User talk:Becksguy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You're invited! the next New York City Meetup!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/3/2007
This box: view  talk  edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom's Restaurant.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Tom's Restraunt.JPG. The copy called Image:Tom's Restraunt.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

uw-v4x discussion

Re: "It might also prevent duplicate reporting of vandalism, which just adds overhead to an already busy process. I know I've wasted time in preparing to report vandalism, only to find the user was already blocked. If I saw a vandalism5 (or vandalism4x) tag, I would move on, and hopefully do something more useful."

Oh, now that's a really good point. I'm glad you mentioned it. I'd have complimented the thought over on that page instead of here, but I don't want to weigh in over there excessively often. I don't want to come across like some people I've seen who start certain discussions and then they feel compelled to comment on every single thing or act like they're in charge of a simple conversation. Seriously, though, thanks for the thought. Doczilla (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - Number 11. I'm not an expert at external links, but that would be an indication to remove it, IMHO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Brannan. - ALLSTAR echo 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 20:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10

Thanks for finding the great references for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1, that made my rewriting efforts much easier. It was very satisfying that our work resulted in the article being voted Keep.

I'm going to try to find the time to do the same with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10. It would help me a lot of you could find some good references for this model. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the refs just after you finished the rewrite to the DMC-L10, and it also was a Keep. You might want to see this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7. — Becksguy (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was good that we got that Keep. Thanks for adding the references.
I'm sorry, but my primary interest in digital photography is the Four Thirds System, and I'm trying to keep my Wikipedia time down, so I'm afraid I'm not willing to do anything about possible deletion of an article about a non-Four Thirds System camera. --RenniePet (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Smile from David Shankbone

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Huggle User Category

Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

please reconsider David. Take a few weeks if necessary, but please come back. Don't let the trolls drive you crazy

drive?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New Message

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Becksguy. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Huggle Category Problem


Hi there.You are receiving this message from me as you have not added your huggle category correctly. At the moment on category here you can see that you are sorted under the letter U. To fix this please change the [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle|YOURNICKNAMEHERE]]. This will fix the problem. If you do not change this within a few days then i will do this for you but i would prefer to send you a message like this than just go and change your page. If you want to contact me then please use my talk page as i will not be checking back here. Thanks for your help. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Becksguy (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

Hi! You've received this templated message because you've recently reverted vandalism on User:TenOfAllTrades or User talk:TenOfAllTrades. I'd like to thank you for fixing things up, and I appreciate the effort.

The vandalism you've reverted is due to a serial vandal and harrasser that once went by the username Light current. He's been indefinitely blocked for a year, but just hasn't seemed to have taken the hint. Sometimes he'll edit using an IP from one of Tiscali UK's ranges, other times he'll use a throwaway sock of some sort. The page at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL provides the background. Typical IP addresses are 76.76.* and 88.108.* through 88.111.*.

If you're an administrator, it is in general safe to block indefinitely any accounts that vandalize my talk page without issuing any advance warnings. If you're blocking an IP address, I recommend blocks of 31 hours. Longer blocks risk collateral damage, while shorter blocks may not serve to actually prevent further vandalism. (Previous experience suggests that Tiscali DSL IPs roll over about once a day.) If you're not an administrator, please consider posting a report at WP:AIV. Light current typically continues to deface pages and undo reverts of his vandalism until blocked.

Typically, he will vandalize your user or talk page after you've reverted vandalism on my user pages; I apologize for any inconvenience, and thank you again for mopping up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

hello there

That wasn't vandalism on my article, I was the one adding that stuff. ;-) Thank you for watching my page...I'll do the same for you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have several user pages on watch, including yours, Benji's, Satyr's, Allstar's, and others. Ones that I find have been vandalized (and also have some very interesting threads). In fact I have hundreds of watch pages, way too many, including many of the articles at the top of the vandalism list, and a couple of noticeboards. We all have to watch each others back, and watch out for the whole project, otherwise the barbarians will get through the gates and sack the city of Wikipedia, metaphorically speaking here. However, you give me more credit than I deserve. You should see some of the vandalism I see on vandal patrol using WP:Huggle. Or maybe you do. Note that I'm not talking about honest AGF disagreement between editors. Funny, I came to WP to write and edit articles on those subjects I find interesting and have some experience and knowledge about, and yet I find myself manning the barricades instead. Go figure. — Becksguy (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have quite a few userpages and over 500 articles on my watchlist. It seems like every time I log on, it takes me 30 minutes to catch up all of the action that occurred during my absence. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

that deletion

wait until that admin wakes up at a reasonable hour and has a chance to respond. See my talk page for how the error probably occurred. . I probably would have made the same mistake as he did. DGG (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


