User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Sorry

I meant to put the page for speedy deletion.. I'll do normal request. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was leaving a warning on your talk page as you were leaving this message. I have no idea what you were thought you were doing with those edits, but you might want to try using the "Show preview" button in the future before saving your changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I put the wrong template somehow..I was just trying to nominate it for speedy deletion. I put the rational in the talkpage. Thank you.--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you've still got it wrong. "Patent nonsense" applies only to articles that are indecipherable gibberish. Consider using WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I really hate edit conflicts. I first tried to decline the speedy when it got reverted, then the reverter self-reverted, and I conflicted with you as I tried again to decline it. Sigh. This is not important or anyone's fault - just annoying. LadyofShalott 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I used WP:PROD..But the actual content of the article is nonsense if one knows the history. thank you. --GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try AFD...Sorry I am just learning the tags.--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

<--I understand what you are saying about it's being nonsense, but there is a very specific meaning that is used for G1 deletion. "Apoidgakjen azdfgpoaij aselkj" would fit that criterion; English language (really any language) words that are coherent do not, even if they are completely wrong. LadyofShalott 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, by the way kind of odd but this user [1] and this user [2] use the same source and the first user just pops up in the article..--GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to decide if we should open a WP:SPI case on them. LadyofShalott 22:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work

Thanks for meting out that fast, definitive 1 year block. I so often find people there simply begging for more vandalism, even when there is a persistent vandal, that it was refreshing to see your reaction.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That ip has a looooong history of vandalism, the last six month block obviously didn't cut it. I was actually just thinking of proposing some changes in the blocking policy, as I believe it does not jive with current practice. Thanks for noticing, praise is a rare commodity around here sometimes! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What changes exactly? Just curious. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Only because you deserved it. One block-think that I've run into ... if I warn a persistent vandal, who deserved a block given that it was his nth act of vandalism in z days, some people at that noticeboard say ... well, your last block was 2 minutes ago, and he hasn't vandalized since then. But if I don't give him the warning, and simply go straight to the noticeboard, they say -- well, he last got a warning a week ago, and that's not recent enough.

BTW, how long till we get the bad-admin-recall process in place? Sorely needed.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just posted my proposed changes at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#policy out of step with practice?. And the admin recall thing is now mired in a second RFC to refine the proposal that was decided on at the first. This is going to take a long time apparently. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the way many comported themselves here, I personally think the system is broken.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 29#File:Metalslugairbrush.JPG closing rationale

Hi Beeblebrox, rationale is there now. This is a different image from your File:Neogeofullon.JPG where I would argue the copyrighted elements are minimal and the free licence is correct - Peripitus (Talk) 02:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think the full picture serves an entirely different purpose anyway, previously there were no photos of an actual NeoGeo arcade machine, just the home version. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

This is a change

Writing for OfferMe

Hi there,

I've been recently hired to manage content for this company: www.offerme.com.au

Apparently someone here tried to list on Wikipedia before and had the page banned. I'm looking to resurrect the page, but obviously with the appropriate content.

Will there be any issues with me doing this?

Cheers - Nadim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadimcsharbean (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there will be. You have a conflict of interest in that you are hired by this company. If you edit within all of Wikipedia's policies, I believe you are allowed to edit (though I'll want a second opinion on this), but you will be under scrutiny the whole time. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll pile on. There's really no problem with stated conflicts of interest, provided the article is done from a very neutral point of view. A great success story I've seen is Les AuCoin, which was primarily created by the subject. There are others, especially company articles. Follow WP:YFA and the guiding principles, keep it ultra-neutral, and ask for feedback. The best way to start is in your userspace, such as at User:Nadimcsharbean/OfferMe and keep it there until it is ready for primetime. tedder (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good to see I'm not totally nuts and that I got it right. :) --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 06:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're probably nuts. But we're having a fully valid conversation on Beeblebrox's front porch. So who am I to judge?

tedder (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I get you boys anything? Lemonade and sandwiches perhaps? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any tuna sandwiches? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, I just checked to see if WP:SANDWICH existed. It's not quite what I expected to find. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

LMAO! That title... just... (facepalm) I'm reading this now... --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I'm going to have a run on my userspace. Any feedback would be appreciated. It'll remain pretty neutral with only the basics stated. Thanks again. PS - I'm kinda turned off sandwiches now. =PNadimcsharbean (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Without further adieu... User:Nadimcsharbean/OfferMe (feel free to advise, criticise and 'Yoda' my efforts) Nadimcsharbean (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SO much...

