute was settled. I have a compromise solution of creating a new article called "CBS Records International" regarding the international arm of the former CBS Records (now Sony Music) that was founded in 1962. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 10:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again, Russ. Is there a way to keep the CBS Records article a DAB page permanently? Thank you. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
How do we start a WP:ARBCOM case regarding CBS Records? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox. Would you be willing to take a look at this discussion and voice your opinions about it there? We are trying to come up with a resolution. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not possible. I am merely raising the fact that Altfish80 is a sock puppet that was created to attack the page. Thanks, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you haven't seen the post at ANI please take a look. Any objection to me indefinitely blocking him now? IMHO I think I can do this on my own without community approval, but... Dougweller ( talk) 11:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. It appears that User talk:94.12.133.144 may have resumed editing immediately after coming of his IP block. I am tempted to reblock, but I would like your input on this. You may find his recent editing history particularly interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Something you told to Richard Arthur Norton apparently gave him a very wrong impression of what consensus is. See Talk:CBS Records#Disambiguation page vs. CBS Records article, specifically this comment by RAN: "However we set time limits for debate and decision making here at Wikipedia. An administrator gave us three days of lock down to come up with consensus." You've mentioned it to him on ANI, and I appreciate that you did, but could you tell him directly? He still just does not get it.-- SGCM (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#lead:_conservative_leaning_or_independent,User_talk:Beeblebrox#Rasmussen_Reports". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 21:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Not seen that before. A valuable addition to the language! pablo 23:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your Wikipedia help...
Daviddaved 00:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way you can userfy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huá to me? I know it's an old delete but just thought I try. — AjaxSmack 02:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CBS Records". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I wasn't aware that there was already a discussion going on at AN, must have missed that one completely. Would you mind me merging the thread you closed at ANI into the AN discussion? The 1RR proposal would have to get admin approval anyway so why not have a subsection at the relevant AN discussion. De728631 ( talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you put an edit block on the Goodreads article because it was turning into a revision war, and I'm glad you noticed it so soon. I was actually just looking for the process of reporting a revision war. I just wanted to ask if it's possible for you to either revert to my previous copy of the article or to remove the controversy section entirely. I'd originally added it because the controversy had gotten some coverage and it resulted in the changing of several of the rules on the site as far as reviews go. I'd like to keep it in there in as neutral a fashion as possible, but if it's going to just cause drama then I'd just as soon not have it at all. In any case, the current article revision lacks reliable sources and looks to be biased towards the side of the side of the sites that are against the negative reviewers. I don't really have an opinion either way, but I would like it to be more neutral than what it currently is like. Could you compare the two versions and make a decision as to whether it should be changed to my version or otherwise deleted? The current article state is atrocious. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not able to post on Penyulap's talk, but please see this. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC).
Hi. Disappointed to see you closed the discussion (request for moratorium) and suggested a RfC. Perhaps my opening statement wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking for a random admin to just declare "moratorium imposed", I was hoping there could be a bit of discussion by some uninvolved parties (admins and non-admins) and they could come to a consensus on whether a moratorium would be useful. The community has the authority to do this and AN is a central noticeboard, not an admin only area. To suggest a RfC, which would be along the lines of "well, we have this RfC over here where we can't get consensus, so I'd like to have a 30-day discussion (usually longer) to see if we shouldn't move these articles until we get a community consensus on the issue", is pretty ridiculous. Surely it's common sense, but try telling that to those involved. As for AN3, of course no one has technically edit warred (these are all experienced and intelligent editors), and a report there would just end in walls of text with no result. In addition, these editors just need a clear cut warning along the lines of "do this and you will be blocked, whatever your justification", something un-wikilawyerable, and they will stop. I'm WP:INVOLVED and unable to make these calls (plus, as you've noted at AN, it's not really something a single admin should be doing), and of course no uninvolved admins want to wade into the mess (can't blame them). Can you please repoen the AN discussion? P.S. – been meaning to say this for a while, but I thought your close of the Ivory Coast RM was excellent and tough break about the RfB. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 13:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I replied to your suggestion a few days ago. Would you mind having a look and letting me know what you think? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devaraya (Telugu Film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit perplexed by this edit. Was that intended? AllyD ( talk) 18:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! ~~ Ebe 123~~ → report 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you Beeblebrox for reading the riot act over Talk:Crimean Karaites. As one who was trying to figure out what the problem was from WP:DRN I gave up about half way down. Hasteur ( talk) 19:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
I used the talkpage and did not edit war..The issue has been discussed numerously on the talkpage. Thank you-- 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 20:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This page should not have been speedily deleted because... (
In a site that allowed the "Jerusalem UFO incident" page to remain for months without any sources until I came in and had it removed because it was a definite BLATANT HOAX and proved as such many times, the removal of "The Ahihud incident" is not just unfair but insulting, as the article about the ahihud incident, even at its incomplete state, had much more valid information in it the many other articled related to the subject, and the incident itself despite being debated over for almost 20 years has never once been proved to be a hoax, and actually proved not to be the product of a hoax, not once but twice, once by a government institute and once by a highly regarded research university. because of these reasons i will request the article deletion to be undone as soon as possible, so i may amend it to fit all wikipedia standards.) -- The truth is around here ( talk) 04:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The majority of the information written in the article about the circumstances of the event itself was not sourced in the entities who investigated the event, but was reported by each of the two dozen witnesses who were present in the event including Ziona damti, the female resident that first encountered the scene and Chief Superintenden Danny Elcoby of the acre police department who made a media appearnece following the incident explaining how things went down once he arrived at the scene (an apearence in can link to) and many other residents that agreed to be interviewed to the news that day, but all of the eyewitness accounts put togeather would still not have the value attributed to them if not for the actual physical remains left at the scene and the unusual conclusions of the two major studies conducted on them. reliable sources can indeed be provided and linked to the article if it was restored, i had recived a message from some editor telling me the article was nominated for deletion three days before, a warning i did not pick up on because as you may have noticed, im completley new to wikipedia editing and decided to get in to this to create the article about the ahihud event, which was in my opinion, quite supprisingly absent from the site (at least in hebrew, considering english mentions of the incident are quite few on the internet, and the fact that it is known in israel, as it occured in the countrys relativly recent history), so if you restore the page i will change the written information to include names of people involved to make it less obscure and change the phrasing to make it more straight forward but skeptic nonetheless. links to the few media mentions of the incident where the same information that was discussed and debated over in media forums by individuals involved can also be provided, along with links to the original documents leaked from the study conudcted on the remains by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine which was the second study to conclude that the findings cannot be the result of a hoax. The truth is around here ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh I got you, well if that's all i need then here is the news report brodcasted at that day in december of 94 about the incident, the lady who speakes first is mrs Ziona damti who first discoverd the findings and the man with the jacket that speakes after her is the police office that was sent to the scene, Chief Superintenden Danny Elcoby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKi4JerDXs ( talk) 03:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.222.212 ( talk)
Thank you, and yes the video is on youtube but was uploaded on the official channel of the channel 2 news network (major channel in israeli television), the opening slide sais "internet news 2", so it's not exactly a repost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth is around here ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you ban User:SCWA Ladies Champion? This user has uploaded countless copyrighted images from WWE and claiming them to be his own work.-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For dealing with User: Billiejeanthriller. I feel a bit dumb for not catching that hoax ;). Electric Catfish 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
There already is
Natural gas in Alaska,
Alaska gas pipeline (which wasn't even tagged for
WP:ALASKA until I took care of it just now) and
Office of the Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects. Only the second one has any relevant history. They had a big pow-wow here about a week ago with
Larry Persily and others. I attended (even though I'm cautious about my real-life identity on here, I'm the guy seated next to
Scott Kawasaki
in this photo), but it was a lot of talk we've all heard before for years decades. Maybe I should have gone to Arizona anyway, since I had the plane ticket. Last winter was ROUGH.
I'm actually rather amazed that I seem to have the ear of local legislators, with the exception of Bob Miller and David Guttenberg. One of those legislators told me that the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce lobbied for a gas pipeline from the North Slope during the mid 1950s, or around the time that exploration was occurring in Umiat. Then again, other chambers of commerce were pushing at around the same time for the Knik Arm Bridge and the road to Nome. It's like we're revisiting a bygone era of boosterism. The political mantra over the past decade has been "good jobs." The fact is, there just aren't enough of those good jobs for the population base we have now. I watched a lot of the legislature this year on Grovel to Grovel for the first time in many years. It seems like we have a government/labor union/oil company axis of evil which is content to take care of its own, with the rest of us fending for ourselves.
