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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Thanks for uploading File:Richard Ivey School of Business logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a message that's not from a Kumioko sock. How you doing, Beeblebrox? Have y'all had daylight yet? Take it easy, and thanks for sucking it up for the rest of us. Drmies ( talk) 00:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I would post this on the page, but this is more a personnel matter. I am going to be very busy until the weekend. I was wondering if there would be any findings and remedies that directly deal with me? I just want to know, so I can try to respond. Casprings ( talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a question here about the status of discretionary sanctions and the scope of the American politics case. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 21:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Rovine. Thanks. Rovine message 20:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
— Confession0791 talk 00:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Eloquence has [global] staff user rights, which includes "Edit all user rights (userrights)". As the VP Engineering, he also has root access and could remove userrights from that point. You'll have to go to Meta to look at the group, it's not accessible on this project. Risker ( talk) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Rijin ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
I wrestled with the newly titled Alaska Dispatch News article (redirect from the ADN article). Could you take a look at the "Controversy" section and see if a better solution to a Wikipedia sourcing problem than that which I have used might replace mine? Before my edits, the section bordered on unreadable. I sent this same note to Radio KAOS. Activist ( talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This article was created by a user you blocked two years ago for disruptive editing. While, strictly speaking, it is not inaccurate, the article was pretty clearly written with political intent and should be deleted as such (I have explained further on the talk page). Thank you.-- 68.61.5.58 ( talk) 02:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"move along"
Thank you, vandal fighter in open resistance, for welcoming and deleting, for
clear language and
reflection, for
closing, quote: "clarified, move along", - you are an
awesome Wikipedian (15 April 2010)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 553rd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Back in November, you speedied None of the Above (Serbia) as G10. Since I can't see the article, could you please re-check if it wasn't just a vandalized page, and if there's something salvageable in its history? Or the article was just a negative slant about them? I ask because they're a relatively notable, parliamentary party, so I'd expect that article to have been created by someone in the know. Regards, No such user ( talk) 07:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
(thread moved from top of page Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC))
The edit i made to fireblazer isn't vandalism because he's actually my friend . You can confirm this with him. Thank you.
P.S. Please reconsider your decision . If I do anything wrong, you can take my rights away.
Matheweditking (
talk) 17:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if WP:RPP was an appropriate venue so I thought I'd ask a friendly admin this instead: please could you indefinitely semi-protect my userpage? The (admittedly occasional) vandalism is becoming rather tiresome. Thanks, BethNaught ( talk) 11:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, there is a draft article at AfC, Draft:Mydala, which seems adequately sourced to move to mainspace. However, you speedy deleted it in 2010 and you may have SALT'd the title. Can you de-SALT Mydala so I can move the draft to mainspace? Sionk ( talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
As Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/to do was for the most part still stuck in 2006, I took the initiative to redo it. Any suggestions, what I missed, etc.? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox, Please look after the reviewer permission requests on the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer page.Mine and other 3 editors requests are pending.Thanks.-- Param Mudgal ( talk) 09:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for that. I will not ask any administrator about that.I understand that administrators have more work to do than accepting or declining requests.I will remain patient.Anyways, Thank you for your help and sorry again for any inconvenience caused.-- Param Mudgal ( talk) 19:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@ DangerousPanda: I respect your opinion but i feel that i understand what reviewer is/does for.I understand what are edits in good faith and what edits are done to vandalise wikipedia. And i also know that without the support of my fellow editors and administrators i cant achieve anything here.You are an experienced editor and if you think that i cant handle the responsibility of a reviewer , i will respect your decision and work hard and request again in future but i will not let myself down, that i assure you. Thank you.-- Param Mudgal ( talk) 10:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@ DangerousPanda: No No, you're getting me wrong, I just wanted to say that wikipedia can maintain its quality content with the teamwork of all editors and administrators.I was not saying that individually we cant set an impact here.I was just promoting teamwork here. Nothing else.Thank you.-- Param Mudgal ( talk) 11:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Any idea why I keep getting "John Kassir was linked from..." notifications? - Amaury ( talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but could you do a user check at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Varda_Kotler on users MusiqueEnthusiasm ( talk • contribs) and Guillaume261086 ( talk • contribs) who are advancing suspiciously similar, and specious, reasons, in defence of the article in question? The detail of (not cogent) material they are supplying also makes me think there is a vested interest here. Neither of them has ever made any other contribution to WP apart from defending this article. Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 16:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that you may not see this for some time, but I'll leave a comment anyway. Since you were the one who proposed the merge (and I agree it should be done), wouldn't it make more sense to merge back to the main Reindeer article, rather than the other direction? Quite a bit of the content in the Caribou article (a solo project) was literally "stolen" (I AGF that it wasn't done maliciously), without attribution, from the Reindeer article anyway. I have restored that deleted content to the reindeer article, without doing anything with the caribou article. The main Reindeer article should be able to cover the entire Rangifer tarandus subject, while still allowing some subarticles for specific subspecies. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I regret having made such a fuss over it. I know you were just trying to stop a fiasco from happening. Please accept my apologies. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. I believe this editnotice (which you created) is no longer required (it expired on 1 March 2013 and the film was released in 2011). If you agree, are you happy to delete it? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 00:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I think that the article you edited Cash L3wis may be not referenced, but it's notable. Please mark the subject as reviewed and let me work in it. You are open to help too! Have a great day. Karlhard (talk to me) 01:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks its been over 4 days...first day & first edit 14 October, 2014...second 15 October...third 16 October and fourth October 17. and today 18 october. can you please looks into this Saadkhan12345 ( talk) 11:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
Thank you for your quick response. I understand about verification of sources and the like but I was referencing Stephen Colbert's height only because it was verified by the man himself. If you'd like a laugh check it out; http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/qw8rwv/who-s-attacking-me-now----larry-page - it's great! Then, after you've finished watching the clip open a google page and search "How tall is Stephen Colbert?" to continue your laugh. Have a good one!
