User talk:Just Step Sideways

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Pickersgill-Cunliffe 12 0 0 100 00:35, 15 June 2024 4 days, 23 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 00:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

please stay in the top three tiers

Unprotect request

Could you unprotect Austin Zehnder against creation, so I can create a redirect page to Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich? It seems to comport with WP:BLP and WP:CRIME.--Carwil (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion and undeletion of Rosetta Code

In the deletion log of Rosetta Code there's an information that you deleted the page Rosetta Code in October 2012 and then that you restored it in May 2013: "restored page Rosetta Code (38 revisions restored: restoring to userfy, per request)" I am the author of the original version of this article that is lost now (it was voted for deletion for the subject being supposedly not notable enough but two years later a new article was written, with no sign of my original contributions). Could you tell me where it was restored or how can I see my original removed contributions? Thanks a lot. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 09:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rfl: Hi. As it says at the top of this page, Beeblebrox is away on a Wikibreak and will be back later in the year. The first version of that article was restored in 2013 and moved to User:Paddy3118/Rosetta Code. It looks like the current version was copied and pasted from that, which should not have been done as it loses the attribution of the early revisions. So I've merged the revision histories of the two and the full history can now be seen at Rosetta, including your original version. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CIAAlogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CIAAlogo.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Note to any admins watching this page in Beeb's absence: you may want to take a look at the article in question, Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, recently "improved" by pretty blatant COI/SPA editors (216.67.11.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and CIAA1976 (talk · contribs)) adding strongly promotional language. While the photos and sectionalizing were certainly improvements, that was about the only improvement. Not only did they remove the logo, but all the sources as well. The article as currently constituted reads like something resembling a mirror of their official website (I haven't bothered to actually go there and see whether or not this is the case). Specific problems are:

• Multiple references to "Area H" without making clear exactly what Area H is, only a vague indication that it relates to the Cook Inlet watershed
• "CIAA engages in salmon enhancement work throughout the Cook Inlet Watershed, as depicted below", except that it's not depicted below, unless they were intending to do more work to that effect
• "In the Cook Inlet region, we operate four salmon hatcheries" – emphasize "we", if it wasn't already obvious that this comes across as an WP:OWN hijacking by the article subject
• "Please contact CIAA at 907-283-5671 if interested in a hatchery tour or other educational activity" – this shouldn't require an explanation. I dunno about you, but I quit adding phone numbers to encyclopedia articles years ago. Nonetheless, the text in the education section does conflict with Beeb's assertion that Category:Visitor attractions in Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska was inappropriate and his subsequent removal of the category. I originally added that category because the Trail Lakes hatchery is nominally a visitor attraction due to its location right alongside the Seward Highway. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: Talk page stalker here - or rather, RfA stalker. I was looking back at recent RfAs and came across your comment about this article for the second time; I wondered whether anyone had done anything about it and found they hadn't, so I reverted the article to pretty much where you'd left it, Beeblebrox, except for one added image that hadn't been subsequently deleted, the updated URL for the official page, and I couldn't resist mucking about with it a tiny bit, including breaking it up into paragraphs. For what it's worth, I couldn't find a source for the prose on the official website. I'm going to stick a statement on the article's talk page and drop a welcome note to the registered editor; I assume when you have ground under your feet and leisure, you'll re-upload the logo or get it undeleted, Beeblebrox, and in the meantime all the best to you. Horrid stuff, that real life. You never know when they will suddenly demolish the planet around you to build a bypass, or something. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have my own prolem here. When I put a bunch of work into this article in 2011, it was done strictly as a Wikipedian working on a topic of local interest to them. Without going in to too much detail, in the intervening years I wound up in a situation where it is fair to say I had a conflict of interest on this subject, and it is entirely possible I know whoever was making those edits, or at least have spoken to them on the phone or by email. So, this is probably a hands-off topic for me for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Catching up on a few unresolved matters centered around this talk page or other discussions where you've replied to things I've said. Between a rollercoaster of personal issues the past 14 months (both career and health related) and numerous observations on my part of declining quality of content, it's been hard for me to continue to justify the amount of time I've put into this project in the past. Then, these discussions get old after a while to the point where I need to walk away and get back to work on content if I expect to maintain my sanity. On top of that, no matter what complaints I may have about subpar coverage of Alaska here, things are far worse on Commons, which has forced me to be a little more active over there. Anyway, I was originally prompted to write the above by noticing the obvious whiff of COI when this came across my watchlist. When the logo wound up deleted and nothing happened, in spite of abundant evidence both before and after of admins watching this talk page, I was reminded of one of my many complaints about admin culture. Namely, the attitude of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" shown towards the rest of the community. There have been far too many instances of admins acting as though when something is deleted, the rest of us should be content to pretend that it never existed. The episode earlier this year with AFC declaring war on my userspace and related pages left a very bad taste in my mouth, as there was and still is nothing occurring there that falls outside of building and maintaining this encyclopedia, only the fact that I'm not carrying on this work to someone else's satisfaction or schedule. From looking at the article now, I don't see a reason to restore the logo unless it's in conjunction with expanding the article. It appears that coverage of Alaskan aquaculture in general is the usual scattershot deal (e.g. one editor putting a ton of effort into a particular article versus everyone else showing up afterward to turd-polish it to death; our Wikipedians in or from Juneau appearing content to write about things of far lesser importance related to Juneau than the hatchery there) and has been that way for years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Anchorage serial killer