I haven't been to Chena Hot Springs in a long, long time, apart from accompanying Japanese tour groups. Basically, issues with the folks who currently run it. I always preferred Circle Hot Springs, but it's been closed for probably a decade now. There's also Melozi Hot Springs, but that's out of the way even for me at present. RadioKAOS ( talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
" loads and loads of ignorant arguments, ethnic/political/religious mudslinging, wildly off-topic rambling postings of all kinds, name calling, trolling"... and those would be its better qualities! -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I googled it before tagging it as a hoax and this is what I found. It provides no indication that the book exists, and therefore, I believe that it is a hoax. Please take another look at it. Thank you, Electric Catfish 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC).
I was wondering if you could merge User:Zac/Sandbox/Liz & Dick to Liz & Dick for me? Thanks. Zac 22:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Could I ask you to look at this and change if and only if necessary. Regards JRPG ( talk) 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Moxy cannot admit that what he believes to be true the admins do not agree with. I lost my patience with him as you can see from the back and forth in the Talk:CBS Records page. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
From one admin to another for your tireless work on AN and other kinds of disputes and problematic areas. It ain't gone unnoticed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC) |
FYI. And FWIW, on a slightly different note regarding NPP, although I am not entirely in favour of creating a right for NPP, I fear that the question may become inevitable when the NewPagesFeed is finally released for general use and has been monitored for a while. The reviewer right (whatever that will be) could be a possible guideline, and might incorporate both if need arises. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:- ) Don 04:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox. I happened to see your comment at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?. Recently User:Arthur Rubin was reported at WP:AN3 by MrX, per WP:AN3#User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:MrX (Result: ) for some reverts that involved mention of SPLC opinions. So far no admin has decided to close the AN3 report. In the effort to nudge things toward closure, I have begun a discussion at User talk:Arthur Rubin#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion. It's my hope that a compromise with Arthur could be found that would allow closing the AN3 report about him. If you have anything to add to the discussion on his talk page it would be fine. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Can you warn this ip: [7]..I am not even sure if all of his vandalisms were undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 03:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I realized that the same discussions were raging on. After thinking about it, I decided that further contributions on my part would amount to beating a dead horse. I saw the announcements for those research accounts. Unfortunately, I'm back to getting my Internet access primarily through the library or through Wi-Fi on my phone. Therefore, it would be a waste of those accounts. Besides, there's a treasure trove of material available at just about any library to anyone willing to spend the time required to find it. For instance, I came across the Pioneers of Alaska's history of Homer the other day. Looking through the 1930s-1950s photos made me realize that Homer hasn't really changed all that much in the years since.
The borough's library director has a column every Monday in the FDNM. His column this week ended with the lament that Alaska is pretty far behind other places in biographical coverage of its people. I talk to a lot of like-minded people on subjects like these, and the attitude is that everyone is waiting around for a grant or a book deal. The ones who have made their living on the sort of thing that you and I and others have done on Wikipedia for free pretty much loathe Wikipedia for that very reason.
That 1964 Milepost I previously referred to mentions that Wasilla was (at the time) well-known as the home of Gerrit "Heinie" Snider, a highly notable person from Wasilla who had the misfortune of being somewhat lost to modern history. I wonder if it's worth mentioning elsewhere or if people would wind up scratching their heads. If Sarah Palin lives on Lake Lucille, she probably lives on part of the Snider homestead. Also, Snider's daughter was mayor of Wasilla when Palin was in junior high. Lots of history that's not being taken into account. Like when I was glancing at the FDNM website, look at the attention given to Coleman Barney versus Richard Frank, and tell me who is the more historically important person. RadioKAOS ( talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Please could you enforce the 'rule' you posted on Talk:Crimean Karaites that "New remarks below old remarks. Don't insert remarks into the middle of a thread." Kaz is inserting comments into the middle of the thread on Talk:Crimean Karaites, [8] and has started doing the same at Talk:Karaim language. [9]-- Toddy1 ( talk) 11:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Why does Toddy1 always do something, then when I copy him he points out how wrong my actions were but never points out what he himself has been doing. Classic straw-man attack. I think it best for me to simply continue to reply where Users are talking to me. But I promise, that if Toddy does what he wants me to do then I will follow him. I am only copying him after-all. Kaz 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd reinforce the Wiki Not A Forum on that TP - the page is a mess in many ways, but there is also waaaay too much discussion between some editors about their personal beliefs/experiences instead of discussing Reliable Sources to improve the article. Thanks. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 02:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Listen thanks for the courtesy blanking but I'd rather have the account renamed. I'm finished with wikipedia and I really don't want any reminders as well as the fact that I want to protect my privacy. The name still comes up despite the page being deleted. Stockprice(temporary) ( talk) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) PS This account is only temporary for the purpose of dealing with my request.
Stockprice(temporary) ( talk) 18:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I read that you took the page under protection, as I understand, against non-consensus moves. Lately I have been the only user who wanted to move that page to: Cebiche. It was not possible manually so I asked admin help. Than I saw that there are several users who opposed a possible move. So I opened a discussion on the RM. (In fact I only added an RfC tag to the discussion I had already opened and nobody had joined by then.) Anyway, after this we will only discuss the RM and at the end of the discussion wait for an admin to close it, in favour or against. Nobody is making a move without consensus. (When I tried to move the article there was no visible controversy -no discussion on the TP- so I never thought doing something arbitrary. Could I make myself clear? All the best. -- E4024 ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Beeblebrox. Have seen your note over at es.wiki and requested the corresponding speedy deletion. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Plip!
For false minnowing. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Beeblebrox. I want you to know that I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment from My76Strat because I believe you are involved in this case and if it is accepted, your input is required. Thank you. 76Strat String da Broke da ( talk) 02:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
I larfed until I cried. My wife thought I was having a stroke. Thank you for brightening up my boring Wikipedia isolation here in this remote village in the jungle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC) |
We see that you have deleted Stone Bond Technologies from Wikipedia with input that the company/product is not significant. Since we are new at the Wiki environment there may have been some missteps in some of our links but this is no reason for deletion. In fact, this seems to be a rather targeted effort as our page was in the review, comment, edit mode within the review structure.
A few facts...
Our software technology is covered by multiple patents. The software dramatically changes the manner in which complex data integrations take place resulting in significant dollar savings for users. The size of a company (44 people) does not denote significance in any way. What a user can accomplish denoted significance. The fact that there has not been much written about the software or company also does not connote significance. I demonstrates the company likely invests in R&D rather than PR.
Finally, if Stone Bond does not qualify then neither do any of the following...
Composite Software Denodo Technologies Oracle - Data Service Integrator Informatica JBOSS - TEIID Data Virtualization OpenLink Software Radiant Logic VirtualWorks Group Adansys
Please contact me directly if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddbrinegar ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI. Thanks! Theo polisme 20:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
After seeing an ANI thread that Kaz had moved this page in spite of the ongoing move request, and in a way designed to prevent moving it back, and after seeing that he is continuing to screw with the formatting of the talk page, I have blocked Kaz indefinitely, and Drmies and I have reverted the page move. You appear to know much better than I what's going on here, so if you think the block was a mistake, please feel free to adjust in whatever way you think best. (FWIW, my thinking is that I don't mean "indefinite" as in "infinite", but "indefinite" as in, "need to convince an admin you'll knock it off"; that's why it wasn't an escalating 2-day or 1-week block) -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you, I am not "downright desperate" to get 12.153.112.21 blocked. I actually would work with him if he would follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia, lose the cocky attitude of his that he knows more than everyone else and tries to be on the same page as everyone and not jump the gun and edit war. Maybe calling his place of work was a little overboard, but when the user continuously vandalized a page, time and time and time again, after warnings not to, after warnings from 2 admins to stop editing, reverting to 2007 information, I felt it was the only way to stop the user. The page is deleted and I am still having to deal with this user. I'm not "downright desperate" to get 12.153.112.21 blocked, but he and Powergate sure seem "downright desperate" to get me blocked and admin approved userspace pages deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Beeblebrox. I am restoring "my" userpages to what I think they ought to be according to WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, over the (unsourced) objections of other editors. I'm sure I would be told cogently and with policy sources if I should be doing anything different. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 23:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In 27th September, one user delete some important informations from Turkish Cypriots article with an argument like "source" wasn't suitable with info and change that part of article with totally Turkish Nationalist perspective info. Today I did try to edit Turkish Cypriots article with using more reliable sources (eg. Governmental infos and research which supported from European Commission) and suitable with the version they deleted and I shared my ideas in Talk Page of article. But after few minutes User:E4024 turned article back to old version with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". And I was wondering in Wikipedia can users decide to choose "better edition" which have nationalist and fictional perspectives and delete versions which "has lots of reliable sources" and objective perspective? Isn't it vandalism? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghuzz ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious to see the post you refer to here, any chance of a link and background if not obvious? FT2 ( Talk | email) 17:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I found this very interesting and well-written, and if I do one day become an admin, something that I could benefit from. I took the liberty of correcting a couple of minor grammar-related errors, but other than those, it was a great read! Automatic Strikeout 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
( talk page stalker), but you already knew that...anyway, it must be the comparatively low level of activity or my deliberate avoidance of certain topics, but I'm utterly amazed that I've yet to be blocked or banned. Especially given my tendency towards uncivility and bad faith, amongst other things. RadioKAOS ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This is to let you know that you have been mentioned in a discussion about an event in which you may have been involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I've altered the capitalisation of sections in the RfC you started. I hope you're okay with it. Thanks. wctaiwan ( talk) 05:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
On your deletion, I would like to say there used to be a page History of the name Azerbaijan and there is controvery with regards to the application of the name (see section all the way in the end). Consequently, it was agreed long time ago to make this page..which was then shortened to name of Azerbaijan and now removed...There was a working page on the idea which should not have been removed. Anyhow, I did not duplicate but restored History of the name Azerbaijan.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 20:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Also you did not count the keep votes? They were more. Just FYI:
So you basically deleted all of this information.. the reason that E10204.. wanted the article deleted was because he wanted the working page deleted.. But all of that information exists basically in Persian wikipedia.. -- 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC) And there was really "no concensus" based on the votes of the talkpage but you deleted it?. -- 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 21:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks for looking into this.