Jamintexas ( talk) 00:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify here that the enacted ban is from BLP related edits and not just articles, so that there is no future wiki-lawyering on the issue? Thanks. Abecedare ( talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You answered questions above and below it... direct link to the question. Samsara 16:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've requested an edit on MediaWiki talk:Vector-view-history to change the wording from "View" to "Page" to make it clearer for readers that the link takes them to the history of the page instead of the history of the topic. I know I was slightly confused the very first time I clicked the link and saw all kinds of technical garble and not the topic history I expected and I have talked to others that couldn't fathom ever editing, but do look stuff up from time to time and are confused by it as well. While I agree the original reason for the proposal (the gender bias crud) was ludicrous at best, I think the discussion had turned to a more logical idea of changing the wording (which would have still left "history" in the wording) to be less confusing to readers. I'd love if you would weigh in on the edit request (feel free to carry it out or to close it pending further discussion). Thank you. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Nearly 3 years ago, you protected V Australia. Unnecessary as there hasn't even been an edit in 6 weeks. Please undo it or let me know the reason why you think it should remain locked. If you think that all articles should be protected, let me know. EatingGlassIsBad ( talk) 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, Sorry for the trouble. You previously participated in a related AfD discussion. Thought you might be interested. Becky Sayles ( talk) 23:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought I should make it known on-wiki that I will not be running for re-election to the Arbitration Committee. It's not any one thing or person, it's a lot of little things that, taken together, make me believe it is time for me to move on. If I had been elected to a two-year term I would have served the whole thing, but I got a one-year term. While there are two one-year terms up for grabs this time, there is also the possibility that I would get elected to a new two-year term and thus end up dedicating three years of my efforts for this project to arbcom work. Arbcom is much more of an obligation than any other volunteer position here and I have tried to give it the attention it is due, slashing my watchlist down to almost nothing (outside of dozens of arbitration-related pages) and not engaging in the day-to-day operations of the oversight team, who are currently experiencing severe backlogs and need experienced hands to help out.
In other words, I'd rather do what I was doing before.
I will take with me a much better understanding of exactly how the committee operates and what its strengths and weaknesses are and hopefully this knowledge will aid me in the future. Although I sometimes disagreed with my colleagues and much of what I hoped to accomplish as an arb has not come to pass I wish all the other arbs, present and future, nothing but the best.
Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sure you have reasons you consider sound for abstaining on the GGTF ban !vote on Eric Corbett, but I am just popping by to state my opinion that he should not be banned, and that it would be a travesty were he to be banned due to abstentions who might otherwise oppose. Seems to me that when in doubt, just vote no. You can, of source, state your caveats and concerns. I just feel that abstaining in this case is simply a yes vote by default. That's all. Montanabw (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, now that my name has been cleared, will you restore my User:Baaarny/Research sandbox page please as the reason you gave for its deletion is now no longer valid. Baaarny ( talk) 22:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, would you mind explaining your statement here? [2] What specific edits do you object to? Regards, — Neotarf ( talk) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm soooo done, if he will just stop with the nuisance pings.
|
---|
I asked him on his talk page to never contact me again, and he posted a very nice sounding reply about leaving the past in the past and wanting to get along. As I promised I would not contact him again I am not replying there, but here are some illuminating details:
"All you have done is turn me against the project... I did more for this project than you or any of the clowns who voted to ban me from the project and since its obvious at this point I will never be allowed back thanks to you and your fellow assholes and arbitraitors, you deserve every word of the term. FUCK You!"
So, I think the community is making a serious error in judgement in even considering allowing him back. But the community will do what it wants and life's too short to spend any more of my time reading his screeds full of assumptions of bad faith, ironic from someone who earlier this year repeatedly promised to be the worst troll and sockmaster WP has ever seen. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
FYI. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:I don't generally discuss arbcom business on my talk page. If you have something to say about the proposed decision feel free to do so on it's talk page .
Beeblebrox (
talk) 19:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Hello, so I skimmed through the proposed decision, nice work, but I have a problem, for the first hours I thought I wasn't getting sanctioned so I stopped paying attention, but then I read someone had proposed a topic ban against me, and a SPA accusation (which I don't really understand the reasoning) anyway I came to know of remakrs done by the proposer Arb and voter to ban me that seriously begs to question his/her neutrality, seeing that all the votes against users like Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof and Gamaliel are oppose and users like me, TitaniumDragon, DungeonSiege, etc are in favor. This isn't the problem, and I think I can send you this by email if it violates a rule, but the Arb seems to have a strong position regarding GamerGate, and gender politics in general. Anyway I realize there are 4 other arbs voting to ban me, again, for being a SPA, which as my contributions history shows, is in my opinion not the case (but this isn't the point), I feel personally not being given a fair judgement when one of them seems to have their personal opinions or idelogy come first instead of their unbiased interpretations and applications of Wikipedia rules, and I think he/she should reccuse from voting in this case to not further damage the image of the project. I could send the evidence by email. Thanks! It's also worth noting this user already recussed themselves on the discussion to take the case so he/she even admits to this. Loganmac ( talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Now I've come to find that ANOTHER voter has strong positions regarding GamerGate, this is seriously making me ashamed. Again all votes against Ryulong, NorhBySouth and Gamaliel are Opposes and for TitaniumDragon, et al. Supports, please let me email you this Loganmac ( talk) 08:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
see above.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 19:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
I didn't pay any attention to the gamer gate case, although I I did try to edit the article once, but decided it was too toxic. I saw the proposed decision b/c I watch NB's talk page, and I noticed this comment of yours in the workshop. Do you not feel you and your colleagues should be held to a similar standard? Is there something in the deliberation process that leads to 11th hour results? ( Two kinds of pork 07:52, 21 January 2015) It's not a question about the case per se, but rather about the overall process, which should be applicable across all cases. Is it fair to say appears you dont look kindly towards 11th hour "filings" (for the lack of a better word)?