As a fellow Alaskan, do you believe we should have an article about this new supposed Anchorage serial killer? It's being speculated that a sizable portion of the fifteen unsolved murders over the last few months are from the same individual, considering that people have been getting offed in series of two's. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), because I'm guessing Beeb is not back yet: IMO, not helpful. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Instead, it's turning into a sewer pit of constant disregard for WP:NOTNEWS. If we're trying to become yet another news site, why don't we just say so and quit pretending? At it stands, there's really not much to be said until at the very least they find and/or arrest a suspect. I just did a search and see zilch on here about Winona Fletcher, which meets the standard of "significant coverage" in spades. We're going to continue to push the POV that something which happened in 1985 isn't notable unless it's "trending today" within the timespan that Wikipedia's existed? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: There's no need to be snide with me- you could have responded without a pointed jab every other sentence. That being said, I'm also leaning towards not giving serious consideration as of now. However, if more pairs of individuals are murdered around the city and the APD proclaims that it is, beyond a reasonable doubt, a single assailant, then we could have another discussion. I'm perhaps mostly intrigued by seeing where the subject matter goes at this point. Hell, if the killer were to be apprehended tomorrow and it was all tied together, I'd be definitely inclined to having an article, as this would imply the most deadly Alaskan murderer since Robert Hansen. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Kaos means well, and I very much doubt his comments were directed specifically at you. So far, the news reports just say that social media is speculating and that the police do not want to speculate. For the former, that's what they do, and the latter most certainly should not. In my opinion, until something is officially confirmed, there is no point in contributing to the speculation. Zaereth (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right; this may as well be a talk about a UFO, for all it's worth at this point. Obviously, if this is all one killer, it's big. But, nobody knows yet. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox. The killer was confirmed to have been killed on Saturday during a shooutout with APD. What do you think? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm glad I don't live in Anchorage. Seriously though, if you've got the sources to establish notability, serial killers are generally notable. Not sure the source are saying "serial killer" just yet, but from what I saw from just a glanc at ADN it seems likely. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm one town over, so I was amazed to see the effects of such a case- I'm glad it ended when it did. New information is pouring in by the minute, so I'll have a shot at it. If by the night's end I don't see enough reliable information, I'll call it unprepared and see what the future holds. However, the fact that he killed so soon after coming back to Anchorage and that he spent several years in Virginia makes me inquisitive if anything from Virginia will pop up that could expose someone with quite the list beyond state lines. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Given what I do know about serial killers I would say it's likely this story isn't over. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, here's a draft article I've been working on tonight. Lots of information there, but plenty more to come- from both what's been presented and what I'm sure will be revealed over the near future. I'll want to make sure it's polished, not speculative and not OR. By the way, sorry I was such a snotty little shit as a teenager. I really did suck. :/ DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 12:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Funny you would mention Robert Hansen earlier. Plenty of holes in what is supposed to be a biography, a little heavy on sensationalism, an ongoing tendency on the part of uninformed editors to claim that Hansen received a "life sentence" despite the fact that no such thing exists in Alaska. This draft on Ritchie continues in that same vein, though it's not quite so bad as the Hansen article. However, here's the big problem. ADN stories from November 15 and November 19 tie the gun Ritchie used to shoot the officer to the killings, but emphasize that no clear connection has been established as of yet between Ritchie and the murders. Yet, you make that connection anyway by stating "The killer was confirmed to have been killed" above and creating a rather sensationist draft (reference "known in the media as the "Anchorage Serial Killer"", among other passages). Here's what's at the heart of my original concern. If a news editor decides that this is a story they need to cover and task their reporters to come up with a certain amount of content irregardless of how much factual information is available, that's what journalists do. That doesn't mean that their agenda automatically becomes our agenda. That's at the very heart of understanding the difference between an encyclopedia and a news site. Even if this does turn out like you are already claiming it will (see WP:CRYSTAL), you run the risk of an article which, in the end, will be yet another curious snapshot in time, just like the paintball attacks, the Corrupt Bastards Club and the Ted Stevens plane crash, which do nothing but repeat fleeting headlines and further push the encyclopedia in the direction of a massive WP:NOTNEWS violation.