See User:DGG/bios for the comment by TBHecht. He's the guy I mentioned to you on sunday. And you might want to join [1]DGG (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Google

This appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system as the article and its variants have under gone multiple AfDs with the majority closing as DELETE:

I am going to put it up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination) one more time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleta's RFA

Hi Becksguy, thanks for your polite inquiry. Even if you do ever happen to disagree with something I say, feel free to ask me for further explanation. My comment left a lot unsaid. Basically, there are some areas of "project space" like Administrator intervention against vandalism or Candidates for Speedy Deletion that always benefit from more eyes. But many places in project space, such as the various centralized noticeboards and policy pages, have too many admins in my opinion.

Most of the best admins I've encountered spend most of their time editing articles and use their tools around areas in which they have some knowledge. From her contributions, Aleta's a lot like the people that I consider good admins. Also, in my experience, most of the worst admins have spent their time in various Wikipedia pages getting in fights. Now, that's not to say that every editor who edits noticeboards is bad, or that everyone who edits articles is good. But, on balance, I'm concerned that a lot of policy pages tend to draw people who are more interested in "drama" than in writing an encyclopedia. I know that when I start to spend more time on discussion than article research and editing, I quickly become less happy with the project, and also of less benefit to the project.

Also, in my experience, the most thoughtful commentators in places like deletion discussions are usually the editors who spend a lot of time writing articles, rather than editors who spend most of their time commenting. Editors who write articles are very often better judges of what can be fixed, what can't; experts with a particular field are much better at determining what's important within a field, what's not. I apologize for the length of my post but hope that clarifies my comment a little bit. --JayHenry (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Is your name because you really love Becks beer, or because you are the sweetheart of someone named Rebbecca? --David Shankbone 05:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

lol It's Becks beer, David. And I was given that nickname. And yes, I really love it, as well as imported German, Czech, and other good beers also. And I don't really think I would be the sweetheart of a Rebbecca. — Becksguy (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"or because you are the sweetheart of someone named Rebbecca." Is there something you're not telling us? Traitor to the gay cause!! ^__^ AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, APK. I don't kiss and tell.  ;-] — Becksguy (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to assume...maybe Robert becomes "Rebecca" on Saturday never knows. I have an open mind :-) --David Shankbone 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam," says Popeye the Sailor Man. — Becksguy (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Countries with Yams as a staple food have the highest rates of twin births in the world. --David Shankbone 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I wish Wentworth Miller (if he's not gay) moves to one of those countries and reproduces so his beautiful DNA can be doubled. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Tomorrow I will be talking to a rural high school class in Calhan, Colorado about Wikipedia. I think I will direct them to this thread to show what a close intellectual community we have  ;-) --David Shankbone 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Just don't direct them to the Sanchez talk page. That will definitely turn them away. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to direct them to all the places I can find APK's deep, dark Wikipedia secrets - I know where to find them! These kids literally have guns and hunt for food. Very poor. --David Shankbone 07:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wentworth is adorable. --- Intellectual? Is that what's it's called now? --- Sanchez? OMG! On the other hand, maybe they will love that kind of bashing. Kids can be bloody minded. Interesting, my talk page has seen more action today than in the last month. — Becksguy (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, David. We sit comfortably and talk about the third world, and yet we have parts of America that are all but third world, and have gotten worse. — Becksguy (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You will be seeing this rural class illustrate the high school article :-) I don't know if they are allowed to bring guns to school or not. --David Shankbone 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

my RFA

Blue Australian Iris.jpg
Thank you!

Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Again Congratulations. I supported you because you deserved to be supported and I trust you to do the right thing, as do many many others. As I said, one of the most telling comments I've heard about you was that people thought you were an admin, as well as all the other complementary stuff. I know you will make an excellent admin, since, in a way, you already were, just without the buttons. And if I can help please don't hesitate to ask, as we are all in this together. I'm getting better at using WP:Huggle on Vandal Patrol, so don't be surprised to see my name pop up reporting vandalism if and when you start working the WP:AIV noticeboard. That noticeboard seems to work very well in my experience, resulting almost all the time in immediate blocks. Peace, regards, and hugs. — Becksguy (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

=) Aleta Sing 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. The one and only ----> AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


LOL Aleta Sing 01:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Metaphorically speaking.... LOL — Becksguy (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar pictures?

Hey, I saw your comment at David Shankbone's page. Did you upload the pictures of the barnstars, by any chance? Thanks, Enigma msg! 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Thank you!