Hello
I am pretty new to Wikipedia but i want to make a page that previously had been deleted by you.
"A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 21:45, 25 December 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted page Dirty Filthy Mugs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty filthy mugs)"
As you can see, it was deleted almost 2 years ago, with the reason they are not popular enough. They currently have 2 studio albums, and 2600 'fans' at their Facebook page. Also if you listen to the 'popular' online radio called sky.fm (poppunk section) you can occasionally hear their songs. I think that makes them pretty popular.
To make one thing clear, I am in no way judging your ban on the page as it was the right thing to do by your rules and standards. I am only saying enough time has passed and that they are ready for a Wikipedia page. Also if it is not a big problem, it would be easier for me to re create and update the page if you would restore it to its original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silwanas ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Awaiting your reply
-Silwanas — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Silwanas (
talk •
contribs) 11:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I thank you again, you have been very helpful in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silwanas ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I am confident I was right to make this change. It took me all of half a minute or so to find the right account: just look for the one that has been doing stunningly similar editing. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Although "Disruption is not tolerated" is more neutral. I will retrain the old title in the collapsed section. Apteva ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no edits on WP:MOS. My only edits to the structure of the RFC thread on the talk page have been two hattings, both not undone by anybody. I have never reverted anything else, endorsed any particular state of that thread and its closure, and never reverted such state or edit summaries in there. I have no idea why two editors are using my name to continue an edit war on the talk thread. Churn and change ( talk) 03:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
MOS Mess, October 2012. Amadscientist ( talk) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
I saw your close here. Not sure if it was me identified in the close (which I appreciate), but I did need to apologize to Logos-Word, which I did here. I apparently lost my sense of direction in what I was trying to say, and made it worse by doing it with a new editor. If I make those kinds of bad posts again, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, would you mind unprotecting the MoS so that the conclusion of the recent RfC can be applied (or adding it yourself if you feel the page needs to remain protected)?
It is regarding Darkfrog's edit of yesterday, [12] which Noetica reverted. We held an RfC from September 1 to October 4 to ask whether those words ought to be restored to the MoS. Nathan Johnson (an uninvolved editor) closed it on October 4 as consensus in favour of restoration. Noetica is strongly opposed to those words, and twice reverted Nathan's closure. He argued that an admin ought to close the RfC. I therefore asked (on AN/RFC and AN/I) for an uninvolved admin to endorse or overturn the closure, which RegentsPark did yesterday, restoring Nathan's closure. [13] Noetica reverted RegentsPark's too, though RegentPark's restored the closure, [14] and left this note. [15]
Darkfrog then attempted to implement the conclusion of the RfC, and Noetica reverted him also. That is the version of the page that is protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder whether you were confusing the reverting on the MoS over a separate issue; there has been recent reverting over hyphens (or similar, I'm not sure), but that is not connected to the RfC. Darkfrog made only one edit to implement the RfC and Noetica reverted him once (this time). So page protection over that issue seemed premature. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I'm reverting Noetica's last revert at WP:MOS because that was the consensus of the RfC and I believe we should implement consensus, especially at the conclusion of a consensus determining process and because it is best, always, to do things sooner rather than later. Since there has been plenty of drama already, and I have no desire to add admin drama to the mix, feel free to undo my revert for any reason or for no reason at all! -- regentspark ( comment) 18:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Not to drudge up something entirely pointless, but I thought I should clear up the matter in this. [16] The reason he was not blocked was because he said he was leaving, back in 2005, and he never left. The sockpuppets you questioned are in fact, his. They were checkuser confirmed by User:Fred Bauder after relentless sockpuppeting to !vote on my RFA's and vandalize my userpage. [17] Obviously he has not left and he is still actively editing, and given his past conduct, he is likely under another account. Regards, — Moe ε 05:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please userfy this article and tell the students where it can be found, they may want to try to improve it further. Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_4#Talk:Marvel_Studios.23Disney_Distribution - Give the RFComments some time? Not sure. The RFC as I pointed out is not needed I already agree when they actually showed me a source that agreed with their position. Then I was reported to AN/EW for expecting them to talk on the talk page and expecting a verifiable source not one that implied. There is no reason for this RFC. It is because I seem to have entered a Twilight Zone of no one capable of understanding that the argument is over ... done ... Hence the caps and the request for closure. When I already agree with them and I point that out and then they continue edit warring and RFComments for no reason? Why in the world doesn't any one understand me? I am using English. Spshu ( talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This, sir, is looking very cool and interesting. I think we could learn a lot from fifty (or however many) people's answers to a questionnaire like that, and I'm really interested to see where you take this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 01:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
First, thank you very much for taking the time to help out with reducing the nonsense there.
I am well aware of my responsibilities as an editor. The incivility there, though is not something that I brought there or contributed to. It is, however, something that I am contributing to ending. From Talk page guidelines
Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
Warning others that others have been brought to task for violating the sanctions there is clearly irrelevant. Complaining about an editors conduct is clearly irrelevant. Apteva ( talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
And under good practices:
Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
While it is essential to comment on the climate of incivility, naming specific editors is not, in my opinion, appropriate. -- Apteva ( talk) 21:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You recently said "Some users seem to feel that being in the right as far as content gives them permission to insult others. It's an unfortunate situation, but not one that can be resolved by ANI." Please direct me to a link that states this about ANI. Not just because I think you are incorrect and are just not willing to do a block over user conduct until it has exploded out of control, and then ask why nobody notified you, but because I will need to know where to send editors as part of the DR process and borther...ANI seems useless in the DR process. I am not joking. In fact, it makes things worse a good deal of the time. If ANI is not a part of the DR process and admin are not the civility police, admin should NOT be able to block anyone for any reason. Stick to the mob an bucket and stop playing authority.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tune In, Tokyo... for me? Granted, User:Black60dragon and I debated in circles a lot more than we probably should have, and I may be biased, but I really don't see how you can read the discussion and arrive at no consensus. The !vote count was 5 in favor of deletion (including myself), 1 strong keep (Black60dragon, the creator), and 2 weak keeps. At least 3 editors made good-faith efforts to find significant secondary source coverage ( Michitaro, myself, and I'm assuming Black60dragon as well), and this was the most comprehensive thing found: just a track listing and a chart position, and the chart position is already covered at Green Day discography#Live albums). -- IllaZilla ( talk) 21:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 22. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IllaZilla ( talk) 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to ec with you : )
Saw the questions page and thought I'd help. - jc37 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I read your requirements for a self-requested block and agree to your terms, namely that it's a hard block and don't ask if one is not serious. Would you please block me until December 1, 2012. While I am not under any official ANI or WP:CCI I just went through a situation where some of my edits were identified to have close paraphrasing. Long story short the paraphrasing has now been cleaned up. (The long story is at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyvio_from_editor_with_700_edits) This situation really shook me. I had been unaware that my articles had left too much source material I was "caught" from two incidents which had the best of intentions. (Another editor nominating an article which I authored for a DIY. And the other copyvio occurred when I attempted to re-write an article which had an over the top promotional tone and zero inline citations.) After what happened it may be best for me to stay away completely for a while. Furthermore, I understand that a self-requested block will not prevent any editor or admin from initiating a formal CCI or other action should the content of my past contributions so warrant. I also understand that the block will remain in the blocklog. NightSt✷r (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, About your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deimon Devil Bats, while I think the consensus at the AFD was clearly for a merge and redirect, I don't think the way you have done the merge and redirect makes sense. I also don't think it was what was intended by the participants in the AFD, and thus doesn't represent the consensus of the discussion. The way you have left the List of Eyeshield 21 characters article, it is full of details on secondary characters while only having a tiny paragraph about the main characters. I don't see how things like the main characters' names, a breif description of their roles in the story, or which voice actors voiced them in the anime could be considered non-encyclopedic. I also don't think any of the people voting for a merge in the AFD were desiring a final article that doesn't even give (for example) the main character's last name. Would you object to me trying to merge significantly more content from the redirected article into the target article? Calathan ( talk) 20:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain why you reverted this of mine? GB fan 22:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please help get at least the latest copy of this article before it was deleted: Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 It was a lot of work. Thanks. Wikilogin123 ( talk) 06:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox. You deleted this article on 24 October 2012 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk) and it is repeatedly recreated since then. I've declined the last WP:G4 nomination, as I think the creator's objection might be justified, Sandbakk seems to be a notable jazz popularizer in Norway [19]. Would you mind if I take the article to WP:DRV? Please, let me know if you disagree. Thank you. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 08:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty OK @ New page patrolling; so should I continue that? I am sorry for the mess I have created. @ Dipankan Upgraded! Tag me! 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The Too Hard Medal | ||
Principal architect of Civility RFC |
Nobody Ent 22:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox. See excellent comment of yours featured on my page here. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC).