What a day. I can't remember having to explain so many deletions...oy vey. :) Thank you very much for that wonderful award. Definitaly made my day and I feel that I should reciprocate:

		The Editor's Barnstar
		To Beeblebrox for his tireless defense of Wikipedia and its users against the powers of darkness - and a certain Disney-crazed vandal - it is my pleasure and honor to bestow an Editor's Barnstar award this day with all the privileges and honors therein. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you had quite a pile-up of "where'd my page go" messages. Anyway, thanks for the star, hopefully efforts will have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably moot

Yes, I think it is moot.[3] Just needed a little time. Cool Hand Luke 08:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That is for the best, I'm glad we can put this one to bed. Although I note the irony of an admitted vandal and sockpupeteer playing the "oh poor me" card as he resigns his tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance requested on Jean de Mailly

Once again this article (Jean de Mailly) has been recreated, as have a few others by the same editor ( Dragoon1988's contributions ). I tagged it for CSD (A7), but another editor simply reverted my tagging saying that the article didn't meet the requirements. As you are the latest admin to delete it, could you please revisit these when you have time? Thanks in advance. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's going through AFD, which should settle the matter once and for all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He's baaaaaack.....

You might like to check out User:Beeblerbrock, who I suspect is yet another sock of Simulation 12.[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Second one today, time for a SPI, eh? tedder (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if CheckUser can give us a range to block, This guy is sooo obvious, I've just been been adhering to WP:RBI. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We at least have a start with 99.160.57.38. Sadly though, he seems to have a wide range of IP's to use.[5] --AussieLegend (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ave Mary A

I have the right to propose a deletion for the article Ave Mary A because the song is not a single and all the information is represented in the main Funhouse page. Discuss it with me abu7mayd@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfarhat (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said you don't have the right to propose it for deletion, but I exercised my rights in declining to do so. The rest I already explained on your talk page, continuing to re-add the tag after it has been legitimately removed constitutes edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You DELETED my userpage! that's what it says! but u know.. whatever! I just wanna know WHY? Why would u delete my page?!?!Ahmedfarhat (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

On the deletion of TopBT page

Hi, Would you please explain why you delete TopBT's page? I am the co-creator of http://topbt.cse.ohio-state.edu/index.html. I explained it in TopBT's talk page and also I wrote a email to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" to declare our lab's agreement to publish our web site's contents on wikipedia. Additionally, would you please explain the deletion reason "Unambiguous advertising or promotion."? The contents of TopBT page are objective. I think It is not a advertisement. Thank you very much! Yhuai (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on your talk page explaining my reasoning immediately after deleting it. It's down at the bottom. Basically, it's not proper to republish your PR materials as if they were an encyclopedia article, regardless of their copyright status. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have checked other softewares' articles and have rewrote the page of TopBT. I hope now it is an proper encyclopedia article. Yhuai (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Vanclean

I have changed the settings of your block of Vanclean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to permit use of their other account, vancouversunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and also to permit an account for each member of the couple. They have been counseled regarding conflict of interest and have apologized for creating an unacceptable user name. Fred Talk 20:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok by me, thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Coaxpress:

Why is Coaxpress deleted as G11. It is not an advertising nor promotion of one company or product. It is an open standard like USB or fireWire and propably the successor of Cameralink (Several Cameralink standardisation companies are now active in the CoaXPress standardisation).Xmaillard (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the "Welcome to Wikipedia" message. Of course, it's about 2 1/2 years late. But thanks for the welcome anyway. Cybertesla (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Input requested

I'd appreciate feedback on this. Gigs (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dreamfactorymedia

You indeffed this new user who has just created an article which is currently at AfD. I think the user should be given a chance to request a new username (s/he was never told it was a problem) and to comment at the AfD. I think we (collectively) are being very bitey of a new user. Would you consider unblocking and suggesting the user ask for a non-promotional name? LadyofShalott 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Amending - I see you have added a relevant msg. to the user's talkpage. LadyofShalott 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The username is only one reason for the block. The other is their obvious intent to promote their client on Wikipedia. If that issue can be overcome as well, I have no objection to the block being lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wiki Greek Basketball's RfA

I just thought you might be interested (amused?) with the reply I got to my message (about suggesting that WGB re-considers his RfA) at User_talk:Wiki_Greek_Basketball#Your_RFA_is_closed - if it causes the smile that I think it will, consider it my Christmas present to you!