I would like to thank you for your vigilant eye on this edit and your revert. But I just became aware that I did something rather stupid: I filled the edit summary with a surprising قثبثقثرذثس لهدثر, but I did not mean to write any hoke or joke — I did not realize that my keyboard hadn't switched back to Roman. I guess I meant something like “references added” instead (most of the letters seem to correspond to the keyboard's layout: Is there a way to correct this? Thank you forward and excuse me for this. Have a nice day! ✓ Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Church of Google

I made my explanation on the AFD page. If you believe it is wrong, you are more than welcome to take it to Deletion Review. The Placebo Effect (talk) The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They were not in the article, so they were not counted. If they were good sources, someone should have taken the time to add them to the article. If you think these should be undeleted, please take this to WP:DRV The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Nothing happens here if people don't talk. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Naval air stations

Hi, I thought you might like to weigh in on my request to change the name of Naval Air Station to Naval air station. (An anon. editor has contested it.)

Also, I posted a couple of questions at the article's talk page that you may perhaps be able to answer. Cgingold (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan

Hi Becksguy, it was good to have you join us on Friday. It would be great if you could put your photos from the upload party online, preferably at Commons:. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Mohkam Mopping.jpg Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.
Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.
Thank you again, VanTucky

E.O. Green school shooting and BLP

[2] The problem with this is that it violated WP:BLP - That is a policy and it trumps guidelines - If he provided a source it would be okay WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanx for putting the list of best selling albums on your watch list, if we keep reverting bad sources eventually these ip adresses will get the message and go looking for good claims. I was thinking of, as an extra insentive, removing the unsourced claims and putting them on the talk page. Ip addresses will go crazy and start looking for good sources to get their favourite album bad on the article. Its an idea anyway. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is it with these IP users and that article? Thriller is rather well sourced as over 100 million. Yet see thisBecksguy (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess they dont like michael jackson or dont believe the figure. But thats not the point, wikipedias job is to record what reliable sources say. If reliable sources such as reuters say 100 million we have no right to dispute it. Its simply not our place. Cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Something that you might be interested in contributing to here. Take a lookie. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The list is nominated for FL. Great!! --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Orton Plantation

I'm in the middle of writing this article and several others that are related. There are some BEAUTIFUL pix of the house, gardens, chapel, driveway, etc. on flickr. Can I use any of the pix that say "some rights reserved?" APK yada yada 07:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they do NOT have a dollar sign or equal sign. Those are not allowed in Commons or WP as "no commercial use" and "no derivatives". Look at the two little icons to the left of the "Some rights reserved" phrase. Those are good. For example, here. The upload tool checks all that and verifies that the photo was OK for inclusion at the time of uploading. I read my ass off looking all of the policies and examples on this here, and at commons. Unfortunately far too may wonderful pics can't be used. I'm looking for the best explanation of this I found the other day. Expletive deleted. — PS: Yeah, those photos are BEAUTIFUL. — Becks Talk to me 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the page here. It is the clearest statement of what's acceptable and what's not. Too bad other places aren't as clear. — Becks Talk to me 08:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ok, thanks. I assume you love the first picture with the trees. Now I have to search through all of those pix and look for the symbols. I should be done in a few months, see you in the Fall! :P APK yada yada 08:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the trees. I downloaded the first picture for my wallpaper rotation. Exactly, why do you think it took me two days to find and upload one photo for the GPI article. The fall sounds reasonable for what you want to do. ;-) Really nice job you are doing on these articles and I hope you are getting nice warm fuzzies from all the work. — Becks Talk to me 09:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have it as my desktop background and thank you for the compliment. I started working on another NC ghost town article (1), then I noticed it's in a historic district (2) and that another building in the district is a separate registered landmark (3). The township these landmarks are in didn't have an article (4) and the Orton Plantation (5) is in the township. To top that off, while reading a NYT source for the Orton article, I came across this: "On the corner of Fourth and Market Streets is the Temple of Israel, which, built in 1875, is the oldest synagogue in North Carolina." The temple needs an article (6). It will be a busy few days for APK. He only has the township stub completed, but I started two other ones. APK yada yada 09:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Good news. I found a blog with Orton pictures and I e-mailed the blogger. She's going to upload a few pictures. I gave her instructions on how to do it, so I hope she figures it out. APK yada yada 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So does this mean I won't have to wait until this fall for my daily bread APK humor and fun? ;-] Good for you kid. Let me know when they arrive in commons so I can go looksee. — Becks Talk to me 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for merging my flaggedrevs implementation proposal to the flaggedrevs talk page. Cheers! – Thomas H. Larsen 23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, as it was cogent and useful. Hopefully the continued discussion will bear fruit. — Becksguy (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Per the sekret cabal meetup communique, you now have rollback. Happy editing. MBisanz talk 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having the confidence in me to grant this. I'll do my best to do right with it. Now I gotta read up on how to use the thing. — Becksguy (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I assumed you already had rollback because we all know Becks is a cool-ass and honest Wikipedian. You should run for admin in the near future. APK yada yada 04:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, buddy. It's appreciated. However, it's far too early to even think of that, as I don't have even close to enough edits, and honestly I don't think I'm ready. — Becks Talk to me 05:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! The machinations of the meetup in action. Enigma message 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup. When I was in the business world, I learned the value of face time, rather than emails and such. Great to meet you. However, there are no cabals. no, really...Becksguy (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Enigaman, are you the one that sat next to us? I forgot most people's usernames after we left Uno. APK yada yada 07:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You were at the meetup!? Why don't I know this? Well, in the room on the 13th floor, I was sitting by the side. Guy with baseball cap. Enigma message 07:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be referring to a NYC meetup. Sorry, I should have been more clear. :-) A nice guy sat next to me and Becks at the DC meetup and I thought it might be you. APK yada yada 08:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, sorry. I've just been to the NYC meetups. Maybe that guy is my hidden clone, though. Enigma message 08:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So glad Pharos et al posted the attendees because I'm shocking with remembering screen names. Was nice to meet you Sunday, look forward to a future one. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too with names, never mind screen names. And a belated congrats on your promotion. Hope you can make the August picnic in Central Park, as I hear last year was a fun filled success (I got cold feet just before the event). — Becksguy (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be fun and I'm looking forward to it. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