I have lost desire to rename this article into "Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin". Seriously, I have detested the way I have written solely about her because she has no general significance. But I guess it helps readers truly learn about her individually and her sole significance to Frasier Crane (and Diane Chambers). In fact, she appeared in Cheers and Frasier. Do not worry; I will NOT change the whole layout into fitting the failed proposed scope. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox,
Please restore the following pages: List of Bell TV channels, List of Cogeco Cable Ontario TV Channels, List of Cogeco Cable Quebec TV Channels, List of Vidéotron Illico TV channels, List of Rogers Digital Cable Channels, List of Shaw Direct channels, List of Shaw Exo TV channels,
They are EXTREMELY critical to my job.
JT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.14.30 ( talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Not flaunt - (WP:AN/I).
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
Hi Beeblebrox, I don't have any objections to your merge of the Staring contest article – in fact I don't really care, because it's only on my watchlist due to vandalism. But I don't really like it when the talk page is redirected as well, because I don't see the point of effectively losing those discussions. I may be a bit paranoid, but we could *really* lose these discussions if something like this ever happens again. Therefore, I've reverted your redirect of the talk page. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 04:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Any reason that shouldn't be a hard redirect? Just curious. -- Lexein ( talk) 09:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you reverted the category.
Several have complained about the needless extra steps in the process. And besides, consensus can be determined from even partially completed questionnaires, I would presume? - jc37 18:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
PESO44 ( talk · contribs) is a relatively inexperienced user who has been causing trouble. He complained to EricEnfermero here regarding this edit by Eric. I have tried to explain to the editor that the content being removed was not appropriate, but they have responded with rude replies about my bald-headed brain ( which they repeated after a final warning), and the remark that I am senseless and clueless. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the situation and see what needs to be done. Automatic Strikeout 19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 03:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for rectifying my over-zealous striking - but the editor in question has since reverted you and added some more !votes. As I don't wish to appear involved, please can you intervene? Regards, Giant Snowman 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
GiantSnowman has been over-zealous and can you instruct him of the known criteria of articles. I don't know if he understands them. Sign!!! Gregoryat ( talk) 20:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox- there was no legal threats made over at User talk:Gregoryat. Gregoryat ( talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Gregoryat ( talk) 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please watch the discussion from Patken4. Gregoryat ( talk) 06:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Blanked this, as it really did amount to a tangent (as opposed to what I seem to be accused of filling articles with). Moved it to User:RadioKAOS/Sandbox/Philosophy in the hopes that I can one day turn it into a coherent essay on the positive and negative aspects of one's individual motivations for doing this. Let's just say that a lot of users tend to validate the criticisms of those who believe that this is just a form of video gaming for autistic teenagers. RadioKAOS ( talk) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Shall this article be broader right now? -- George Ho ( talk) 05:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please place a copy here for me User:Morning277/sandbox/DASSCH. -- Morning277 ( talk) 20:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Per your closing-ish note on the AN discussion on unblock policy, I have changed the policy to reflect that consensus, noting "Any user may discuss or comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the review (either declining or unblocking).". Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, just a note to let you know that I've moved your question here. Regards -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 17:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
At WP:RFPP, you indicated that you blocked the users responsible for the edit warring. I saw the request, but ended up acting as an editor rather than an admin. The person you blocked User:Hanckock is only half of the problem, and technically the better half, in that at least the name he was putting was the one used in newspapers (not that he was sourcing them, mind you, but at least it was correct). The IP you blocked, however, is the one adding some completely random name, possibly based on some sort of "birth record look up website" which definitely doesn't meet WP:RS. I think you can get the IP on a 82.132.249.0/26 rangeblock (only 64 users); alternatively, semi-protection on the article would work (although I think I see productive IP edits in the past). Qwyrxian ( talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
...since I couldn't go back to sleep after being woken up by my roommate's boyfriend for no reason. Picture a cross between John Belushi's character Ron Decline from All You Need Is Cash, and the drunk guys that Bob and Mark (of KWHL fame) portray in that bit which ends with "Hey Joe Beer. When you can't afford Natural Ice.", and you get an idea of what I have to put up with there.
Anyway, I had a concern for quite some time, and I was looking for an individual admin's opinion before I took this question further. I see something come across my watchlist a little too often for my comfort. Namely, an article will see an edit or series of edits by an IP, but one which acts just like an experienced Wikipedia editor, as opposed to the usual sort of clueless newbie edits you normally come to expect from IP users. Perhaps not coincidentally, these edits will result in large portions of the article in question being gutted, or the tone or context of the article will suddenly take a drastic turn. The actual question is this: would an editor have to go to probably more trouble than it's worth to document these changes in order for there to be a sockpuppet investigation, or is this the sort of thing that any admins are paying attention to? I have a lot of articles on my watchlist that I suspect few other editors watch, and therefore they appear to be easy targets for this sort of thing. I see that there is a sockpuppet noticeboard, but I don't know if I want to take on more tasks which may achieve only negligible results. I already have enough on my plate on here, not to mention the real world. Anyway, let me know.