As it stands right now, barring any sources claiming otherwise (and I'm pretty sure they don't exist), the Colt Python is what's notable here, not Ritchie. Last I checked, a biographical subject who died less than two weeks ago would still fall under BLP, as would content in any namespace. So this draft as currently written is a BLP violation, not to mention an attempt at further pushing sensationalism at the expense of reflecting what's notable. It's just wrong on so many levels to have a BLP violation hanging around in draftspace "just in case", as was the case with a recently-deleted draft intended to promote an upcoming book about the Begich family's supposed Mafia ties. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

So was I, we just didn't have the internet to make a permanent record of it back then. I'm kid of creeped out to realize I was up there during the time he was active. We were there in August to see a concert and stayed near where one of the murders occurred just a week or so later. Kind of distracted with all these admin accounts being compromised, but it looks like a good start on an article, I would imagine ADN will keep covering this as more details come out. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't too worried myself, as I'm usually armed and have several highly-trained German Shepherds at my disposal. Looking at the draft, there are a few things that concern me, so I thought I'd point them out for you, Darth. The personal life section reads like a rap-sheet, so you may run into weight and BLP issues there. Also, describing the past crimes and dirty laundry of the victims may be seen in bad taste and may also cause BLP issues. The overall style is too much like a newspaper, so it may be helpful to tone down on a lot of the details (especially irrelevant ones like the time of day or that the relationship of the first victims is undetermined) and hone in on the nitty-gritty. I'm sure a lot more will come to light in these next weeks that you can add to make it more rounded and balanced. I'd also keep in mind that his "first kill" is a little presumptuous, as we don't know much of his history yet. (Perhaps first recorded kill...) I hope that helps, but keep in mind that BLP applies to both serial killers and their victims. Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Zaereth. And, I promise not to have this article in the main space and connected for the whole world to see until it is not only encyclopedic from top to bottom, but we have a fuller picture. Thus far, we have a story about the Anchorage Serial Killer's gun, but we don't have everything about the Anchorage Serial Killer. This may take a few weeks to ripen up, which I am prepared to see through. On the personal note, I have only been in Chugiak for a relatively short amount of time- before college it was Kodiak- but I can definitely see the effects of these murders even out here. I'm quite a ways out of town, but I've been thinking about this business whenever I take one of my billion daily walks during all hours. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic: this subject matter makes me feel really, really... REALLY tired. I haven't even completed the information available and I'm already exhausted from it. I can't wait to hear how this unfolds. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Point of order. If you're in Chugiak, you're in Anchorage. I don't know why we continue to confuse that issue and attempt to unduly influence readers. About the only claim Chugiak has to being a separate community anymore is a separate fire department and separate post office. Except for the fire department, property taxes certainly don't go to Chugiak, they get paid to Anchorage. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you're getting seriously persnickety if you're having issues with me saying I'm in Chugiak and not calling it Anchorage. Being cautious about what's in a draft is one thing, but me reflecting on where I live on a user's talk page is another. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If James Dale Ritchie is determined to be responsible for all five of the murders that he is suspected of at this point, it will mean he is a notable serial killer and a page here will be warranted. We aren't quite there yet, though. My guess is that eventually Ritchie will be linked to even more murders, but that is just a guess on my part. And to Beeblebrox and DarthBotto, I am very sorry for the overt snarkiness that you had to suffer in one of the replies. I've been at the receiving end of it myself. Thank you for all of your efforts here on Wikipedia. They are truly appreciated! Juneau Mike (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I view the above comment as a thinly-veiled personal attack. For anyone reading this who has not been paying attention, I was patrolling and assessing new articles for WP:ALASKA from late 2011 until about six months ago. When I took over this task, it had been abandoned for around two or three years, and no one has stepped forward to pick up the slack since I stopped doing it. Mike's constant habit of partisanship and being unwilling to take constructive criticism regarding his own creations, or to accept more objective assessment of these articles than he was giving them, was but one of many straws which broke the camel's back as far as that effort was concerned. This sort of attitude has hardly been limited to interactions with me, considering that he has long created "encyclopedic" content based on every little last news story imaginable and has twice "retired" over negative reactions to such creations involving criticisms from other members of the community. He's also been on this kick about "snarkiness" on the part of others while being plenty snarky himself. Bottom line, if others are going to interfere in the tasks of maintaining WP Alaska to the point where they drive away the editors doing those tasks while being unwilling to perform any of that work themselves, there's really no reason why WP Alaska should even exist anymore. We're already at the point of resembling a bunch of half-cocked, clueless cowboys randomly dumping content hither and yon, all the while WP:ABOUT mentions "collaboration" in its first two paragraphs, when there's precious little actual collaboration occurring, at least compared to when I first came here over a decade ago. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comment I really liked the draft article. You could add that the shootout between Ritchie and the police happened next to Office Depot, but it's not vital to the article. I'm also not sure that the list of his victims needs to include GPS coordinates. But overall, very well done! Juneau Mike (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: Thank you very much for your input and I like that you like what we have there is thus far. As of now, the police have stated that evidence is coming in confirming that he is behind the Thompson murder and that the evidence from the other crimes scenes are gradually mounting to indicate the same thing. When we have confirmation that he qualifies as a proven serial killer, I'll move to have this put in the main space. Things will get very interesting if it's uncovered that he's behind other murders within and outside the state. Anyways, probably today I'll write an Aftermath section, then comb the article to be encyclopedic in presentation. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I notice Zaereth in this discussion, you and I and Beeblebrox have some unfinished business, namely those photos in the Anchorage article. For anyone else reading this, there was an editor who uploaded a bunch of photos to Commons a while back solely to place them in Wikipedia articles, without regard to the poor quality of many of them and the often irrelevant and factually inaccurate captions attached (there is no neighborhood in Anchorage called "South Addison"). This user refused to participate in the ensuing discussion despite making it obvious that they were aware of the discussion, and also was given to edit warring, restoring photos which were removed for legitimate reasons. The only exception was the J. C. Penney Whaling Wall photo (which has since been deleted), further evidence of being aware of the actions of others while not being willing to discuss anything. First of all, I felt the similarities between Special:Contributions/Dinker022089 and Special:Contributions/Derekakinnear to be very curious indeed, but I don't think it rises to the level of malicious use of multiple accounts. Second, I finally found the backups of the photos I took from my last two trips to Anchorage, which were in 2012 and 2013. The business I had in Anchorage at that time has since evaporated, and I haven't had much of a desire to visit otherwise; that will only change if work brings me back that way, but I'm trying to avoid it. On those trips, most of my business was limited to Downtown, Midtown and Spenard. As such, I didn't make it any farther east than Bragaw or any farther south than O'Malley. As we have people physically in Anchorage, either full-time or occasionally visiting, can we get someone to take street-level photos of Fairview, Mountain View, Muldoon (fairly new stub at Muldoon, Anchorage), Eagle River/Chugiak, the Hillside and Klatt/Oceanview? I'll be happy to upload some of the photos I have sitting on my hard drive, but not if it entails uploading hundreds of hi-res images while no one else lifts a finger. I only have two photos that I really desire to upload: one is of Bill Kazmaier taken on a chance encounter while standing along 36th Avenue snapping photos of the Frontier Building, and a panorama I put together which shows Upper O'Malley, Upper Huffman, Upper Dearmoun, Glen Alps and Flattop that I took from Abbott Road near the Long Branch Saloon. I also have numerous photos I've scanned from the 1940s and 1950s which were published at the time without copyright notices. If anyone of you current Anchorage residents want to give me ideas of what we need, I'll add them to the cue. Right now, the coverage of Anchorage on Commons is obviously far too heavily weighted towards military propaganda from JBER and the usual tourist dreck. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. I'd really like to help with those WP:Alaska articles, Kaos, but unfortunately all of the geography, politics, history, and economics of it are really outside my fields. I've made several plans to work on articles which desperately need help, such as gas-discharge lamp, crucible steel, quenching, forge welding, plus a bunch of aerobatic maneuvers that need articles written about them. The problem is that Wikipedia is just a hobby for me; something to do when I'm on hold. I only spend on average about 10 minutes a day on the computer, and Wikipedia is about the only worthwhile thing I've found to do on the internet. When I'm not working or chopping firewood, or doing some of my other hobbies, then I'm out training the dogs for SAR. There is just so much to do on Wikipedia and so little time. (Not to mention a part of me thinks I could be writing books about this stuff and getting paid for it instead.)