So I take it by your silence you don't want to address your own hypocrisy? Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Admins are supposed to explain their administrative actions when asked. Are Arbitrators not held to the same standard? Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 04:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
Excellent essay man, often when you meet them and try reporting them, the discussion will usually shift to the one reporting getting banned Loganmac ( talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm doing this right but I'll add 2 cents. I'll be honest, I've always thought about editing but I saw your essay long ago when peeking through things. It was suggested I read it and was linked to a few 'problematic' editors who would be present in the space I would likely want to edit. It made me 'nope' the hell out and walk the other way. Just the overwhelming evidence that there is an 'upper class' of editor that makes it very clear Wiki cannot be 'edited by everyone' was very disappointing. To know that if in good faith I made an edit some person would just undo it and complain to an admin to have me banned just because of some procedural mistake. Or try to claim that I'm some single purpose account just because it's the only article I've edited(because it was the only one that caught my interest to fix). This and the flooded inbox of people complaining about obvious bias that admin have for editors who have been around a while. I'd think you'd hold a long time editor to a higher standard than a newbie, who doesn't even know if they're actually doing it the right way. I'm an idiot and I don't know how to sign it properly, sorry. 65.29.77.61 ( talk) 06:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure ! Usually, I always
do this and
that at the creation of the page. I'm sorry to have forget to do it before you asked !
Thanks for you essay. I hope that it will help us.
Simon Villeneuve (
talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year !!! | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
Hi Beeb. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and welcome back to the madhouse. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! I need an administrator's assistance. I recently edited the article Oobi at Work and added a list of episodes with a source. However, a ClueBot reverted my edit. My username is new here on Wikipedia but I have been editing as an anonymous user until I realised I wanted to become a real user, so I am familiar with this kind of thing, but I would still like to know whether or not you think the list I added is wrongly done. I've seen some pages with all-out boxes for episodes, but some pages (like Didi and B.) listed them the way I did. Please give me any opinions! Derbundeskanzler ( talk) 21:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, an indefinite topic ban is too harsh. A definite ban of say 6 months would have sufficed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 08:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
1
Re: this edit of yours from 23:03, 16 January 2015 — The auto archive was working just fine: if you look at the talk page history, at 17:33, 15 September 2014, User:Lowercase sigmabot III properly archived the talk page, but on 18:03, 16 January 2015, User:Mormography mistakenly reverted the bot. Unfortunatly your manual edit on 23:03, 16 January 2015 has created significant duplication between Archive 2 & 3. I have added the archive bot info back to the talk page, as that should be non-controversial, but I am loth to trim down the material in Archive 3 that is a duplicate for what is found in Archive 2, given I am trying to avoid another barrage of accusations against me about my actions on that article & it's talk page. Given that you are the person that created that manual archive, would you be willing to remove the duplicate info in Archive 3? — Asterisk * Splat → 16:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox, Ever since the infamous (for most people who know of it it is infamous) #GamerGate I payed more attention to feminism due to the fact 'the other side' consists of feminists (I payed attention before, but more local (Europe based)). Since then I've delved more deeper into it, and together with the news of today/yesterday (people trying to get an organisation to remove the invite to Baldwin (the actor who coined the term GamerGate)) including the near-libellous expressions of Kotaku's EiC Totillo etc, the 'porn charity' which got heavily attacked etc I really get the impression #GamerGate is just a culture war ('moderation' apparently also tries to be forced into comics, metal (the music), etc). Would it be a problem if I used my Sandbox page as an model to attempt to figure out if such a thing what I think it is is reported on by RSes as such, and whether it's possible to make such an article according to the Wiki-standards? Also, if it proves to be possible and can be done according to all standards, can it then be moved out to the regular Wiki (with possible tie-in links to the related portals)? Regards MicBenSte ( talk) 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the service awards (which you've deleted), they've also given themselves like 20 barnstars. Could/should anything be done about those? I feel that they lessen the value of earning one--I could have User:Origamian give me a dozen, but they'd be meaningless. Origamite ⓣ ⓒ 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I was looking through Disney Channel stuff and noticed that the table for the season three episodes of Austin & Ally is messed up. I wouldn't know where to start looking. - Amaury ( talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
How about this one? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, the edit request function of the "view source" tab of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision doesn't appear to be working properly for me, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would it please be possible to have a statement currently saddled in my talk page be edited in? Thank you for your time and patience. WhatNeverHappens ( talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection seem to indicate that, if you were requesting an change to the page protection status on a page already address, it should come to the admin who did it first. So I believe contacting you is the appropriate action. However, if I'm supposed to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, I apologize. Just let me know and I will do that.
You added a full protection to Gordon B. Hinckley set to expire on January 24th (1 week) due to a content dispute. The dispute has been discuses here since that time. However, the moment the full protection expired, one party immediately made the same change that led to the content dispute, completely ignoring the discussion and the consensus.
Therefore I'm requesting that you extend the full protection for whatever time you feel is appropriate. Clearly the content dispute continues.--- ARTEST4ECHO( Talk) 13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You know what, I don't really like to keep dealing with the same issue over and over again anyway. People tend to start taking things more personally on both sides of the coin. So, just count me out of it and do as you will. If other users feel there is edit warring going on they can just report it or ask for page protection. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
How good did that feel?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You made we smile, - userbox with bananas and header. Thank you for the rare event between Kafka on AE and a friend gone, - did you know that I have a banana on my user page, but very small because it was deemed infuriating? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I came to find this /info/en/?search=User_talk:Ryulong#e.27s_not_dead.2C_e.27s_just_restin.27
Which looks like a clear case of WP:MEAT and editing by proxy for an indefinetely banned editor. They both right out admit to emailing each other in case the editor needs something done. In particular, Hipocrite seems to be patrolling toku articles reverting everyone as if they owned the pages. This is against reaching a consensus.