While not the reason I'm bringing this up, I pretty much gave up on improving Mr. Whitekeys after all the vandalism, and everyone throwing up the BLP shield as validating the notion of pushing the article more in the direction of subtle promotion rather than a proper biographical article. That problem doesn't seem to be limited to that article; I see that in any number of biography articles of people of marginal notability. The pro wrestling version of WP:NOT would be "Wikipedia is not a Baron Von Raschke promo", yet "dat is all dat da people need to know" manifests itself more often than is necessary. Getting back to Whitekeys, I would think the fundamental issue there is this: he can give his real name and date of birth to an ADN reporter, and the ADN can publish it in an article ( link here), yet it's a BLP violation or crime against humanity to repeat that information on Wikipedia? Whether or not it was Whitekeys himself who vandalized the article, one thing is for certain: the person is savvy enough about the Internet to realize the difference between that information being buried in the lifestyle section of a Sunday newspaper, and being featured front and center in a Wikipedia article. Judging from his recent activities, an update would be helpful. There is also the issue of his departure from KTUU, which is another can of worms. The whitewashing of details concerning Schurz Communications taking over the station and replacing a number of the station's longtime staff and management, also "due to BLP concerns," seems suspicious to me because it's too coincidental with the current article reading like a commercial for Schurz. RadioKAOS ( talk) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Remember closing the discussion at Sean Combs? It's rolled on, anyway. See:
Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 07:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi!, this is my account allowed by the WP:COMPROMISED
Please, can you look at the unblock request one more time. It's not about the message you think. I explained everything the best way I can at my talk page. When I was explaining the whole thing there was a misudnerstanding that someone removed some message in order to hide it from me. It's not that. The message I'm talking about was never removed and you may see it on my talk page. The whole thing is messed up. Can you please read my explanation in detail. Thx -- FuchsWusten ( talk) 02:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think my IP address is constantly changing. So, sometime It shows that Your IP is blocked by checkuser. This glitch is very annoying. Can you help me in this matter ? GiantBluePanda ( talk) 21:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Noted your contributions to the special education article (e.g. correcting the wrong view that LD is diagnosed as a medical condition) but now it is heading towards an edit war. Not sure if it is possible to talk sense into the two editors who claim (and have, as history shows for some time back and forth on this article) that it is biased. As someone who has worked on it (and I think education articles need more attention anyway) I'd like to avoid and edit war. I'm hesistant to work on it, as there has been reverting by these people to anyone they see as biased. Not sure what you can do but since you are an admin I thought it best to get perspective here. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Some information in this article about the graduation at the age of 15 from sources [ [1]], [ [2]], and [ [3]]. Also i see no support in regards to him learning languages and cant find exactly where in the history it was added. Seems to be a fabrication based upon the sources list.(posting here as i have no honest idea how to edit a protected page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkytabby ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. Just curious of the sudden blocking of both accounts, one of which I had just given Rollback to as a legitimate alternate account. I am aware of the bit of drama that was stirred up over the whole cabel thing awhile ago, but didn't seem pertinent to wanting to have the right transferred to a "public" account. I saw he was semi-retired, rather than plain retired, so I granted it. I wouldn't had if it was retired as it wouldn't have been an Alternate, but rather a new account. Did I miss something big? Kindly Calmer Waters 03:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Beeblebrox. You indef blocked Jeffwang but left a temporary notice on his talk page. I don't know which one is a mistake, but you might want to clarify that. Thanks! Ryan Vesey 04:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a request for an account with the user name Beberox. It does appear to be a fairly common user name out there on the internet. It doesn't have enough similarity for it to automatically have picked your user name as a conflict but it did remind me of you. So i though to ask if you think it might be seen as impersonating you or if you would be ok with it. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 07:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For blocking Jeffwang. Electric Catfish 11:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC) |
Can you please unlock the page. We have an agreement. -- Wustenfuchs 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Howdy Beeblebrox. Are you familiar with the 'bigdelete' permission? I've been toying with the idea of proposing moving that permission from a meta-only function (i.e. stewards) to an en-wiki function, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. My thinking was that this should be added to the oversight group, but I didn't want to sign you guys up for extra work if you didn't want it. I suppose it could just as easily be a 'crat function or an entirely separate user right (or even just bundled into the standard admin package), but it seemed like a more natural fit for the oversighters since that involves a different type of "super-deletion". Thoughts? 28bytes ( talk) 03:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Switch off internet in case of political dissent.jpg | The defender of freedom of expression on the internet barnstar |
I am awarding you this barnstar for your comment, "We can't led Assad decide who is allowed to edit here." Thank you Beeblebrox Ryan Vesey 03:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hi beeblebrox. You closed this rfc. Now a question has arisen whether this edit is in accordance with your close. Could you please take a look and clarify. Perhaps User_talk:RegentsPark#Can_you or on the article talk page. Thanks. -- regentspark ( comment) 01:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the scope of this article without merging. I just moved portions. Is that okay? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You might also consider the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus. -- Amble ( talk) 23:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
We'll have these Metropolitan area articles for some 50 + cities in India. — Vensatry (Ping me) 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi :-) thank you for putting yourself forward for the FDC. I want to draw your attention to the list of questions that people can answer to help the Board of Trustees learn more about the people volunteering for the committee. [5] Look forward to seeing your answers. Sydney Poore/-- FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I made a minor amendment to your closing statement in the YRC RFC to clarify one word which I felt could have given rise to a misunderstanding about the timeframes [6]. Hope this is OK with you. Prioryman ( talk) 07:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I already thanked you, but I just wanted to make sure.
Ahem...
Thank you for participating in my RfA. Although you abstained, I appreciate your sentiments and I hope I'll continue to see your name pop up around Wikipedia.
Take care. =) Kurtis ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I'm not at all familiar with Wikipedia administration, so perhaps you could explain to me why you closed this discussion. I don't see consensus. I thought we were making good progress before Naapple declared "This conversation has gone on long enough," and, "The End." -- Nstrauss ( talk) 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I've opened a new AN/I discussion here. Sorry to keep pestering you on this issue; I wish there was a less painful way to do this. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for clarifying. I may have made similar mistakes a few times more. However, I will be more cautious. Cheers!-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for locking the CBS Records article. This incarnation of CBS Records is not related to the former CBS Records entities which changed their names to Columbia Records regarding the label and Sony Music Entertainment regarding the company. In 1988, CBS sold CBS Records to the Sony Corporation and CBS gave Sony only a temporary license on the CBS name which forced the name changes and eventually allowed CBS's parent company CBS Corporation to form a new CBS Records in 2006. The dispute has to do with the insertion of too much material which actually belong in either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Please re-lock the CBS Records article as Norton changed it back BEFORE the dispute was settled. I have a compromise solution of creating a new article called "CBS Records International" regarding the international arm of the former CBS Records (now Sony Music) that was founded in 1962. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 10:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again, Russ. Is there a way to keep the CBS Records article a DAB page permanently? Thank you. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
How do we start a WP:ARBCOM case regarding CBS Records? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox. Would you be willing to take a look at this discussion and voice your opinions about it there? We are trying to come up with a resolution. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not possible. I am merely raising the fact that Altfish80 is a sock puppet that was created to attack the page. Thanks, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you haven't seen the post at ANI please take a look. Any objection to me indefinitely blocking him now? IMHO I think I can do this on my own without community approval, but... Dougweller ( talk) 11:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeb. It appears that User talk:94.12.133.144 may have resumed editing immediately after coming of his IP block. I am tempted to reblock, but I would like your input on this. You may find his recent editing history particularly interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Something you told to Richard Arthur Norton apparently gave him a very wrong impression of what consensus is. See Talk:CBS Records#Disambiguation page vs. CBS Records article, specifically this comment by RAN: "However we set time limits for debate and decision making here at Wikipedia. An administrator gave us three days of lock down to come up with consensus." You've mentioned it to him on ANI, and I appreciate that you did, but could you tell him directly? He still just does not get it.-- SGCM (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#lead:_conservative_leaning_or_independent,User_talk:Beeblebrox#Rasmussen_Reports". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 21:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Not seen that before. A valuable addition to the language! pablo 23:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your Wikipedia help...
Daviddaved 00:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way you can userfy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huá to me? I know it's an old delete but just thought I try. — AjaxSmack 02:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CBS Records". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I wasn't aware that there was already a discussion going on at AN, must have missed that one completely. Would you mind me merging the thread you closed at ANI into the AN discussion? The 1RR proposal would have to get admin approval anyway so why not have a subsection at the relevant AN discussion. De728631 ( talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you put an edit block on the Goodreads article because it was turning into a revision war, and I'm glad you noticed it so soon. I was actually just looking for the process of reporting a revision war. I just wanted to ask if it's possible for you to either revert to my previous copy of the article or to remove the controversy section entirely. I'd originally added it because the controversy had gotten some coverage and it resulted in the changing of several of the rules on the site as far as reviews go. I'd like to keep it in there in as neutral a fashion as possible, but if it's going to just cause drama then I'd just as soon not have it at all. In any case, the current article revision lacks reliable sources and looks to be biased towards the side of the side of the sites that are against the negative reviewers. I don't really have an opinion either way, but I would like it to be more neutral than what it currently is like. Could you compare the two versions and make a decision as to whether it should be changed to my version or otherwise deleted? The current article state is atrocious. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not able to post on Penyulap's talk, but please see this. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC).