If they intend on going all the way, and if they do not get any supports at all (which is looking increasingly likely from where I'm standing) then WGB will be the first person since December 2005 to go all the way in an RfA and get no support votes at all - and only the 9th person in all time, including the 8 from 2005!

Anyway, enjoy the holidays - I'll probably pop on for a few mins here or there on most days, but nothing serious on Wikipedia until after the holidays - apparently, the kids and family are more important?! Have a relaxing time, as I intend doing -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to tell the kid to let it go, but he wouldn't listen. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion, it was obvious minutes after he posted it that it was going to fail, but we have to wait six more days to see just how bad it's going to get. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nova MUA2

That's imposible. There's no way Nova Confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKazama (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Childcustodydivorcefamilylawyer" requesting an unblock

Yo, Beeb. :) This fellow made a rather sincere-sounding appeal on his talk page. He's requesting a user name change and the whole shebang. He claimed to be unaware of the name issue and would like a fresh start. Merry Christmas! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did post external links with his username in them, which is ill advised, but we can't expect a new user to know all about our various policies, and he does seem sincere. I don't object to an unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry

sorry - btw, u sound so sexy cuz what u say is smart. bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfarhat (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm super sexy, if you're into beer guzzling geeks in their late thirties. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that was sexy. Ahmedfarhat (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked for general disruptive editing and abuse of six or seven accounts, so you will not have to worry about him.(MDesjardinss (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Unblock notice things

I'm not sure I'd block someone's talk page access because they tried to use one of the templates that shows up in the unblock request; isn't it one of those no-harm, no-foul things? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you could specify which block you are referring to I could give you a specific answer, I've blocked a whole bunch of serial sock accounts the last few days. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I was just noticing User talk:86.144.107.133, and I got to thinking about how to react when users request unblock and then also cut-and-paste from the admin-only part of the template. I usually just think of it as garbage and revert the admin-only stuff, but I guess an argument could be made that the user is trying to cheat or something. Perhaps I'm being too philosophical tonight. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At the time I felt they were trying to be deceptive, but I suppose it's possible they were just screwing around. Given the apparent socking I leaned in the direction of assuming the worst. What the hell, I'll knock it back down and we'll see what happens. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom Bruggere AfD

Thanks for the notification. I'll try to add some sources and get it up to legitimage stub status, at least! -Pete (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to come over here to drop a line, rather than having it on the AFD. Beeb, this AFD nomination seems to border on WP:RUBBISH/WP:UGLY, and per WP:BEFORE, you should've at least done a quick google news search, which would have confirmed the subject solidly meets notability guidelines, even if the article doesn't appear to meet it on the face of things. Sorry if this sounds snippy- that isn't my intent. I feel like I can be straightforward with you because we've had a plethora of interactions here. Cheers, tedder (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought you owed me your undying loyalty after that last ordeal. Seriously though, I did a quick scan on Google, and it looked like most of the coverage was simply in relation to him being an "also-ran" in the senate race that he lost. My understanding was that that is usually not enough for a politician bio, since anyone that runs for anything is obviously going to get their name in the paper a few times. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first comment- heh, indeed. For the google scan, I completely understand. No worries, by your nom I was guessing you hadn't checked for sources. Apologies for jumping to that conclusion. tedder (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there are grey areas along these lines, but I don't think this is one of them. Bruggere's notability, I believe, derives more from his entrepreneurship than from his one Senate race. But also, a major-party nominee for a U.S. Senate seat, who came within a few percentage points of victory is a pretty rare breed, even if it was his only run. But you guys are both right -- the Google results are a bit thin, and it'll take a bit of digging to find the best sources. I'm happy to keep chipping away at those though, should have a pretty well-sourced basic bio by this afternoon. -Pete (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