As for the Anchorage article, I have it watchlisted because I once put a photo in there myself. It's not the best photo, but then I'm no photographer either. At the time the only photos were from the water so I thought we needed an image from the mountains instead; it was really meant as a placeholder until something better came along. I agree that a good number of photos in the article are useless and should be cut. One photo is usually sufficient for a section; two if it's a long section. The photos should have some relevance to the section, rather than just being placed willy-nilly about. (For instance, I wanted to add a photo to the moose article, but there wasn't any place for it, so I wrote a section on their diet and put it there.) There is a danger in article ending up like the iridescence article, which is mainly just a photo gallery. Any further discussion should probably take place at the artifcle's talk page rather than cluttering Beeblebrox' page, but if you would like to cut the excess photos from the Anchorage article I will fully support you. I would have done it myself but that brings me back to the issue of time.

I also agree that BLP is a very serious thing and should not be taken lightly. This is especially true for the victims. I personally am against even naming the victims, let alone divulging their personal information. Keep in mind that, even though deceased, these are real people who have families and living relatives, and should be treated with the utmost of care. For these reasons I often monitor the BLP noticeboard, and I'm also concerned about having possible BLP violations. Even as a draft the policy needs to be adhered to. I would suggest to Darth, as a measure of good faith, go to the BLP noticeboard and ask people there to review your draft for possible violations. Zaereth (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I will very likely bring this up to the BLP noticeboard and I will certainly fix everything up to the guidelines- including the biography that will likely have more concise descriptors and sources, and details about the murders- but not yet. We don't exactly know what this article will be, or if there even will be an article, as it's all contingent on what findings there will be. I simply have an article about what the police have assumed, but not yet proven/declared. I disagree about not mentioning the victims' names, as that's some very basic information-- even Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting states who each of the young children were. However, I will take advice and cooperate for making the information presented in a tasteful manner. But, I don't feel like discussing this much more at this point will be a constructive use of time, as this is a draft and (hopefully) will be the subject of development. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I am a very direct person, and have been told so much to the point of seeming rude. My criticism is meant only as constructive, so as to help anticipate problems you may encounter in the future. Delving into the realm of BLP is a very different world from the usual Wikipedia. Suddenly you're faced with a whole new set of standards. Somewhere in Kaos' warning is some insight: BLP rules require that any violating material be cut upon first sight. You may wake up one day to find the whole thing has been speedily deleted. This rule applies not only to article space, but also draft space and even talk pages. My advice is simply to ask for some reviews and correct the issues as quickly as possible, so that all of you work will not be in vane. I have no doubt this will become an article, whether you write it or someone else, so you might as well save everyone else the time and finish what you've begun. A stub article consisting of a single paragraph is better than a long article full of nothing but details. I say trim it down to the bones and the rest will fill in within time. (Otherwise, it's a very good start on what will probably be a prominent article.) Zaereth (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I promise you that rudeness was not something that crossed my mind while talking with you. I do admit to finding it rude and uncivil on RadioKAOS's part for shoveling out the baggage about other editors and complaining about me referring to my community as Chugiak, rather than a part of Anchorage, which I hope they will refrain from in the future. Okay, out of good faith, I'll edit the draft, so it doesn't make any assumptions or rely on original research. I politely request that other editors refrain from including other topics in this section, as this is solely about James Dale Ritchie and nothing else, and this is starting to get very muddled up- I'm sure Beeblebrox doesn't appreciate the notifications going wild. But, bottom line, I'll comb it through. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Zaereth: There's a discussion here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Beeblebrox. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Status report

So, my original plan was to return to active editing after my annual fall camping trip. That was three days ago. Unfortunately, I came back this year to find that in the brief time I was gone, some serious but seemingly manageable problems at my work had turned into full-on disasters and we are shut down at the moment. Also, my home internet connection borked itself somehow while we were gone. The internet issue should be fixed later today, but the work issues need my immediate attention and may take some time to sort out. So, still planning to come back, but not sure when.

-Beeblebrox

Look at that, I was gone so long I plum forgot to sign my message properly! Anyhow, looks like I will have time for this again now. More than enough time as I ended up selling the business I have been running for some fifteen years and am now basically out of a job. In October, in rural Alaska. I'll probably ease back into it slowly over the next few weeks, unless I get really bored and go on a wiki-bender. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You're back!