Hi. Disappointed to see you closed the discussion (request for moratorium) and suggested a RfC. Perhaps my opening statement wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking for a random admin to just declare "moratorium imposed", I was hoping there could be a bit of discussion by some uninvolved parties (admins and non-admins) and they could come to a consensus on whether a moratorium would be useful. The community has the authority to do this and AN is a central noticeboard, not an admin only area. To suggest a RfC, which would be along the lines of "well, we have this RfC over here where we can't get consensus, so I'd like to have a 30-day discussion (usually longer) to see if we shouldn't move these articles until we get a community consensus on the issue", is pretty ridiculous. Surely it's common sense, but try telling that to those involved. As for AN3, of course no one has technically edit warred (these are all experienced and intelligent editors), and a report there would just end in walls of text with no result. In addition, these editors just need a clear cut warning along the lines of "do this and you will be blocked, whatever your justification", something un-wikilawyerable, and they will stop. I'm WP:INVOLVED and unable to make these calls (plus, as you've noted at AN, it's not really something a single admin should be doing), and of course no uninvolved admins want to wade into the mess (can't blame them). Can you please repoen the AN discussion? P.S. – been meaning to say this for a while, but I thought your close of the Ivory Coast RM was excellent and tough break about the RfB. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 13:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I replied to your suggestion a few days ago. Would you mind having a look and letting me know what you think? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devaraya (Telugu Film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit perplexed by this edit. Was that intended? AllyD ( talk) 18:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! ~~ Ebe 123~~ → report 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you Beeblebrox for reading the riot act over Talk:Crimean Karaites. As one who was trying to figure out what the problem was from WP:DRN I gave up about half way down. Hasteur ( talk) 19:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
I used the talkpage and did not edit war..The issue has been discussed numerously on the talkpage. Thank you-- 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 20:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This page should not have been speedily deleted because... (
In a site that allowed the "Jerusalem UFO incident" page to remain for months without any sources until I came in and had it removed because it was a definite BLATANT HOAX and proved as such many times, the removal of "The Ahihud incident" is not just unfair but insulting, as the article about the ahihud incident, even at its incomplete state, had much more valid information in it the many other articled related to the subject, and the incident itself despite being debated over for almost 20 years has never once been proved to be a hoax, and actually proved not to be the product of a hoax, not once but twice, once by a government institute and once by a highly regarded research university. because of these reasons i will request the article deletion to be undone as soon as possible, so i may amend it to fit all wikipedia standards.) -- The truth is around here ( talk) 04:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The majority of the information written in the article about the circumstances of the event itself was not sourced in the entities who investigated the event, but was reported by each of the two dozen witnesses who were present in the event including Ziona damti, the female resident that first encountered the scene and Chief Superintenden Danny Elcoby of the acre police department who made a media appearnece following the incident explaining how things went down once he arrived at the scene (an apearence in can link to) and many other residents that agreed to be interviewed to the news that day, but all of the eyewitness accounts put togeather would still not have the value attributed to them if not for the actual physical remains left at the scene and the unusual conclusions of the two major studies conducted on them. reliable sources can indeed be provided and linked to the article if it was restored, i had recived a message from some editor telling me the article was nominated for deletion three days before, a warning i did not pick up on because as you may have noticed, im completley new to wikipedia editing and decided to get in to this to create the article about the ahihud event, which was in my opinion, quite supprisingly absent from the site (at least in hebrew, considering english mentions of the incident are quite few on the internet, and the fact that it is known in israel, as it occured in the countrys relativly recent history), so if you restore the page i will change the written information to include names of people involved to make it less obscure and change the phrasing to make it more straight forward but skeptic nonetheless. links to the few media mentions of the incident where the same information that was discussed and debated over in media forums by individuals involved can also be provided, along with links to the original documents leaked from the study conudcted on the remains by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine which was the second study to conclude that the findings cannot be the result of a hoax. The truth is around here ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh I got you, well if that's all i need then here is the news report brodcasted at that day in december of 94 about the incident, the lady who speakes first is mrs Ziona damti who first discoverd the findings and the man with the jacket that speakes after her is the police office that was sent to the scene, Chief Superintenden Danny Elcoby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKi4JerDXs ( talk) 03:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.222.212 ( talk)
Thank you, and yes the video is on youtube but was uploaded on the official channel of the channel 2 news network (major channel in israeli television), the opening slide sais "internet news 2", so it's not exactly a repost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth is around here ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you ban User:SCWA Ladies Champion? This user has uploaded countless copyrighted images from WWE and claiming them to be his own work.-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For dealing with User: Billiejeanthriller. I feel a bit dumb for not catching that hoax ;). Electric Catfish 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
There already is
Natural gas in Alaska,
Alaska gas pipeline (which wasn't even tagged for
WP:ALASKA until I took care of it just now) and
Office of the Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects. Only the second one has any relevant history. They had a big pow-wow here about a week ago with
Larry Persily and others. I attended (even though I'm cautious about my real-life identity on here, I'm the guy seated next to
Scott Kawasaki
in this photo), but it was a lot of talk we've all heard before for years decades. Maybe I should have gone to Arizona anyway, since I had the plane ticket. Last winter was ROUGH.
I'm actually rather amazed that I seem to have the ear of local legislators, with the exception of Bob Miller and David Guttenberg. One of those legislators told me that the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce lobbied for a gas pipeline from the North Slope during the mid 1950s, or around the time that exploration was occurring in Umiat. Then again, other chambers of commerce were pushing at around the same time for the Knik Arm Bridge and the road to Nome. It's like we're revisiting a bygone era of boosterism. The political mantra over the past decade has been "good jobs." The fact is, there just aren't enough of those good jobs for the population base we have now. I watched a lot of the legislature this year on Grovel to Grovel for the first time in many years. It seems like we have a government/labor union/oil company axis of evil which is content to take care of its own, with the rest of us fending for ourselves.
I haven't been to Chena Hot Springs in a long, long time, apart from accompanying Japanese tour groups. Basically, issues with the folks who currently run it. I always preferred Circle Hot Springs, but it's been closed for probably a decade now. There's also Melozi Hot Springs, but that's out of the way even for me at present. RadioKAOS ( talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
" loads and loads of ignorant arguments, ethnic/political/religious mudslinging, wildly off-topic rambling postings of all kinds, name calling, trolling"... and those would be its better qualities! -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I googled it before tagging it as a hoax and this is what I found. It provides no indication that the book exists, and therefore, I believe that it is a hoax. Please take another look at it. Thank you, Electric Catfish 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC).
I was wondering if you could merge User:Zac/Sandbox/Liz & Dick to Liz & Dick for me? Thanks. Zac 22:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Could I ask you to look at this and change if and only if necessary. Regards JRPG ( talk) 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Moxy cannot admit that what he believes to be true the admins do not agree with. I lost my patience with him as you can see from the back and forth in the Talk:CBS Records page. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
From one admin to another for your tireless work on AN and other kinds of disputes and problematic areas. It ain't gone unnoticed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC) |
FYI. And FWIW, on a slightly different note regarding NPP, although I am not entirely in favour of creating a right for NPP, I fear that the question may become inevitable when the NewPagesFeed is finally released for general use and has been monitored for a while. The reviewer right (whatever that will be) could be a possible guideline, and might incorporate both if need arises. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:- ) Don 04:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox. I happened to see your comment at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?. Recently User:Arthur Rubin was reported at WP:AN3 by MrX, per WP:AN3#User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:MrX (Result: ) for some reverts that involved mention of SPLC opinions. So far no admin has decided to close the AN3 report. In the effort to nudge things toward closure, I have begun a discussion at User talk:Arthur Rubin#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion. It's my hope that a compromise with Arthur could be found that would allow closing the AN3 report about him. If you have anything to add to the discussion on his talk page it would be fine. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Can you warn this ip: [7]..I am not even sure if all of his vandalisms were undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 03:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I realized that the same discussions were raging on. After thinking about it, I decided that further contributions on my part would amount to beating a dead horse. I saw the announcements for those research accounts. Unfortunately, I'm back to getting my Internet access primarily through the library or through Wi-Fi on my phone. Therefore, it would be a waste of those accounts. Besides, there's a treasure trove of material available at just about any library to anyone willing to spend the time required to find it. For instance, I came across the Pioneers of Alaska's history of Homer the other day. Looking through the 1930s-1950s photos made me realize that Homer hasn't really changed all that much in the years since.
The borough's library director has a column every Monday in the FDNM. His column this week ended with the lament that Alaska is pretty far behind other places in biographical coverage of its people. I talk to a lot of like-minded people on subjects like these, and the attitude is that everyone is waiting around for a grant or a book deal. The ones who have made their living on the sort of thing that you and I and others have done on Wikipedia for free pretty much loathe Wikipedia for that very reason.
That 1964 Milepost I previously referred to mentions that Wasilla was (at the time) well-known as the home of Gerrit "Heinie" Snider, a highly notable person from Wasilla who had the misfortune of being somewhat lost to modern history. I wonder if it's worth mentioning elsewhere or if people would wind up scratching their heads. If Sarah Palin lives on Lake Lucille, she probably lives on part of the Snider homestead. Also, Snider's daughter was mayor of Wasilla when Palin was in junior high. Lots of history that's not being taken into account. Like when I was glancing at the FDNM website, look at the attention given to Coleman Barney versus Richard Frank, and tell me who is the more historically important person. RadioKAOS ( talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Please could you enforce the 'rule' you posted on Talk:Crimean Karaites that "New remarks below old remarks. Don't insert remarks into the middle of a thread." Kaz is inserting comments into the middle of the thread on Talk:Crimean Karaites, [8] and has started doing the same at Talk:Karaim language. [9]-- Toddy1 ( talk) 11:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Why does Toddy1 always do something, then when I copy him he points out how wrong my actions were but never points out what he himself has been doing. Classic straw-man attack. I think it best for me to simply continue to reply where Users are talking to me. But I promise, that if Toddy does what he wants me to do then I will follow him. I am only copying him after-all. Kaz 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd reinforce the Wiki Not A Forum on that TP - the page is a mess in many ways, but there is also waaaay too much discussion between some editors about their personal beliefs/experiences instead of discussing Reliable Sources to improve the article. Thanks. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 02:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Listen thanks for the courtesy blanking but I'd rather have the account renamed. I'm finished with wikipedia and I really don't want any reminders as well as the fact that I want to protect my privacy. The name still comes up despite the page being deleted. Stockprice(temporary) ( talk) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) PS This account is only temporary for the purpose of dealing with my request.