69.224.224.160

I see you're having the same trouble with this IP that I am ... take a look at this edit and this edit and see this is a repeating pattern. Also, I'm wondering if this user is attempting to evade the block placed on this other IP, who made very similar types of edits prior to an extensive block being placed on it. This is definitely getting tiresome, but I have a feeling it'll be resolved soon. Thanks for your help and diligence. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User You Blocked

Hi, This is for information for a problematic sockpuppet and vandal dodger Nancy has been dealing with. This user you blocked, I suspect is a sockpuppet of this, this, this and many more users that have been blocked. He seems to have a pattern of vandalising surname related articles. He thinks Bahra is a surname, and hence has vandalised here, many times. Thanks --Sikh-History 19:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bcai388

Hi there. I fixed your NOTNOW close of that RFA. You might want to bookmark User:Enigmaman/SNOW for further closes like this. Regards So Why 12:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and the link, as you saw, I was pretty much flying blind there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

retrieving content from a deleted user page?

I noticed that the user page User:Pbvmsfarchives had been deleted. I'd like to look at the previous content of this page. Is that possible? This appears to be the user page of an archives; I can imagine how that would be advertising, but I'd like to understand that for myself, in case it's easily fixable. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed "resolved"

[6] Since the issue is not resolved yet. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still not really in the right place, this conversation should have been at WP:AE from the beginning, although obviously that's not your fault. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing Adel Murad. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Deal or no deal UK - Game 1 - LYNN - 31st October 2005

I was looking for ways to CSD that under A7 but couldn't see one hence the G2 tag I used. But then you used A7 and WP:IAR - I'll have to remember that in future :-) NtheP (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not something I do very often, but once in a while there is something like that that despite not fitting into any of the specific criteria obviously does not belong on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Hey, Definitely wasn't shouting when requesting protection for the Bilderberg article. My caps was on. My bad. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

These things happen. I have struggled for a long time trying to teach myself to use the "preview" button before saving, so I sympathize. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MWOAP.
Message added 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

answered questions MWOAP (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lceliku

Hi there Beeblebrox! Sorry to bug you again, but would you mind reviewing my commentWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threats_by_User:Lceliku. I am a total newbie in Wikipedia as comapared to you, so probably I'm not looking at the right place, but could you please reconsider unblocking if the threats were ALL before the ban? sulmues (talk • contribs) --Sulmues 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied here:[7]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this matter. sulmues (talk--Sulmues 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

genre warring

(from RFPP) I totally agree with you. Way too much of that. I just call it "unsourced/fancruft" in my protection summary. There is one category that I give an even dimmer view of: UFC/wrestling. I feel somewhat justified to give longer protection to them. tedder (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you. I ~~blame~~ credit Google and Wikipedia' search engine for finding the spam phrases. --Calton | Talk 10:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Attacks

Prodego have some knowledge about this situation, i talked to him few days ago. I warned User:FkpCascais to stop all reverts and attacks. --Tadija (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am off for today. If i can give you some advice, i am here... All best, --Tadija (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean, information, not advice! You should advice me! :) Be good. --Tadija (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

This is chessmasta, since you left me a note, i called that guy idiot because he might work with vandal who is reverting macieja page, check history of this ip, i explained everything on 'request for protection page'. Im trying to improve articles, some vandals are destroyig it, worse of all, this dude is vandal seewolf administrator on german wikipedia, you should take him rights there. Some administrators have way too much freedom + too much power, shame! Leave me your email, im national chess master with deep knowledge but Im not contributing when i have no freedom dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.2.70.79 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nitella flexilis

I don't know what content was in this article when it was deleted, however I would appreciate if you add it back to the article. I have submitted the article for creation at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nitella flexilis if the article has not yet been moved to main space, you can add the content to the AfC. I did check your deletion log, and I realize it also might be an article someone started, then forgot about, and it may thus contain no content. Thank you. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't much to it, which is why it was deleted, it didn't even identify what kind of plant it was, but here is the previous version:

Nitella flexilis

I thought that might be the case, but was hoping it wasn't. The new article has sufficient substance; it's a very important algal species, plus an aquarium plant. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The new version has been created. fetchcomms☛ 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