Hey there, welcome back. As you can see, there were at least a few things going on during your absence. I finally extricated myself from a toxic (physically, not emotionally) living situation this week. I guess it's encouraging that it only took two days for some measure of appetite and lung capacity to return and the feeling of inevitable organ failure went away, that's how bad it was. Anyway, I'll get back to addressing those issues eventually, especially seeing as how a swirling shitstorm/dramafest ensued as a result. It may have to wait at least until Sunday, as I'm busy trying to catch up on a whole lot of things across the web. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't read your missive first, so it appears you're dealing with real life, too. So I guess some parts of what I said may be directed to other talk page stalkers more than to you. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Good to see you again, Beeblebrox. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you. Since you're here, I sent an email to the ivory tower several days ago, haven't gotten a response yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

should've checked my email again, never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back!!!--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Everipedia non-english coverage

I would of liked to seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everipedia (2nd nomination) left open for a bit longer, as I don't think many people had a chance to look at the non-english coverage I highlighted in the last !vote. Not a big issue, but just saying. Cheers. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Flu shot (shot) A11

See the author's user page for proof that it is made up. Crow^Caw 20:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point and have deleted the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Inquiring Individual

I was wondering if there's anyway that I can make a private page not viewable to the public, but to my oneself so that I'm not web hosting. I just like the format of the page I've created but it was deleted because it's considered web hosting. Therefore, I'm inquiring if there's an option for just my lonesome to see so that I'm not web-hosting but can view the page just to keep track of a season of Big brother being hosted at Wilfrid Laurier University. Sorry if I'm being a nuisance :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBA3South (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

See, even if that did exist, which it most certainly does not, you would still be using Wikipedia as a free web host for something not related to Wikipedia's purpose. The blue words in the message I left you are links. If you follow the one that says "many other free websites" it will lead you to a list of other websites, one of which may be a more appropriate place for something like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Jathedars of Buddha Dal

Hello Beeblebrox, I notice that you declined the speedy and moved the page from Jathedars of Buddha Dal to List of Jathedars of Buddha Dal but I have redirected it to Jathedar as per WP:CFORK and WP:STANDALONE please let me know if I have made any mistake as you have much more knowledge than me. Thank you – GSS (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

THANKS !!

Hi Beeblebrox; I've been away for a while. Thanks for the unblock !! Cheers, Kamran aka Kamran the Great (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, and happy editing to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your revert of my minor edit of WP:OS

Hi, you reverted my correction of a grammar mistake on WP:OS citing assumption of good faith. While I am not a native speaker, I am rather sure that "However only a very few appointments are typically made per year" is incorrect. "A few" is a fixed phrase and is different in meaning from "very few", which I believe was intended to be used here. I will revert your revert, but if you find that I indeed am on the wrong side here, please consider replying here. Themulticaster (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As a native speaker, I can assure you that "only very few" is way more akward, and I would suggest reverting it back to the long-standing prior version. If this were a real grammatical error, I'm sure someone would have noticed before. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked up "only a very few" in my dictionary of choice and it turns out you're right - I'm sorry for the confusion. :D I reverted my revision. Themulticaster (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Rollback granted

Thank you. I am aware of what to do with a rollback right. If I ever feel like resigning, I will let you know. Sorry, it took 2 days. I had exams. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 01:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page patroller - new user right

Are you following our developments at WT:PERM and WP:NPPAFC ? Just curious. I can't remember whether these things interest you although I do know that you work the PERM pages when you are around. Cheers, Chris --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The PERM talk page is on my watchlist, so I have been observing the new developments. Since I was not on-wiki for large chunk of this year I'm not really up to speed on thse things so I'm content to let other who know what's going on figure it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, please don't hesitate to chime in with your opinion at any time. You are one of the most experienced PERM admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

RE autopatrolled

Hi, thank you for your massege

I have one question?

when will I get this right ?

I hope you help me

I am good agent and I have more 55 articles

I need this help from you

Thanks . Kurdistantolive (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is exactly the kind of clueless persistent whining that I asked you to please stop engaging in. In answer to your question, you will get this right (which, once again does nothing to your ability to edit and create new pages) when you stop behaving like this and start consistently creating articles that do not need to be reviewed by others. When that will be I can only guess, but at this point I certainly wouldn't expect to be anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right Kurdistantolive (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate use of rollback?

You recently granted me rollback privs. I note you said that they are not to be used for good faith edits. This causes consternation (not to be confused with constipation). In the article Tsst (a South Park ep) the editor essentially gutted the Plot section, turning it into little more than an abstract. Now, I am all for condensing Plot sections, having done so myself on several occasions, but to whack off 80%+ without any discussion seems excessive.