If you could please point me to the specific board where I could raise this issue it would be appreaciated, thanks! Loganmac ( talk) 10:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your work on Arbcom, which is a messy, acrimonious, time-draining, soul crushing job. I was one of your biggest detractors going in and one of your biggest fans going out. Although we might have differed on this specific or that, I appreciate your honesty and needed toughness on the committee and thank you for your service to The Project. Carrite ( talk) 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) |
Well thank you, that actually means a lot to me. And may I say that I have noticed you as a much-needed voice for moderation and reason at a certain other website. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for handling all those CSDs I posted. I really hate doing that to a relatively new user but I honestly could not find even a very thin rational for keeping them. They were just empty shells with a name. There were a few others that had maybe a single event but no sources that I put maintenance tags on. But I gotta see SOMETHING besides a name and see also section. What I find particularly disturbing is that almost all of them had passed an NPP review without any kind of tag or notice. Anyway thanks again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For starting this RfC. Perhaps you could consider starting a similar RfC for the reviewer right. Biblio worm 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
Appreciate your trust in granting me the pending changes right and I will do my best to use it correctly! EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 20:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
Hey Beeblebrox, I was just in the middle of saving a comment on this thread when you archived it, so my initial revision was not saved. I went ahead and added it to the archived discussion with an edit conflict notice. Is that alright? I know it's not really the norm, but this was something I felt strongly about; at the same time, commenting outside of the archive box might reignite the conflict, which is also something I don't want. Kurtis (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
no thanks
|
---|
Hello! I'm never quite sure why people would do things they don't agree with "for procedural reasons"; but don't ever do things "for procedural reasons". Anyways, here's your obStandard once-per-decade reminder. ;-) Procedural reasons abdictate responsibility. Procedural reasons are often misunderstood. History shows that Procedural reasons tend to explode in your face. Do things for smart reasons. Do things because you agree with them. Do things because you understand why they are important to the encyclopedia. If the procedures work, then your actions will be exactly per procedure anyway. (And that's why we have them ;-) . -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Don't blame me for posting this, it was purely for procedural reasons. this post by the first admin to succesfully block for IAR violations |
Just wanted to check in and make sure you got my email. No reply is necessary... just wanted to make sure it went through :) Best — MusikAnimal talk 19:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, could you please restore the history of Gearóid Morrissey prior to it being deleted at AfD, as the person is now notable. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 17:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to pop up out of the blue. With regard to this, I am itching to change that "form" to "from". I'm not going to, though, as I am terrified that it would annoy you, breach 93 rules of etiquette and cause the internet to collapse. So I am just casually mentioning it in passing, putting my hands in my pockets, and walking away whistling. Have a lovely evening or whatever time you are currently experiencing. Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologise if I came across too harshly during the RfC. The most important thing we should all remember is that we are all Wikipedians, and that we are here to build the greatest encyclopaedia that the world has ever known.
Again, I apologise if I came off as rude or inconsiderate before.
Tharthandorf Aquanashi (
talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen it myself, but has someone ever tried to game the system and propose the same thing again more or less immediately after it has been closed? I assume such has happened before, but I've never seen it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 03:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I hope all is well. I have a few questions about a page I am trying to publish for Topher Mohr. I appreciate the tips on the formatting of the references and will update those to reflect accordingly. The question is with the material that was deemed potentially infringed, the meat of the page. The site it was compared to actually copied almost word for word from his published bio on his labels site. The label has sent wiki a clearance to use the content in the form needed, indemnifying them, as they are the content owners. Can this be corrected in any way manually? Lastly for the references, it had been warned about user blogs, would the Huffington Post fall into that category or be ok? I ask because we have had a heck of a time getting this page up and he has a fairly strong career to date. Again, I very much thank you for your help and tips, it is MUCH appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Perhaps in a few days or so it will be clarified. Again, thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Does my topic ban prevent me from raising concerns over BLP violations against my person if they would be within the airspace of topics covered by my topic ban? -- DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 02:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If you do propose eliminating the rollback user right again in a year or two, make it clear next time that you aren't proposing to replace it with Javascript. That seemed to cause a lot of confusion. Thanks for trying anyway. Gigs ( talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox. First of all, could you be more specific on how my vandalism message is improper? I would like to have your opinion before I change my current warning system. Also, about how many edits reverting vandalism and warning vandals would you like to see before considering granting me the reviewer right? Please leave your response on my talk page, and let me know if any of my other current warnings are improper and how so. Thanks! Lord Laitinen ( talk) 05:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"Such stubborn and impudent behavior has consequences here on Wikipedia, and you were given chances to improve"and
"The consequence for doing this is usually a 24-hour block to test integrity. Please refrain from breaking this rule again""to test integrity" ? Please consider re-wording these templates, (IMO) these templates are presumptuous, rude and bitey, at best. Cheers, Mlpearc ( open channel) 06:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I was contemplating to give my daily prize to the infobox-hero mentioned in the Signpost, and you block them ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You recently blocked Antotherreincarnationoftommythetroll ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a sock of TOMMYTHETROLL ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, ///EuroCar GT 22:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
Can I ask you to remove the Wikibreak Enforcer from my User:ZuluPapa5 account, so I may resume editing with that account. Thanks TenzinTashi5 ( talk) 15:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, you may want to revisit the block on User:Chelyabinsk University. Their article for Yanuc Salkovski is up for AfD and there's a strong chance that the article may be a hoax, so you may need to block them if a Russian speaker comes on and confirms this. I figure I'll leave it up to you. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please block me until the 2nd of April Yoppy The Nurse ( talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Wikipedia:Block on demand page, along with comment and a link to your requirements page, if any. Thanks, SD0001 ( talk) 16:24, 2 March 2015 (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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Thanks for uploading File:Richard Ivey School of Business logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a message that's not from a Kumioko sock. How you doing, Beeblebrox? Have y'all had daylight yet? Take it easy, and thanks for sucking it up for the rest of us. Drmies ( talk) 00:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I would post this on the page, but this is more a personnel matter. I am going to be very busy until the weekend. I was wondering if there would be any findings and remedies that directly deal with me? I just want to know, so I can try to respond. Casprings ( talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a question here about the status of discretionary sanctions and the scope of the American politics case. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 21:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Rovine. Thanks. Rovine message 20:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
