User talk:NBeale

Material older than 30 days is archived here

Nicholas Beale

I neither closed the discussion, nor speedy deleted it. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 23:09Z

That's the first time I've heard that username, but thanks for the implication. Clearly there must be something going on beteween your account and the Chiinners account for you to feel the need to make an implication against me. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 13:34Z

I only asked why I had to inform you, not Chiinners. I followed the steps that were listed under I, II, III. I can't help it if some random comment further down escaped my attention. I have over 1200 articles on my watchlist and have no problem keeping up. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 14:56Z

June 2007 Wikiproject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Volume I, no. 1 - June 2007
Project News Four articles are at FA level and sixteen are GA level articles. You can help by adopting a topic. There is a lot of work for this Wikiproject. Go to tasks to find out how to help. Please help with the Destubbification Drive. John Carter created the template {{Christian list}}. There are currently five article being peer reviewed by the peer review team. Please stop by and see if there is any way that you could contribute to those articles. It has been proposed by John Carter that the various other projects which relate to Christianity ought to all at least tag those articles which fall within their scope. That way, this project would have a better idea which articles do not fall within the specific scope of any of the other related projects. Articles can be "tagged" by placing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} in the articles talk page.	Current proposals and discussions We're sorry if you did not want to receive this newsletter, but this is sent to all Wikiproject Christianity Members as it is the first newsletter. If you would like to recieve this in the future, or if you wouldn't, you must add your user name accordingly here. If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – July 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Contributors to this Issue Nswinton\talk Wikihermit • Talk HermesBot
Christianity Articles by Quality Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Christianity articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 10 8 35 122 3 1 179 FL 1 14 20 35 FM 199 1 200 A 1 1 2 GA 22 16 194 435 28 695 B 207 237 791 2,140 334 180 3,889 C 349 799 2,288 6,512 2,369 519 12,836 Start 226 223 1,302 18,497 2 10,338 826 31,414 Stub 12 278 14,687 8,325 394 23,696 List 12 38 696 984 2 76 23 1,831 Category 2 4 9 21,184 1,325 22,524 Disambig 12 303 17 332 File 863 30 893 Portal 1 373 1 375 Project 175 14 189 Redirect 5 34 86 685 1,530 536 2 2,878 Template 6 11 2,093 114 2,224 NA 1 3 6 3 10 1 24 Other 3 122 125 Assessed 833 1,371 5,697 44,124 26,849 23,521 1,946 104,341 Unassessed 7 94 137 238 Total 833 1,371 5,697 44,131 26,849 23,615 2,083 104,579 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 363,803 Ω = 5.00
We couldn't do it without you!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

June 2007 Automatically delivered by HermesBot

Edit summaries

Please don't use false edit summaries like you did with this edit. Regardless of how you want to spin the Pearcy and Forrest and Gross quotes, the Pennock quote says precisely what you claim it doesn't. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahler

No problem. There are several sources [1], so I just chose one. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I did already choose one and added it to the article. Perhaps you misread the above sentence? And did not check the article? Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh - I was talking about the article Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen - I see you added the ref in the Mahler article. I've copied it to the other one. Tx. NBeale (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Scotland portrait

I didn't read that discussion because I ignored it after seeing the 2007 timestamp. I was wondering why such an ugly thing was being used. -Rrius (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a Christian way to think about things?Rodolph (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cant see a Christian objection to saying that a portrait is ugly. NBeale (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators election

Sorry about the delay in responding. I actually didn't see your post the first time, because of subsequent posts which needed attention. I am probably myself not the best qualified person to provide leadership here, because I keep finding myself asked to get involved in other content, like right now Falun Gong. What the project needs, primrily, I think, is to be able to bring together interested parties on articles getting focused attention. I notice Kirill still posts each request for peer review, GAC, GAR, FAC, FAR, etc., over at the main MilHist talk page. If we could use anything right now, that would probably be it. Encouaging other editors to get involved in current high-quality content is probably the best way I can think of to get them to work together. I actually now have a 45 page public domain encyclopedia section on Baptism, and another huge one on Nestorianism, I'm going to try to add in. The one big difference I see though between us and MilHist is the frequent existing disagreements between adherents regarding most anything. I honesstly don't know how to address that, but if you can think of anything, I'm more than willing to give it a try. John Carter (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Developing an emerging global team is a big help. Possibly a quick reminder sent to all project members for example: "Elections for Coordinators close in 2 weeks (say). We hope there will be a global team, we currently have nominees from the N America, Europe and Asia - wouldn't it be great to have someone from Africa and S America. The more people get involved the more we can achieve, without excessive workload for anyone. So do offer to stand if you can, and please vote even if you can not, becasue it will encourage the coordinators if they know they have your support" This might be better, and easier, if it were not in a Newsletter.