My instinct is to revert the series of edits and request that they be discussed prior to application. Please review the series of edits by DangerousJXD and let me know what you think. Thanks. Dmforcier (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Manually reverting the edits without using rollback and/or discussing it with the other user are both options that are available to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Laitinen (formerly Lord Laitinen)

Hello Beeblebrox. While editing in the past week, I realized that I seem to work with files more often than average users do, and, after having gone over the criteria and requirements for the file mover permission, I have decided that I would like to apply for it. As I have done with pending changes reviewer and rollback, I am running this by you first. If you have any advice on how to earn this permission (on the condition that I am currently less than worthy to receive it), I will gladly accept it. Over the years, I have uploaded dozens of files and have had to request file renames several times, especially recently. I thank you for your time and look forward to your response. God bless, and happy editing! +CATHOLIC LAITINEN+ (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying that I do not make a habit of reviewing requests for the file mover right and others may have differing views. That being said, I don't think I would be inclined to grant this if I were the one reviewing such a request. You have made less than ten edits to the file namespace in the last year, all of them within the last few days, and all of them to files that seem to be related to you personally. Therefore, how granting this right would benefit the project is not at all clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that my most prominent period of editing the file namespace was before this year, but, nonetheless, my experience with such remains. I have always wondered why there are fewer file movers than administrators, and why it is a permission so rarely granted. I also agree that it would probably not be a more prominently used permission than my others, but I thought I would try to probe my eligibility. In retrospect, I did not expect this discussion to end with my immediate promotion to file mover. However, I knew that you were probably the most likely on the project to grant it to me, as you trusted me enough to grant me two permissions, thus far. I hold no negative feelings toward you or your decision, and if I am more strongly motivated to gain the permission in the future, I will probably just try to be sysopped, since statistics show it is easier to gain that permission, which includes file mover, anyway. Thank you again for your time, and perhaps our paths will cross again in the future. +CATHOLIC LAITINEN+ (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

192.234.158.10

• 192.234.158.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

I had noticed that you blocked this IP for 31 hours, when you had previously blocked it for 3 months. Just wanted to let you know just in case if this was an accident. Cheers. 2607:FB90:A42B:35C:0:3:48BF:5901 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up, I had meant to block for a year.  Fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Naxuan

FYI: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Naxuan. Cheers. – Uanfala (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding that there's a new speedy deletion criterion just for these cases: WP:X1. A link to that would probably be easier to understand for editors who aren't familiar with the Neelix story. – Uanfala (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The x1 criteria, because it was intended to be temporary, was never added to the drop-down menu when deleting and there was a semi-automated mechanism at th epages where these redirects were recorded that filled in the deletion summary, so basically it was just easier this way. Actually, as of this run of deletions I have just done, the job finally appears to be complete and the criterion will probably be deprecated soon. If the consensus at the RFD is to retarget it can be recreated by any user in good standing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I've brought this to DELREV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 17#Naxuan. Sorry for the trouble, but one odd action leads to another and after some point there's no other way out but to set things right. – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hernando de Soto

I'm a bit concerned about the archiving an an earlier deletion, as the debate about sources seems very relevant. See my talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if any new editors pushing that material weren't socks of the editor repeatedly blocked for making legal threats on that page, but if you think it would be better to unarchive it that's fine with me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

hi can you help with Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers ?

I think the page needs attention that i can't give it. I can already see several uses of "Sawyer's" which is for someone surnamed "Sawyer", not "Sawyers". Can you please give the article some care and attention? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

i don't understand what it is you are asking or why you came to me specifically with it. I would suggest you try making a more coherent statement either on the article's talk page or at the relevant notice board. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Just Step Sideways.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Telegram

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 22:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User Lx 121's userright

Hi, Do you realize that you just granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright to a user engaged in two edit wars? User:Lx 121 keeps reverting photos at John Quincy Adams and John Tyler. Regards, YoPienso (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is not under PC protection, so (assuming you are trying to get me to just revoke it) I don't see any abuse of permissions. If there is active edit warring please report it at WP:ANEW. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Beeblebrox. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Jean Keane.jpg

Hello there, I see you've removed the F11 tag on this file. From my interpretation of F11, this file is a perfect fit. "If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader."

The uploader identified a license and named someone else as the source and there is no acceptable evidence to suggest the source gave permission.

"Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org"

Would you be able to explain the reasoning behind the removal of the tag? Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You can read my rationale and add whatever input you may have at the FFD. If someone raises an objection to a speedy deletion nom, the appropriate action is to discuss it and not just add the tag back like no objection was raised. That's really the more important point here. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, I've read it. What I take issue with is that there's nothing in it to suggest that it doesn't fit under the F11 criteria. If there is something I overlooked, I just want to know what it is so I can take note of it for next time. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That there is a claim of permission, unfortunately not properly documented but a claim nonetheless. When there is any cause for doubt, speedy deletion is not the proper course of action. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. The file here seems to be a similar case File:TI-Nspire.jpg. The original uploader has been inactive for over five years. What would we do in this case? Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocking pashuntv

I started a UAA discussion with the user because I have reason to believe maybe they weren't aware of the policy, as you may not know, I'm a firm believer of AGF and I always try to assume good faith as much as I can. However, I think the user should of gotten the chance to request renaming, instead of just being blocked without a chance to act in good faith. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no assumption of bad faith in a username "soft block." It's just a more efficient way of letting the user know that they cannot use a promotional username, and they should not engage in promotional editing, while explicitly permitting them to simply start a new account under a more acceptable name and try again. If we had these discussions with every one of the dozens of such names reported all day, every single day, it would quickly become an unmanageable mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I didnt accuse you of bad faith infact i know you were acting in good faith... its just I dont see the point in sock blocking someone whom was being discussed about their username with. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

um...huh? You seem to have misunderstood nearly every word of my reply. You repeatedly mentioned good faith in your comment, so I was trying to clarify that I also do not believe they were acting in bad faith. In my experience (7 years of doing admin work at UAA) users who do things like this are genuinely unaware that Wikipedia is not a place to "get the word out" about their organization. And I didn't "sock block" them. A soft block is a deliberately mild blocking option. It still allows the user to continue editing, but instead of forcing them to apply for a name change they can simply start a new account right that very second and try again. I hope that clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Byers Lake

I just fielded an inquiry (OTRS) from a representative of the Alaska State Park system about Byers Lake. I pointed them in your direction.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The only OTRS queue I am subscribed to is the one for oversight, but they can always message me here or by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Marty Schmidt

This mess has started up again. Your protect expired weeks ago and I thought the issue was done, but the problems have restarted with no attempt by anyone to open discussions. None of the seemingly contentious bio material was sourced in the first place so I have blanked it for now while I look for sources. Talk:Marty_Schmidt#About_edit_warring_and_conflicts_of_interest Meters (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've semi-protected it for a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There are sources out there for much of the material I pulled, and for other material removed over the course of this, but I doubt either side is going to be satisfied with anything but their desired version. There's been quite a bit of nastiness (over divorces, restraining orders, criminal accusations, etc.) so I don't know that any of the involved parties should be editing this article (aside from the obvious COI issues). I'll take a crack at a neutral, properly sourced version tomorrow. Meters (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems clear that all of them have some personal connection and this some sort of -extremely tacky and tasteless- feud amongst them. I think if the personal life section is just bare bones with only properly sourced material it may be ok but personally it wouldn't bother me if it were just left out instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Have to admit that I thought the same thing... Meters (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Self block request

Hi Beeblebrox, I would like to request to be permanently self blocked please. I have had a good time on Wikipedia and I have made many edits over the years, contributing to hundreds if not thousands of articles. I now believe that my time is up. I no longer enjoy editing Wikipedia and my activity has significantly declined over the past two years. I would like to be self blocked to put the final nails in the coffin. I think I meet your criteria for self block requests. I have not received a warning recently and I have been reprimanded since 2008. Please consider my request. Kind regards IJA (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Well this is different. Every other time I've done this it is to help a user take a break, I've never been asked to do an indefinite one before. Before going ahead with this, I would point out that you could use Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer and jus set the expiration for some absurdly long time. I also always ask users who request this to carefully consider if this is really what they want to do as your talk page and email access will be revoked as well, leaving you basically no way to regain control of your account should you change your mind later. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm entirely sure that I want to be indefinitely blocked. I first considered it about two years ago so I've had more than enough time to consider it. I want to be in a situation where I have no access to my talk page and email access. The Truth is, I want to spend less time on the internet in general and spend more time in the real world. Wikipedia is just part of it, even though at one point it did consume a large amount of my free time; I don't want to return to this situation. Kind regards IJA (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty then,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ask for unprotection (after 7 years of protection)

Hi, you have protected the article Kurds (at the time the article was named Kurdish people) about 7 years ago. I wanted to ask if now is a good time to unprotect the article? Thank you. --88.128.80.60 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)