— Confession0791 talk 00:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Eloquence has [global] staff user rights, which includes "Edit all user rights (userrights)". As the VP Engineering, he also has root access and could remove userrights from that point. You'll have to go to Meta to look at the group, it's not accessible on this project. Risker ( talk) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Rijin ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
I wrestled with the newly titled Alaska Dispatch News article (redirect from the ADN article). Could you take a look at the "Controversy" section and see if a better solution to a Wikipedia sourcing problem than that which I have used might replace mine? Before my edits, the section bordered on unreadable. I sent this same note to Radio KAOS. Activist ( talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This article was created by a user you blocked two years ago for disruptive editing. While, strictly speaking, it is not inaccurate, the article was pretty clearly written with political intent and should be deleted as such (I have explained further on the talk page). Thank you.-- 68.61.5.58 ( talk) 02:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"move along"
Thank you, vandal fighter in open resistance, for welcoming and deleting, for
clear language and
reflection, for
closing, quote: "clarified, move along", - you are an
awesome Wikipedian (15 April 2010)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 553rd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Back in November, you speedied None of the Above (Serbia) as G10. Since I can't see the article, could you please re-check if it wasn't just a vandalized page, and if there's something salvageable in its history? Or the article was just a negative slant about them? I ask because they're a relatively notable, parliamentary party, so I'd expect that article to have been created by someone in the know. Regards, No such user ( talk) 07:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
(thread moved from top of page Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC))
The edit i made to fireblazer isn't vandalism because he's actually my friend . You can confirm this with him. Thank you.
P.S. Please reconsider your decision . If I do anything wrong, you can take my rights away.
Matheweditking (
talk) 17:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if WP:RPP was an appropriate venue so I thought I'd ask a friendly admin this instead: please could you indefinitely semi-protect my userpage? The (admittedly occasional) vandalism is becoming rather tiresome. Thanks, BethNaught ( talk) 11:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, there is a draft article at AfC, Draft:Mydala, which seems adequately sourced to move to mainspace. However, you speedy deleted it in 2010 and you may have SALT'd the title. Can you de-SALT Mydala so I can move the draft to mainspace? Sionk ( talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
As Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/to do was for the most part still stuck in 2006, I took the initiative to redo it. Any suggestions, what I missed, etc.? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Beeblebrox, Please look after the reviewer permission requests on the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer page.Mine and other 3 editors requests are pending.Thanks.-- Param Mudgal ( talk) 09:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for that. I will not ask any administrator about that.I understand that administrators have more work to do than accepting or declining requests.I will remain patient.Anyways, Thank you for your help and sorry again for any inconvenience caused.-- Param Mudgal ( talk) 19:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@ DangerousPanda: I respect your opinion but i feel that i understand what reviewer is/does for.I understand what are edits in good faith and what edits are done to vandalise wikipedia. And i also know that without the support of my fellow editors and administrators i cant achieve anything here.You are an experienced editor and if you think that i cant handle the responsibility of a reviewer , i will respect your decision and work hard and request again in future but i will not let myself down, that i assure you. Thank you.-- Param Mudgal ( talk) 10:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@ DangerousPanda: No No, you're getting me wrong, I just wanted to say that wikipedia can maintain its quality content with the teamwork of all editors and administrators.I was not saying that individually we cant set an impact here.I was just promoting teamwork here. Nothing else.Thank you.-- Param Mudgal ( talk) 11:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Any idea why I keep getting "John Kassir was linked from..." notifications? - Amaury ( talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but could you do a user check at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Varda_Kotler on users MusiqueEnthusiasm ( talk • contribs) and Guillaume261086 ( talk • contribs) who are advancing suspiciously similar, and specious, reasons, in defence of the article in question? The detail of (not cogent) material they are supplying also makes me think there is a vested interest here. Neither of them has ever made any other contribution to WP apart from defending this article. Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 16:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that you may not see this for some time, but I'll leave a comment anyway. Since you were the one who proposed the merge (and I agree it should be done), wouldn't it make more sense to merge back to the main Reindeer article, rather than the other direction? Quite a bit of the content in the Caribou article (a solo project) was literally "stolen" (I AGF that it wasn't done maliciously), without attribution, from the Reindeer article anyway. I have restored that deleted content to the reindeer article, without doing anything with the caribou article. The main Reindeer article should be able to cover the entire Rangifer tarandus subject, while still allowing some subarticles for specific subspecies. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I regret having made such a fuss over it. I know you were just trying to stop a fiasco from happening. Please accept my apologies. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox. I believe this editnotice (which you created) is no longer required (it expired on 1 March 2013 and the film was released in 2011). If you agree, are you happy to delete it? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 00:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, I think that the article you edited Cash L3wis may be not referenced, but it's notable. Please mark the subject as reviewed and let me work in it. You are open to help too! Have a great day. Karlhard (talk to me) 01:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks its been over 4 days...first day & first edit 14 October, 2014...second 15 October...third 16 October and fourth October 17. and today 18 october. can you please looks into this Saadkhan12345 ( talk) 11:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
Thank you for your quick response. I understand about verification of sources and the like but I was referencing Stephen Colbert's height only because it was verified by the man himself. If you'd like a laugh check it out; http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/qw8rwv/who-s-attacking-me-now----larry-page - it's great! Then, after you've finished watching the clip open a google page and search "How tall is Stephen Colbert?" to continue your laugh. Have a good one!