==Description== ==Distribution== ''Nitella flexilis'' has been recorded from several sites from the Eglinton Canal in ''Galway'', ''Ireland''.<ref>Pybus, C. and O'Halloran. P. 2009. Distribution of some submerged aquatic macrophytes in the Eglinton Canal, Galway. ''Ir. Nat. J.'' '''30''': 51 - 53</ref> ==References== {{reflist}} Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

regarding vanna band

You do know i will continue to edit posthardcore to metalcore on vanna page when the protection is lifted right? Just saying, objective33, aka savagebladez aka imahorney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.129.168 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Guess what? I don't know, and I don't care in the least what genre they are. I never heard of them before the protection request and I have no desire to listen to them and make my own determination about what genre I think they are. So trying to make your point to me about what genre they are is a waste of your time. Discuss the matter on the talk page, which you can still edit despite the article being protected. If necessary, ask for a third opinion, or initiate a request for comment on the matter. Don't engage in edit warring or you will just get yourself blocked and/or get the article protected again. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Beeblebrox, we'd definitely like to have your help on SPI. The reason we like to use real-time communication (whether it's Skype, gmail, IRC or something else) is because it makes the training and communication and feedback process a lot smoother. It isn't an insurmountable barrier if you aren't interested in that type of communication, though, it just makes it a little bit more difficult to manage the training. I don't think we've ever actually trained new clerks without using voice or text real-time chat, but I'd be willing to give it a go if you're interested. Let me know. Nathan^T 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cirt and Pomodorotechnique

Hi, Beeblerox! I tried to leave a message to Cirt (talk · contribs) suggesting that he be more careful when blocking editors such as the above (I happen to have known about the "Pomodoro Technique", but a quick Google-search and look at the user's exemplary edits clearly indicate a non-spam account), however I am apparently not allowed to make constructive criticism regarding his use of the admin-tools, so I wonder if you could attempt to communicate this to him?

Pomodoro does appear to be a good contributor, and we are lucky that he wasn't scared off by the completely uncalled-for block for "unambiguous" spam! Thanks, ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 09:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, thank you for your query at my talk page, I had already responded there [8]. As for TreasuryTag showing up here now at your talk page - you should know that unfortunately he has had some prior conflict with me - thus his appearance at my talk page with regards to this - and subsequently here at yours - may have other motives and gives the appearance of impropriety. I have posted to his talk page with a request that he refrain from posting to mine in the future. I think it is best, unfortunately, if he avoids me in the future. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I do have a prior conflict with Cirt (talk · contribs), and I dislike him, yes. I had his talkpage on my watchlist and thus saw your message. However, our personal history doesn't exempt him from being called to account over his administrative actions; he obviously won't take criticism from me, so perhaps you could deliver it (I still believe that the concerns I raised above are genuine). Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, as noted above, I already replied to you and I have no objections to your administrative plan of action with regard to to User talk:Pomodorotechnique. Unfortunately, with regards to TreasuryTag (talk · contribs), is appears that a disturbing behavior pattern is emerging. Cirt (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Either the block was justified or it wasn't, regardless of who is making the accusation. If Cirt (talk · contribs) wishes to accuse me of illegitimate WikiStalking he is more than welcome, but what he is not more than welcome to do is make inappropriate blocks like the above. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 09:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked the account and have no further comment on the matter. You both know where ANI and RFC/U are located.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12

If you wish to go ahead and block the account I don't mind, its a highly likely case, so I'll leave it up to your discretion, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Not sure why I even bothered to try and discuss with them, but the conversation made more sure that it was what it looked like. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

not blocked

Yeah. I noticed that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsmexinsmexin (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
Message added 06:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 06:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In progress

If the co (or co-co) nom still stands (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, co-nom added, good luck! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kinds words in the nom. It's live and already getting votes... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:unblock on hold, your input would be most appreciated

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and A Request

First off, I would like to thank you for all the help you've provided to those of us who wrote and maintain the Doctor Steel article. It has been invaluable. But I'd like to request some help, if you have the time. I'd like to know if you could look over the article and let me know what changes can be made to increase the quality of the article. I would like to raise the quality of the article to B-class or higher, and I feel the best way to do so would be to have an impartial second party that is already familiar with the quality scale look it over and make recommendations.