Stockprice(temporary) ( talk) 18:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I read that you took the page under protection, as I understand, against non-consensus moves. Lately I have been the only user who wanted to move that page to: Cebiche. It was not possible manually so I asked admin help. Than I saw that there are several users who opposed a possible move. So I opened a discussion on the RM. (In fact I only added an RfC tag to the discussion I had already opened and nobody had joined by then.) Anyway, after this we will only discuss the RM and at the end of the discussion wait for an admin to close it, in favour or against. Nobody is making a move without consensus. (When I tried to move the article there was no visible controversy -no discussion on the TP- so I never thought doing something arbitrary. Could I make myself clear? All the best. -- E4024 ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Beeblebrox. Have seen your note over at es.wiki and requested the corresponding speedy deletion. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Plip!
For false minnowing. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Beeblebrox. I want you to know that I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment from My76Strat because I believe you are involved in this case and if it is accepted, your input is required. Thank you. 76Strat String da Broke da ( talk) 02:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
I larfed until I cried. My wife thought I was having a stroke. Thank you for brightening up my boring Wikipedia isolation here in this remote village in the jungle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC) |
We see that you have deleted Stone Bond Technologies from Wikipedia with input that the company/product is not significant. Since we are new at the Wiki environment there may have been some missteps in some of our links but this is no reason for deletion. In fact, this seems to be a rather targeted effort as our page was in the review, comment, edit mode within the review structure.
A few facts...
Our software technology is covered by multiple patents. The software dramatically changes the manner in which complex data integrations take place resulting in significant dollar savings for users. The size of a company (44 people) does not denote significance in any way. What a user can accomplish denoted significance. The fact that there has not been much written about the software or company also does not connote significance. I demonstrates the company likely invests in R&D rather than PR.
Finally, if Stone Bond does not qualify then neither do any of the following...
Composite Software Denodo Technologies Oracle - Data Service Integrator Informatica JBOSS - TEIID Data Virtualization OpenLink Software Radiant Logic VirtualWorks Group Adansys
Please contact me directly if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddbrinegar ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI. Thanks! Theo polisme 20:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
After seeing an ANI thread that Kaz had moved this page in spite of the ongoing move request, and in a way designed to prevent moving it back, and after seeing that he is continuing to screw with the formatting of the talk page, I have blocked Kaz indefinitely, and Drmies and I have reverted the page move. You appear to know much better than I what's going on here, so if you think the block was a mistake, please feel free to adjust in whatever way you think best. (FWIW, my thinking is that I don't mean "indefinite" as in "infinite", but "indefinite" as in, "need to convince an admin you'll knock it off"; that's why it wasn't an escalating 2-day or 1-week block) -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you, I am not "downright desperate" to get 12.153.112.21 blocked. I actually would work with him if he would follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia, lose the cocky attitude of his that he knows more than everyone else and tries to be on the same page as everyone and not jump the gun and edit war. Maybe calling his place of work was a little overboard, but when the user continuously vandalized a page, time and time and time again, after warnings not to, after warnings from 2 admins to stop editing, reverting to 2007 information, I felt it was the only way to stop the user. The page is deleted and I am still having to deal with this user. I'm not "downright desperate" to get 12.153.112.21 blocked, but he and Powergate sure seem "downright desperate" to get me blocked and admin approved userspace pages deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Beeblebrox. I am restoring "my" userpages to what I think they ought to be according to WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, over the (unsourced) objections of other editors. I'm sure I would be told cogently and with policy sources if I should be doing anything different. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 23:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In 27th September, one user delete some important informations from Turkish Cypriots article with an argument like "source" wasn't suitable with info and change that part of article with totally Turkish Nationalist perspective info. Today I did try to edit Turkish Cypriots article with using more reliable sources (eg. Governmental infos and research which supported from European Commission) and suitable with the version they deleted and I shared my ideas in Talk Page of article. But after few minutes User:E4024 turned article back to old version with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". And I was wondering in Wikipedia can users decide to choose "better edition" which have nationalist and fictional perspectives and delete versions which "has lots of reliable sources" and objective perspective? Isn't it vandalism? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghuzz ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious to see the post you refer to here, any chance of a link and background if not obvious? FT2 ( Talk | email) 17:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I found this very interesting and well-written, and if I do one day become an admin, something that I could benefit from. I took the liberty of correcting a couple of minor grammar-related errors, but other than those, it was a great read! Automatic Strikeout 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
( talk page stalker), but you already knew that...anyway, it must be the comparatively low level of activity or my deliberate avoidance of certain topics, but I'm utterly amazed that I've yet to be blocked or banned. Especially given my tendency towards uncivility and bad faith, amongst other things. RadioKAOS ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This is to let you know that you have been mentioned in a discussion about an event in which you may have been involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I've altered the capitalisation of sections in the RfC you started. I hope you're okay with it. Thanks. wctaiwan ( talk) 05:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
On your deletion, I would like to say there used to be a page History of the name Azerbaijan and there is controvery with regards to the application of the name (see section all the way in the end). Consequently, it was agreed long time ago to make this page..which was then shortened to name of Azerbaijan and now removed...There was a working page on the idea which should not have been removed. Anyhow, I did not duplicate but restored History of the name Azerbaijan.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 20:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Also you did not count the keep votes? They were more. Just FYI:
So you basically deleted all of this information.. the reason that E10204.. wanted the article deleted was because he wanted the working page deleted.. But all of that information exists basically in Persian wikipedia.. -- 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC) And there was really "no concensus" based on the votes of the talkpage but you deleted it?. -- 108.18.145.11 ( talk) 21:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks for looking into this.
Hello
I am pretty new to Wikipedia but i want to make a page that previously had been deleted by you.
"A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 21:45, 25 December 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted page Dirty Filthy Mugs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty filthy mugs)"
As you can see, it was deleted almost 2 years ago, with the reason they are not popular enough. They currently have 2 studio albums, and 2600 'fans' at their Facebook page. Also if you listen to the 'popular' online radio called sky.fm (poppunk section) you can occasionally hear their songs. I think that makes them pretty popular.
To make one thing clear, I am in no way judging your ban on the page as it was the right thing to do by your rules and standards. I am only saying enough time has passed and that they are ready for a Wikipedia page. Also if it is not a big problem, it would be easier for me to re create and update the page if you would restore it to its original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silwanas ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Awaiting your reply
-Silwanas — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Silwanas (
talk •
contribs) 11:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I thank you again, you have been very helpful in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silwanas ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I am confident I was right to make this change. It took me all of half a minute or so to find the right account: just look for the one that has been doing stunningly similar editing. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Although "Disruption is not tolerated" is more neutral. I will retrain the old title in the collapsed section. Apteva ( talk) 03:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no edits on WP:MOS. My only edits to the structure of the RFC thread on the talk page have been two hattings, both not undone by anybody. I have never reverted anything else, endorsed any particular state of that thread and its closure, and never reverted such state or edit summaries in there. I have no idea why two editors are using my name to continue an edit war on the talk thread. Churn and change ( talk) 03:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
MOS Mess, October 2012. Amadscientist ( talk) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
I saw your close here. Not sure if it was me identified in the close (which I appreciate), but I did need to apologize to Logos-Word, which I did here. I apparently lost my sense of direction in what I was trying to say, and made it worse by doing it with a new editor. If I make those kinds of bad posts again, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, would you mind unprotecting the MoS so that the conclusion of the recent RfC can be applied (or adding it yourself if you feel the page needs to remain protected)?