Jamintexas ( talk) 00:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify here that the enacted ban is from BLP related edits and not just articles, so that there is no future wiki-lawyering on the issue? Thanks. Abecedare ( talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You answered questions above and below it... direct link to the question. Samsara 16:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've requested an edit on MediaWiki talk:Vector-view-history to change the wording from "View" to "Page" to make it clearer for readers that the link takes them to the history of the page instead of the history of the topic. I know I was slightly confused the very first time I clicked the link and saw all kinds of technical garble and not the topic history I expected and I have talked to others that couldn't fathom ever editing, but do look stuff up from time to time and are confused by it as well. While I agree the original reason for the proposal (the gender bias crud) was ludicrous at best, I think the discussion had turned to a more logical idea of changing the wording (which would have still left "history" in the wording) to be less confusing to readers. I'd love if you would weigh in on the edit request (feel free to carry it out or to close it pending further discussion). Thank you. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Nearly 3 years ago, you protected V Australia. Unnecessary as there hasn't even been an edit in 6 weeks. Please undo it or let me know the reason why you think it should remain locked. If you think that all articles should be protected, let me know. EatingGlassIsBad ( talk) 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, Sorry for the trouble. You previously participated in a related AfD discussion. Thought you might be interested. Becky Sayles ( talk) 23:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought I should make it known on-wiki that I will not be running for re-election to the Arbitration Committee. It's not any one thing or person, it's a lot of little things that, taken together, make me believe it is time for me to move on. If I had been elected to a two-year term I would have served the whole thing, but I got a one-year term. While there are two one-year terms up for grabs this time, there is also the possibility that I would get elected to a new two-year term and thus end up dedicating three years of my efforts for this project to arbcom work. Arbcom is much more of an obligation than any other volunteer position here and I have tried to give it the attention it is due, slashing my watchlist down to almost nothing (outside of dozens of arbitration-related pages) and not engaging in the day-to-day operations of the oversight team, who are currently experiencing severe backlogs and need experienced hands to help out.
In other words, I'd rather do what I was doing before.
I will take with me a much better understanding of exactly how the committee operates and what its strengths and weaknesses are and hopefully this knowledge will aid me in the future. Although I sometimes disagreed with my colleagues and much of what I hoped to accomplish as an arb has not come to pass I wish all the other arbs, present and future, nothing but the best.
Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sure you have reasons you consider sound for abstaining on the GGTF ban !vote on Eric Corbett, but I am just popping by to state my opinion that he should not be banned, and that it would be a travesty were he to be banned due to abstentions who might otherwise oppose. Seems to me that when in doubt, just vote no. You can, of source, state your caveats and concerns. I just feel that abstaining in this case is simply a yes vote by default. That's all. Montanabw (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beeblebrox, now that my name has been cleared, will you restore my User:Baaarny/Research sandbox page please as the reason you gave for its deletion is now no longer valid. Baaarny ( talk) 22:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, would you mind explaining your statement here? [2] What specific edits do you object to? Regards, — Neotarf ( talk) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm soooo done, if he will just stop with the nuisance pings.
|
---|
I asked him on his talk page to never contact me again, and he posted a very nice sounding reply about leaving the past in the past and wanting to get along. As I promised I would not contact him again I am not replying there, but here are some illuminating details:
"All you have done is turn me against the project... I did more for this project than you or any of the clowns who voted to ban me from the project and since its obvious at this point I will never be allowed back thanks to you and your fellow assholes and arbitraitors, you deserve every word of the term. FUCK You!"
So, I think the community is making a serious error in judgement in even considering allowing him back. But the community will do what it wants and life's too short to spend any more of my time reading his screeds full of assumptions of bad faith, ironic from someone who earlier this year repeatedly promised to be the worst troll and sockmaster WP has ever seen. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
FYI. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:I don't generally discuss arbcom business on my talk page. If you have something to say about the proposed decision feel free to do so on it's talk page .
Beeblebrox (
talk) 19:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Hello, so I skimmed through the proposed decision, nice work, but I have a problem, for the first hours I thought I wasn't getting sanctioned so I stopped paying attention, but then I read someone had proposed a topic ban against me, and a SPA accusation (which I don't really understand the reasoning) anyway I came to know of remakrs done by the proposer Arb and voter to ban me that seriously begs to question his/her neutrality, seeing that all the votes against users like Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof and Gamaliel are oppose and users like me, TitaniumDragon, DungeonSiege, etc are in favor. This isn't the problem, and I think I can send you this by email if it violates a rule, but the Arb seems to have a strong position regarding GamerGate, and gender politics in general. Anyway I realize there are 4 other arbs voting to ban me, again, for being a SPA, which as my contributions history shows, is in my opinion not the case (but this isn't the point), I feel personally not being given a fair judgement when one of them seems to have their personal opinions or idelogy come first instead of their unbiased interpretations and applications of Wikipedia rules, and I think he/she should reccuse from voting in this case to not further damage the image of the project. I could send the evidence by email. Thanks! It's also worth noting this user already recussed themselves on the discussion to take the case so he/she even admits to this. Loganmac ( talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Now I've come to find that ANOTHER voter has strong positions regarding GamerGate, this is seriously making me ashamed. Again all votes against Ryulong, NorhBySouth and Gamaliel are Opposes and for TitaniumDragon, et al. Supports, please let me email you this Loganmac ( talk) 08:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
see above.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 19:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
I didn't pay any attention to the gamer gate case, although I I did try to edit the article once, but decided it was too toxic. I saw the proposed decision b/c I watch NB's talk page, and I noticed this comment of yours in the workshop. Do you not feel you and your colleagues should be held to a similar standard? Is there something in the deliberation process that leads to 11th hour results? ( Two kinds of pork 07:52, 21 January 2015) It's not a question about the case per se, but rather about the overall process, which should be applicable across all cases. Is it fair to say appears you dont look kindly towards 11th hour "filings" (for the lack of a better word)?