Thank you for any help you can provide. Viraneth (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't make negative assumptions, Assume Good Faith

Do not say I am discouraging anyone from communicating with me seconds after I post something to my wall. I am still learning how to use Wiki and if you are such a "pro" you should know the basic about WP civility and assume good faith. You should have made a recommendation without placing judgement. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I did make a recommendation in the form of posting a link to how to properly archive your talk page. I did assume you were just confused and not acting in bad faith, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusions you did based on my remarks there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You CLEARLY accused me of discouraging dialogue on my talkpage, something I never do. I have been searching the Wiki help files to see how to create a welcome banner on my talkpage like others have, so I took great offense to what you posted. Your comment did assume bad faith and seemed to me to be more agressive than you needed to be. Regards, --Neon Sky (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took what I think was a relatively mild criticism so hard, but you did blank out my message and replace it with a tag that said not to edit your talk page. I see you've got it sorted out now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Beeblebrox, that was seconds before your post. I was struggling to fnd my way around and actually thought I had lost my Archive there for a second. In any case, let's make peace. I really only come to Wiki because I enjoy writing/editing. :) Regards, --Neon Sky (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I definitely prefer getting along. Being an admin you tend to deal with a lot of unhappy users. Anyhoo, happy editing, I'll see you "out there" ! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, sounds familiar. I was followed by a sockpuppet of someone recently, and was surprised when it ended up being someone else's sock. A wikifriend didn't say "you have an enemy", they said "it must be one of your enemies". Ah, the life of an admin! (currently buried in, you know, that content stuff) tedder (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

unahppy users?... Oh, my! No need for that. Here's to some positive thinking in the future! Cheers! --Neon Sky (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

message Neon Sky (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Well thank you. And by the way Tedder, check out my stalkers: User:Beeblebroxsux, User talk:Beeblerbrock, and User:Beetlebrox. Now there's a crusty crew for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch oven (practical joke)

The outcome and closing statement of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch oven (practical joke) surprised me. AfD is not a vote, so the number of people saying X is largely if not entirely irrelevant. That a single argument for deletion, or many of the arguments for deletion, were allegedly based on not liking the content is entirely irrelevant when there is one or more arguments based on policy and guidelines. The article is (1) a recreation of a deleted article, grounds for Speedly deletion (2) a DICDEF (3) a NEOLOGISM (4) Reliable sources were sought and could not be found (5) Not notable (6) Original research (7) SYNTHESIS.

The argument that was most often repeatedly, and incorrectly, made for keeping was that the nominator didn't like the article. All such arguments are entirely irrelevant. Were there any legitimate arguments for keeping based on policy and guidelines? It doesn't appear to me that there were. It was claimed, falsely, that there are RS for it and it was claimed, falsely, that it is notable. Thus there were no legitimate arguments for keeping whatsoever. Why did it turn out keep? What was the value of "Many of the delete comments were based on not liking this article rather than policy" as an explanation for keeping? It doesn't appear to be in line with WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I don't understand. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to address your concerns:

Here is the entire text of the deleted article Dutch oven (slang):"The dutch oven is a slang name for a practical joke played on bedmates by restraining them under the covers of a bed after one has passed gas. A similar use of the term dutch oven is used to describe passing gas during sexual activities." it was deleted following a unanimous AFD decision three and a half years ago, as you can see here. So, it doesn't qualify for deletion as a recretion of deleted material, because the newer version is substantially different and expanded.
Frankly, I wasn't particularly impressed with either the keep or delete arguments, although I would add that, to your credit, you did in fact mention relevant policies/guidelines in your statements. When in doubt we default to keep. I could have closed it as "no consensus" I suppose, but the end result is the same.
The nomination does not mention any relevant Wikipedia policies, instead referring to the article as "unencyclopedic geek humour" and " a particularly embarrassing example of what Wikipedia has become" and going on to say that they don't even really feel strongly it should be deleted but could be merged, so I basically discounted that altogether as flawed nomination.
I'm afraid I don't see how it is a WP:SYNTH problem at all, and no one else seemed to see it either.
There are some reliable sources attached to the article, so the claim that it is wholly unsourced doesn't really hold water either.
Several users suggested merging or redirecting, possibly to Flatulence humor, but there is not any current discussion of this option on the talk page. That option is of course still open.
Although AFD is not a vote, clearly a majority of users did in fact see the nomination, if not the other delete votes, as a case of "not liking it."