As for disagreements about Christianity - sadly this may continue for some time :-(. Best wishes NBeale (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

One alternative idea that has occured to me in the past is to try to get individual coordinators to run as "deputies" for the various denominations/types, so, in effect, a Roman Catholic coordinator, a Lutheran coordinator, an Anglican coordinator, etc. Unfortunately, when I did ask for nominees from each group, none came forward, except Tinucherian and the now retired SECisek, so I'm not sure if it would be any more effective a second time. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd find global team more appealing, but then I'm volunteering already. Assuming a message to the project members is low cost asking once more, globally, and giving a dateline would seem a reasonable idea to me. But it's up to you of course. NBeale (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Inspector Clouseau. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IMDB is not a reliable source and there's no point listing random, cherry-picked collections of quotes with no clear inclusion criteria. If you want them included, you need to start a discussion at the talk page rather than edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop these unwarranted personal attacks. The Anon editor made 3 reverts in 24 hours. I responded by making improvements on the 4th, 5th and 6th Oct. Not even close to WP:3RR NBeale (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a notice--perhaps you would do well to not take editing so personally.

As for 3RR, edit warring is still edit warring even if it happens over a couple days; perhaps you haven't read WP:3RR which was clearly linked in the message above. Specifically, the line Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR, and the same thing in the above message: Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule..rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you are a new-ish editor and a v new Admin, but it would be better not to act quite so aggressively. In this case I have made 3 changes in 3 days, in every case trying to address the concerns of the anon editor (lacking a sense of humour is a problem in editing an article about Inspector Clouseau. In English, "several" does not mean three. NBeale (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, and I'm not being aggressive; I was giving you a notice rather than blocking you outright. Your insistence that issuing a standard notice message is a "personal attack" is not only very immature (especially for someone who wants to have an article written about himself), it also shows that you have a very poor understanding of Wikipedia policies. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry your user page says you have been on wikipedia for less than 18 months. Perhaps this is inaccurate. Please show me other instances where you have complained about someone being in an edit war when they have made 3 edits over 3 days, trying to meet the objections of 1 other editor (esp an anon) and it will become clear whether this is personal or just your normal style. NBeale (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Look through my log and my talk page archives, you will see plenty of instances of my blocking people with less than 3 reverts in 24 hours. It's not just you. Have you actually bothered to read the WP:EW page yet, where it clearly says (in bold letters) that edit warring is still edit warring even if you haven't hit 3 reverts in 24 hours? Or do you just not know how to read? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD notice

Per your incessant requests, I have restored the article and sent it back to AfD, since you clearly want to hear how bad it is from a bunch of editors instead of just one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (4th nomination). I hope you enjoy this pointless exercise while it lasts (i.e., before it is SNOW closed). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I saw this message briefly this morning, after the debate had closed. A 1h15m discussion of an article without giving the person who wrote it any notice or any time to improve it is perhaps better than deleting and salting without any discussion at all, though not in accordance with AfD policies either. I never suggested that the article was a good one - it clearly needs a lot of improvement before it becomes an acceptable article - but this level of aggression (completely unique in my experience, can you find another parallel instance?) really makes it hard to work effectively. I ask you to obey process and agreed rules and I am "bugging you". At least I now know who the user is who created the article and he/she can see the concerns that were raised. If they are not so discouraged by being bitten then it might be possible to get them and others to improve it in userspace, and then we could have a proper debate on a decent article. NBeale (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOW is why it was closed. Do you think it would have been any different if the administrator left this AfD open for 7 more days? No, you would have just had 7 times as many users showing up to point out how terrible the article is and how it needs to be deleted. That's the whole reason I speedily deleted it in the first place: because there was no point in wasting time with an AfD that would result in speedy deletion anyway. Perhaps now that you've had yet another reminder of why there should not be an article about you, you can quit glorifying yourself here and go on to do something more constructive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Malice

[2] Hard to make a "vaulable contribution" while you're so hung up on yourself and how much you want an article. Perhaps you should remove the log from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from Wikipedia's. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact of life that authors care about what is published about them. Perhaps in an ideal world we wouldn't, but everybody does and it is human nature. Please remember that this is not a RPG, at least for most of us, but an attempt to help add to the world's knowledge and understanding. If people game the system to score points and zap people they don't like it just reduces the quality, drives serious people away, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. There isn't much in Wikipedia about natural justice but if you think about it you will, I hope, be able to understand that a "trial" (lasting 1% of the time required by "law"), where the "accused" had no chance to put their case, and where the "jury" was packed with people who had already "convicted" and where the "prosecutor" after the trial imposes a "sentence" which was much harsher than even the flawed jury pronounced, is pretty appalling. If you actually had a reasonable case you would handle it fairly. NBeale (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not a "trial" and Wikipedia is not a court of law. If you consider yourself one of the "serious people", you would do well to actually learn the policies that you keep ranting about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, your suggestion that editors are opposing you because of your religion (i.e., that they're being "hostile" to you because you're a Christian) is just the latest in a long line of immature and unfounded complaints. You keep trying to accuse others of gaming the system, but look at what you yourself are doing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We've told you again and again to DRV. Why haven't you? I'm a Christian, and this isn't some coordinated conspiracy to hold a God-lover down. This is about the fact that the AfD against you closed as delete, and that unless an editor does a damn good job in allaying the notability concerns, or you get the deletion decision overturned at DRV, the rules say that there will not be an article. No amount of complaining on blogs is going to change the precedent set by that AfD, so it would be best to place your effort elsewhere. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)