So I take it by your silence you don't want to address your own hypocrisy? Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Admins are supposed to explain their administrative actions when asked. Are Arbitrators not held to the same standard? Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 04:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) |
Excellent essay man, often when you meet them and try reporting them, the discussion will usually shift to the one reporting getting banned Loganmac ( talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm doing this right but I'll add 2 cents. I'll be honest, I've always thought about editing but I saw your essay long ago when peeking through things. It was suggested I read it and was linked to a few 'problematic' editors who would be present in the space I would likely want to edit. It made me 'nope' the hell out and walk the other way. Just the overwhelming evidence that there is an 'upper class' of editor that makes it very clear Wiki cannot be 'edited by everyone' was very disappointing. To know that if in good faith I made an edit some person would just undo it and complain to an admin to have me banned just because of some procedural mistake. Or try to claim that I'm some single purpose account just because it's the only article I've edited(because it was the only one that caught my interest to fix). This and the flooded inbox of people complaining about obvious bias that admin have for editors who have been around a while. I'd think you'd hold a long time editor to a higher standard than a newbie, who doesn't even know if they're actually doing it the right way. I'm an idiot and I don't know how to sign it properly, sorry. 65.29.77.61 ( talk) 06:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure ! Usually, I always
do this and
that at the creation of the page. I'm sorry to have forget to do it before you asked !
Thanks for you essay. I hope that it will help us.
Simon Villeneuve (
talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year !!! | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
Hi Beeb. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and welcome back to the madhouse. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! I need an administrator's assistance. I recently edited the article Oobi at Work and added a list of episodes with a source. However, a ClueBot reverted my edit. My username is new here on Wikipedia but I have been editing as an anonymous user until I realised I wanted to become a real user, so I am familiar with this kind of thing, but I would still like to know whether or not you think the list I added is wrongly done. I've seen some pages with all-out boxes for episodes, but some pages (like Didi and B.) listed them the way I did. Please give me any opinions! Derbundeskanzler ( talk) 21:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, an indefinite topic ban is too harsh. A definite ban of say 6 months would have sufficed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি ( talk) 08:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
1
Re: this edit of yours from 23:03, 16 January 2015 — The auto archive was working just fine: if you look at the talk page history, at 17:33, 15 September 2014, User:Lowercase sigmabot III properly archived the talk page, but on 18:03, 16 January 2015, User:Mormography mistakenly reverted the bot. Unfortunatly your manual edit on 23:03, 16 January 2015 has created significant duplication between Archive 2 & 3. I have added the archive bot info back to the talk page, as that should be non-controversial, but I am loth to trim down the material in Archive 3 that is a duplicate for what is found in Archive 2, given I am trying to avoid another barrage of accusations against me about my actions on that article & it's talk page. Given that you are the person that created that manual archive, would you be willing to remove the duplicate info in Archive 3? — Asterisk * Splat → 16:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox, Ever since the infamous (for most people who know of it it is infamous) #GamerGate I payed more attention to feminism due to the fact 'the other side' consists of feminists (I payed attention before, but more local (Europe based)). Since then I've delved more deeper into it, and together with the news of today/yesterday (people trying to get an organisation to remove the invite to Baldwin (the actor who coined the term GamerGate)) including the near-libellous expressions of Kotaku's EiC Totillo etc, the 'porn charity' which got heavily attacked etc I really get the impression #GamerGate is just a culture war ('moderation' apparently also tries to be forced into comics, metal (the music), etc). Would it be a problem if I used my Sandbox page as an model to attempt to figure out if such a thing what I think it is is reported on by RSes as such, and whether it's possible to make such an article according to the Wiki-standards? Also, if it proves to be possible and can be done according to all standards, can it then be moved out to the regular Wiki (with possible tie-in links to the related portals)? Regards MicBenSte ( talk) 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the service awards (which you've deleted), they've also given themselves like 20 barnstars. Could/should anything be done about those? I feel that they lessen the value of earning one--I could have User:Origamian give me a dozen, but they'd be meaningless. Origamite ⓣ ⓒ 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I was looking through Disney Channel stuff and noticed that the table for the season three episodes of Austin & Ally is messed up. I wouldn't know where to start looking. - Amaury ( talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
How about this one? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, the edit request function of the "view source" tab of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision doesn't appear to be working properly for me, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would it please be possible to have a statement currently saddled in my talk page be edited in? Thank you for your time and patience. WhatNeverHappens ( talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection seem to indicate that, if you were requesting an change to the page protection status on a page already address, it should come to the admin who did it first. So I believe contacting you is the appropriate action. However, if I'm supposed to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, I apologize. Just let me know and I will do that.
You added a full protection to Gordon B. Hinckley set to expire on January 24th (1 week) due to a content dispute. The dispute has been discuses here since that time. However, the moment the full protection expired, one party immediately made the same change that led to the content dispute, completely ignoring the discussion and the consensus.
Therefore I'm requesting that you extend the full protection for whatever time you feel is appropriate. Clearly the content dispute continues.--- ARTEST4ECHO( Talk) 13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You know what, I don't really like to keep dealing with the same issue over and over again anyway. People tend to start taking things more personally on both sides of the coin. So, just count me out of it and do as you will. If other users feel there is edit warring going on they can just report it or ask for page protection. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
How good did that feel?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You made we smile, - userbox with bananas and header. Thank you for the rare event between Kafka on AE and a friend gone, - did you know that I have a banana on my user page, but very small because it was deemed infuriating? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I came to find this /info/en/?search=User_talk:Ryulong#e.27s_not_dead.2C_e.27s_just_restin.27
Which looks like a clear case of WP:MEAT and editing by proxy for an indefinetely banned editor. They both right out admit to emailing each other in case the editor needs something done. In particular, Hipocrite seems to be patrolling toku articles reverting everyone as if they owned the pages. This is against reaching a consensus.