I hope this answers your questions. If you still feel strongly that my decision was flawed, I guess deletion review would be the next step. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Bicycle Goals in the A-League

Okay, perhaps you can explain what a Bicycle Goal is and what it's connection to A-League is. Without that info, the article lacks context (and references). 98.248.41.72 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said at the time, it was bad, but not bad enough to be speedy deleted by that particular criteria. References are not related to speedy deletion. However there was a unanimous consensus at WP:AFD to delete it for other reasons, and now it's gone. Beeblebrox (talk)

Thank you

Hi there. A quick note to say thank you for the unblock, I will do my utmost not to let you down. Macromonkey (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BetsyandKevin89

Sadly, it was false hope.[9][10] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Link spammer

A link spammer you unblocked—Contristo—made his first post-unblock edit in articlespace by adding a link to the same site he was spamming previously. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a disappointment, re-blocked user. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PeshawarPat‎

It's called the "Look What You Made Me Do" game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a bit less verbose, I'll have to add that to my stock phrases. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I got that from the book, I'm OK, You're OK. Or maybe not. More likely it was from something called Games People Play, possibly the same author. They were "textbooks" in a management class I once took. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

When I was 16 I was in a terrible band that played a song called "I'm OK, You're a Shithead" maybe I should put that on my list of stock phrases. Or maybe not. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds close to the SNL "and darn it, people LIKE me" skit. tedder (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Stuart Smalley is now a U.S. Senator. So, apparently some people (at least in Minnesota where they also elected a pro wrestler as governor) do like him... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just realized, being an Alaskan I probably shouldn't throw any stones from the glass house of our recent governors... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Ref_removing_vandal

Going to AIV is going to get me a much faster response than waiting for an SPI case for which I already know all the details.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain, having reported many a ban evading sock in my pre-admin days, only to be told more or less what I said to you just now. Since you have in fact already done the homework, I think if you link to that page along with future reports you will get a better response. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion and Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

I was reading the saga regarding the user Wiki Greek Basketball (which is time in my life I won't get back :), which stretched to Simple English Wikipedia, where he's also been blocked[11]. I saw this in their recent changes, and looked at the IP's contributions here, which have been Greek basketball articles. In here, he explicitly identified himself a month ago.

It looks like that user evading his ban by editing while logged out, though all productive edits. Is that a problem, or a good thing? I don't want to get involved, but figured since I saw it, I would tell an admin involved on his talk page.

Oh! And I like Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement at the top of your page. I saved it as a PNG, but the letters outside the triangle don't look good. I don't have Inkscape, so the 2KB SVG is unintelligible. I just want a good picture to look at. Is there a way to save the picture as good as it looks in the browser? Terrierhere (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He has shown a remarkable capacity for not getting the point that he is not supposed to be editing Wikipedia for a while, I blocked the ip for six months. I suppose I could have "blinked" at it, but after the level of drama that has swirled around him, I think it's best if he stay away for a while. As for the Graham's Hierarchy image, I'm afraid I don't know much about image manipulation, but if you go to it's description page their are links to it in other sizes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the block, understood and agreed. Regarding the image, thank you! I looked at the description page but not completely enough, the source field linking to a jpg and the blog it came from. Terrierhere (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that you removed the speedy delete tag from the Puntland Independence Movement article, are you aware of the fact that such a movement does not exist?, and that its only linked to a poorly written non-reliable source? If S.D is not the right avenue, what would you recommend to me, to have with this blatant hoax removed from wikipedia? Thanks in advance. --Scoobycentric (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you didn't say anything about a hoax in your CSD nom, only that it was not verified, which is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. Blatant and obvious hoaxes can be speedy deleted, but I don't think this falls into that category, because they need to be extremely obvious. Therefore I would suggest that either proposed deletion or a deletion discussion are your best bets. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

..for the semi at Robert Koch. Please note though that there has only been one real edit since last September by an IP user (to an ILL for the Farsi article). All other ip edits in those months have been vandalism, usually vulgar and sometimes downright nasty. A longer duration would be appreciated.LeadSongDog come howl 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more a matter of how we do protection, we start small and work our way up. If they come back tomorrow, the next protection should be significantly longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, but if you look through the history, you'll see it's not a constant IP, it moves around. Ah well, thanks anyhow. Short protection is certainly better than none. LeadSongDog come howl 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Soundman (disambiguation)