It is regarding Darkfrog's edit of yesterday, [12] which Noetica reverted. We held an RfC from September 1 to October 4 to ask whether those words ought to be restored to the MoS. Nathan Johnson (an uninvolved editor) closed it on October 4 as consensus in favour of restoration. Noetica is strongly opposed to those words, and twice reverted Nathan's closure. He argued that an admin ought to close the RfC. I therefore asked (on AN/RFC and AN/I) for an uninvolved admin to endorse or overturn the closure, which RegentsPark did yesterday, restoring Nathan's closure. [13] Noetica reverted RegentsPark's too, though RegentPark's restored the closure, [14] and left this note. [15]
Darkfrog then attempted to implement the conclusion of the RfC, and Noetica reverted him also. That is the version of the page that is protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder whether you were confusing the reverting on the MoS over a separate issue; there has been recent reverting over hyphens (or similar, I'm not sure), but that is not connected to the RfC. Darkfrog made only one edit to implement the RfC and Noetica reverted him once (this time). So page protection over that issue seemed premature. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I'm reverting Noetica's last revert at WP:MOS because that was the consensus of the RfC and I believe we should implement consensus, especially at the conclusion of a consensus determining process and because it is best, always, to do things sooner rather than later. Since there has been plenty of drama already, and I have no desire to add admin drama to the mix, feel free to undo my revert for any reason or for no reason at all! -- regentspark ( comment) 18:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Not to drudge up something entirely pointless, but I thought I should clear up the matter in this. [16] The reason he was not blocked was because he said he was leaving, back in 2005, and he never left. The sockpuppets you questioned are in fact, his. They were checkuser confirmed by User:Fred Bauder after relentless sockpuppeting to !vote on my RFA's and vandalize my userpage. [17] Obviously he has not left and he is still actively editing, and given his past conduct, he is likely under another account. Regards, — Moe ε 05:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please userfy this article and tell the students where it can be found, they may want to try to improve it further. Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_4#Talk:Marvel_Studios.23Disney_Distribution - Give the RFComments some time? Not sure. The RFC as I pointed out is not needed I already agree when they actually showed me a source that agreed with their position. Then I was reported to AN/EW for expecting them to talk on the talk page and expecting a verifiable source not one that implied. There is no reason for this RFC. It is because I seem to have entered a Twilight Zone of no one capable of understanding that the argument is over ... done ... Hence the caps and the request for closure. When I already agree with them and I point that out and then they continue edit warring and RFComments for no reason? Why in the world doesn't any one understand me? I am using English. Spshu ( talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This, sir, is looking very cool and interesting. I think we could learn a lot from fifty (or however many) people's answers to a questionnaire like that, and I'm really interested to see where you take this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 01:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
First, thank you very much for taking the time to help out with reducing the nonsense there.
I am well aware of my responsibilities as an editor. The incivility there, though is not something that I brought there or contributed to. It is, however, something that I am contributing to ending. From Talk page guidelines
Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
Warning others that others have been brought to task for violating the sanctions there is clearly irrelevant. Complaining about an editors conduct is clearly irrelevant. Apteva ( talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
And under good practices:
Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
While it is essential to comment on the climate of incivility, naming specific editors is not, in my opinion, appropriate. -- Apteva ( talk) 21:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You recently said "Some users seem to feel that being in the right as far as content gives them permission to insult others. It's an unfortunate situation, but not one that can be resolved by ANI." Please direct me to a link that states this about ANI. Not just because I think you are incorrect and are just not willing to do a block over user conduct until it has exploded out of control, and then ask why nobody notified you, but because I will need to know where to send editors as part of the DR process and borther...ANI seems useless in the DR process. I am not joking. In fact, it makes things worse a good deal of the time. If ANI is not a part of the DR process and admin are not the civility police, admin should NOT be able to block anyone for any reason. Stick to the mob an bucket and stop playing authority.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tune In, Tokyo... for me? Granted, User:Black60dragon and I debated in circles a lot more than we probably should have, and I may be biased, but I really don't see how you can read the discussion and arrive at no consensus. The !vote count was 5 in favor of deletion (including myself), 1 strong keep (Black60dragon, the creator), and 2 weak keeps. At least 3 editors made good-faith efforts to find significant secondary source coverage ( Michitaro, myself, and I'm assuming Black60dragon as well), and this was the most comprehensive thing found: just a track listing and a chart position, and the chart position is already covered at Green Day discography#Live albums). -- IllaZilla ( talk) 21:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 22. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IllaZilla ( talk) 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to ec with you : )
Saw the questions page and thought I'd help. - jc37 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I read your requirements for a self-requested block and agree to your terms, namely that it's a hard block and don't ask if one is not serious. Would you please block me until December 1, 2012. While I am not under any official ANI or WP:CCI I just went through a situation where some of my edits were identified to have close paraphrasing. Long story short the paraphrasing has now been cleaned up. (The long story is at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyvio_from_editor_with_700_edits) This situation really shook me. I had been unaware that my articles had left too much source material I was "caught" from two incidents which had the best of intentions. (Another editor nominating an article which I authored for a DIY. And the other copyvio occurred when I attempted to re-write an article which had an over the top promotional tone and zero inline citations.) After what happened it may be best for me to stay away completely for a while. Furthermore, I understand that a self-requested block will not prevent any editor or admin from initiating a formal CCI or other action should the content of my past contributions so warrant. I also understand that the block will remain in the blocklog. NightSt✷r (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, About your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deimon Devil Bats, while I think the consensus at the AFD was clearly for a merge and redirect, I don't think the way you have done the merge and redirect makes sense. I also don't think it was what was intended by the participants in the AFD, and thus doesn't represent the consensus of the discussion. The way you have left the List of Eyeshield 21 characters article, it is full of details on secondary characters while only having a tiny paragraph about the main characters. I don't see how things like the main characters' names, a breif description of their roles in the story, or which voice actors voiced them in the anime could be considered non-encyclopedic. I also don't think any of the people voting for a merge in the AFD were desiring a final article that doesn't even give (for example) the main character's last name. Would you object to me trying to merge significantly more content from the redirected article into the target article? Calathan ( talk) 20:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain why you reverted this of mine? GB fan 22:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please help get at least the latest copy of this article before it was deleted: Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 It was a lot of work. Thanks. Wikilogin123 ( talk) 06:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox. You deleted this article on 24 October 2012 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk) and it is repeatedly recreated since then. I've declined the last WP:G4 nomination, as I think the creator's objection might be justified, Sandbakk seems to be a notable jazz popularizer in Norway [19]. Would you mind if I take the article to WP:DRV? Please, let me know if you disagree. Thank you. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 08:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty OK @ New page patrolling; so should I continue that? I am sorry for the mess I have created. @ Dipankan Upgraded! Tag me! 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The Too Hard Medal | ||
Principal architect of Civility RFC |
Nobody Ent 22:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox. See excellent comment of yours featured on my page here. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC).
I have lost desire to rename this article into "Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin". Seriously, I have detested the way I have written solely about her because she has no general significance. But I guess it helps readers truly learn about her individually and her sole significance to Frasier Crane (and Diane Chambers). In fact, she appeared in Cheers and Frasier. Do not worry; I will NOT change the whole layout into fitting the failed proposed scope. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox,
Please restore the following pages: List of Bell TV channels, List of Cogeco Cable Ontario TV Channels, List of Cogeco Cable Quebec TV Channels, List of Vidéotron Illico TV channels, List of Rogers Digital Cable Channels, List of Shaw Direct channels, List of Shaw Exo TV channels,
They are EXTREMELY critical to my job.
JT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.14.30 ( talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Not flaunt - (WP:AN/I).
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
Hi Beeblebrox, I don't have any objections to your merge of the Staring contest article – in fact I don't really care, because it's only on my watchlist due to vandalism. But I don't really like it when the talk page is redirected as well, because I don't see the point of effectively losing those discussions. I may be a bit paranoid, but we could *really* lose these discussions if something like this ever happens again. Therefore, I've reverted your redirect of the talk page. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 04:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Any reason that shouldn't be a hard redirect? Just curious. -- Lexein ( talk) 09:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you reverted the category.
Several have complained about the needless extra steps in the process. And besides, consensus can be determined from even partially completed questionnaires, I would presume? - jc37 18:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
PESO44 ( talk · contribs) is a relatively inexperienced user who has been causing trouble. He complained to EricEnfermero here regarding this edit by Eric. I have tried to explain to the editor that the content being removed was not appropriate, but they have responded with rude replies about my bald-headed brain ( which they repeated after a final warning), and the remark that I am senseless and clueless. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the situation and see what needs to be done. Automatic Strikeout 19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 03:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for rectifying my over-zealous striking - but the editor in question has since reverted you and added some more !votes. As I don't wish to appear involved, please can you intervene? Regards, Giant Snowman 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
GiantSnowman has been over-zealous and can you instruct him of the known criteria of articles. I don't know if he understands them. Sign!!! Gregoryat ( talk) 20:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox- there was no legal threats made over at User talk:Gregoryat. Gregoryat ( talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Gregoryat ( talk) 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please watch the discussion from Patken4. Gregoryat ( talk) 06:16, 7 November 2012 (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. |