If you could please point me to the specific board where I could raise this issue it would be appreaciated, thanks! Loganmac ( talk) 10:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your work on Arbcom, which is a messy, acrimonious, time-draining, soul crushing job. I was one of your biggest detractors going in and one of your biggest fans going out. Although we might have differed on this specific or that, I appreciate your honesty and needed toughness on the committee and thank you for your service to The Project. Carrite ( talk) 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) |
Well thank you, that actually means a lot to me. And may I say that I have noticed you as a much-needed voice for moderation and reason at a certain other website. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for handling all those CSDs I posted. I really hate doing that to a relatively new user but I honestly could not find even a very thin rational for keeping them. They were just empty shells with a name. There were a few others that had maybe a single event but no sources that I put maintenance tags on. But I gotta see SOMETHING besides a name and see also section. What I find particularly disturbing is that almost all of them had passed an NPP review without any kind of tag or notice. Anyway thanks again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For starting this RfC. Perhaps you could consider starting a similar RfC for the reviewer right. Biblio worm 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
Appreciate your trust in granting me the pending changes right and I will do my best to use it correctly! EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 20:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
Hey Beeblebrox, I was just in the middle of saving a comment on this thread when you archived it, so my initial revision was not saved. I went ahead and added it to the archived discussion with an edit conflict notice. Is that alright? I know it's not really the norm, but this was something I felt strongly about; at the same time, commenting outside of the archive box might reignite the conflict, which is also something I don't want. Kurtis (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
no thanks
|
---|
Hello! I'm never quite sure why people would do things they don't agree with "for procedural reasons"; but don't ever do things "for procedural reasons". Anyways, here's your obStandard once-per-decade reminder. ;-) Procedural reasons abdictate responsibility. Procedural reasons are often misunderstood. History shows that Procedural reasons tend to explode in your face. Do things for smart reasons. Do things because you agree with them. Do things because you understand why they are important to the encyclopedia. If the procedures work, then your actions will be exactly per procedure anyway. (And that's why we have them ;-) . -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Don't blame me for posting this, it was purely for procedural reasons. this post by the first admin to succesfully block for IAR violations |
Just wanted to check in and make sure you got my email. No reply is necessary... just wanted to make sure it went through :) Best — MusikAnimal talk 19:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, could you please restore the history of Gearóid Morrissey prior to it being deleted at AfD, as the person is now notable. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 17:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to pop up out of the blue. With regard to this, I am itching to change that "form" to "from". I'm not going to, though, as I am terrified that it would annoy you, breach 93 rules of etiquette and cause the internet to collapse. So I am just casually mentioning it in passing, putting my hands in my pockets, and walking away whistling. Have a lovely evening or whatever time you are currently experiencing. Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologise if I came across too harshly during the RfC. The most important thing we should all remember is that we are all Wikipedians, and that we are here to build the greatest encyclopaedia that the world has ever known.
Again, I apologise if I came off as rude or inconsiderate before.
Tharthandorf Aquanashi (
talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen it myself, but has someone ever tried to game the system and propose the same thing again more or less immediately after it has been closed? I assume such has happened before, but I've never seen it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 03:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I hope all is well. I have a few questions about a page I am trying to publish for Topher Mohr. I appreciate the tips on the formatting of the references and will update those to reflect accordingly. The question is with the material that was deemed potentially infringed, the meat of the page. The site it was compared to actually copied almost word for word from his published bio on his labels site. The label has sent wiki a clearance to use the content in the form needed, indemnifying them, as they are the content owners. Can this be corrected in any way manually? Lastly for the references, it had been warned about user blogs, would the Huffington Post fall into that category or be ok? I ask because we have had a heck of a time getting this page up and he has a fairly strong career to date. Again, I very much thank you for your help and tips, it is MUCH appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Perhaps in a few days or so it will be clarified. Again, thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Does my topic ban prevent me from raising concerns over BLP violations against my person if they would be within the airspace of topics covered by my topic ban? -- DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 02:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If you do propose eliminating the rollback user right again in a year or two, make it clear next time that you aren't proposing to replace it with Javascript. That seemed to cause a lot of confusion. Thanks for trying anyway. Gigs ( talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox. First of all, could you be more specific on how my vandalism message is improper? I would like to have your opinion before I change my current warning system. Also, about how many edits reverting vandalism and warning vandals would you like to see before considering granting me the reviewer right? Please leave your response on my talk page, and let me know if any of my other current warnings are improper and how so. Thanks! Lord Laitinen ( talk) 05:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"Such stubborn and impudent behavior has consequences here on Wikipedia, and you were given chances to improve"and
"The consequence for doing this is usually a 24-hour block to test integrity. Please refrain from breaking this rule again""to test integrity" ? Please consider re-wording these templates, (IMO) these templates are presumptuous, rude and bitey, at best. Cheers, Mlpearc ( open channel) 06:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I was contemplating to give my daily prize to the infobox-hero mentioned in the Signpost, and you block them ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You recently blocked Antotherreincarnationoftommythetroll ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a sock of TOMMYTHETROLL ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, ///EuroCar GT 22:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
Can I ask you to remove the Wikibreak Enforcer from my User:ZuluPapa5 account, so I may resume editing with that account. Thanks TenzinTashi5 ( talk) 15:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, you may want to revisit the block on User:Chelyabinsk University. Their article for Yanuc Salkovski is up for AfD and there's a strong chance that the article may be a hoax, so you may need to block them if a Russian speaker comes on and confirms this. I figure I'll leave it up to you. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please block me until the 2nd of April Yoppy The Nurse ( talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
As your name appears on Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, you may sign at the newly revamped Wikipedia:Block on demand page, along with comment and a link to your requirements page, if any. Thanks, SD0001 ( talk) 16:24, 2 March 2015 (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. |