Sorry about the confusion. I thought that the explanation in the db was simple enough, but just now even I had problem finding the wrong page, so I can see why it wasn't obvious. Normally when I find these, it's a clear-cut case so I thought this one would be as well. Anyways, happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the JJJ hottest 100 Semi Protect

That should take some of the heat off. You're a legend! Churba (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I try, thanks for noticing. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Check it please. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

recieved and replied. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied. (You don't need to say you've replied. Windows Live Messenger alerts me to new mail). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politicalchronology

I note that the articles were moved during the AfD ... I deleted under NEO, but the content forks and OR still apply, and the moved articles do seem to have had the same delete support ... whaddya think? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you had a pretty clear consensus to delete the articles no matter the titles. I also think I moved an article with a very similar title just a day or two ago, but I don't recall it being at AFD at the time... Found it, and it looks like you deleted it as well, Chronology of world political changes (1980s), but you missed the talk page, so I zapped it. Rookie. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, a busy rookie - likely to be reported at ANI later today. LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's funny, when you go through RFA it really feels like you're under the microscope, but as soon as you have the tools you find out that about 98% of admin work goes by without anyone even commenting on it. Although I mostly deal with speedy deletion and vandalism, so they may have skewed my perspective somewhat. I get the most flak for stuff I won't do, like declining CSDs or refusing to protect a page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread About You

This is a courtesy notification about an ANI thread regarding you. Please see here for that thread. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the "number of times I've been accused of admin abuse" userbox? tedder (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: spa tags

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

Ah, I had been wondering what led you to look at that AfD in the first place... --Cybercobra (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, extra admin props for actually giving a summary/reason for the AfD outcome. Seems it's not done often enough these days. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy O

I wanted to thank you for your detailed closure at the Jimmy O AFD just moments ago. While I disagree, I can understand and appreciate why some people voted to !keep (in some cases, erring on the side of caution). I am going to hold off on re-listing this one for a significant period of time (6+ months) and perhaps we can locate evidence of coverage for this individual prior to his death in the interim. JBsupreme (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That is so not what I expected you to say. As I was just remarking to another user, I must be getting too used to everyone arguing all the time, probably why I until recently I didn't close many AFDs. Anyhoo, hopefully more and better sources will indeed be forthcoming in the future... Beeblebrox (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would like to thank you for the insightful closing rationale. I fully agree with all of the points you made there. It certainly avoids messy situations like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 26. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Now look what you did, I went and closed that sucka down too. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice, you're on a roll today! Cunard (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I fixed your relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Baker (Businessman), which was on both the January 19 and January 27 logs. When you relist debates you should remember to comment them out on the old log; I did that for this AfD here. Additionally, you should substitute the template; in the unsubstituted form it was originally like this. Also, would you include a period after your closes ('''keep'''. instead of '''keep''')? It looks kind of weird without one. But these are all minor issues. Ahh... I wish you had some major mistakes. Then I could serve you some of your own medicine that you gave to someone else today. I'd slap you with this sprinkled with this. Yum! Yum! ;) Cheers, Cunard (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I always forget that last step on the relist. I know there are some tools that help automate it, but all I use is Twinkle, and it doesn't support relisting. I guess I never nticed about substing {{relist}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. If I see you messing up again, I won't miss the chance to present you with this. Oh, and in response to this, administrators need to get abused once in a while. That gives us lowly editors something to do. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox messed up? What a rookie! :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I live in Alaska, so my subspace link to the all knowing hive mind doesn't always work. Resistance is futile! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, it's "distinctiveness" not "characteristics". :P (is a total geek and is watching First Contact right now) --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh

Nothing quite like getting hit in the face by a big wet fish :-) I have "de-trouted" my talk page though... I feel that it would make my archives a bit smelly! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One of these days I'm gonna whack someone with one of our Alaska halibut. Now that would really send a message, considering we generally throw back anything under 30 pounds! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also delete redirect?

Hi,

Could you delete the redirect (Robert D. Willix, Jr. M.D.) as well please?

If you just hadn't gotten around to it, my apologies! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

got it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, as the new section reloaded, it came up red. Thanks, sorry to bother. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.