It's appreciated. Enigma message 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yu-8 torpedo

I noticed that you added a prod2 tag to this (former) article, saying you had some unusable source for it's existence. I had nominated the article for proposed deletion because I couldn't find any source for the torp's existence at all. Could you point me toward your information? I would be interested in it for non-Wikipedia related material. Thanks, Prodego talk 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let me see if I can find it again. You were spot on about it's notability regardless. BRB — Becksguy (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is one and another. Everything else was either a Wikipedia mirror or for submarine simulation games. The first is a blog, although anyone that knows who Richard P. Feynman is should at least be given a chance. I'm not sure what the second is. There was just enough for me to think the torpedo exists, although I could be wrong. In any case, these refs obviously are not reliable. Simulation games often go to a lot of trouble to simulate real vessels, weapons, and tactics, or what ever they are simulating. My experience is with Train Simulator (MSTS1) and I know how careful train simulators are with being as realistic as possible (they even record the train whistles, track rumbles, and locomotive sounds, as well as use real dimensions, actual track layout data, real horsepower data, real train braking systems data, etc.) But it's just unusable clues really for the torpedo. Hope that helps some. Good hunting. — Becksguy (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers! Prodego talk 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Wikimedia NYC Board Member!

And now, for the hard part ;) Our process, as it goes forward from here, is laid out at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Chapter formation. I've written a draft Wikimedia New York City Bylaws at meta, and I would invite you to please comment on it, and make suggestions (see also a couple of possible future Resolutions). This is a critical stage of our approval process, when we must achieve a consensus among ourselves over bylaws, and work with the Chapters Committee to have them accepted. Thanks for your help!--Pharos (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice: Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

A message/response has been replied on talk page Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#ADD, followed by your question. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

user talk: say nesh

Resolved: User:Say nesh has been indefinitely blocked by admin Toddst1. — Becksguy (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are able to follow through on your block threat. He's at it again. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See the complaint I filed with the administrators noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks in edit summaries by User:Say nesh. — Becksguy (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It never helps

Claiming that pizza delivery isn't an encyclopedic quality cultural phenomenon is like claiming that terrorists didn't bring down the twin towers.

Please don't do that. It never helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. In retrospect I agree you have a point. The level of seriousness in a debate about pizza delivery does not rise to the level of seriousness about a conspiracy theory related to terrorism. I have struck that sentence. — Becksguy (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what they say...

big feet... APK PRAISE JEEBUS 00:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what do they say....? Becks Talk to me 08:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the words of kindness and comfort you left on my talk page, which have helped me more than you could ever know. It is deeds such as this which are giving me the strength to get through the days. Your kindness will never be forgotten. Much love, Jeffpw (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note of concern. While I would have reacted as Aleta did in her position, I am ashamed and embarrassed that so many know I am not made of granite, as I like to come across. I promise you I would never do anything which would make Isaac unhappy. Jeffpw (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


I've been reading the very cogent contribution you made to the AN/I incident report over edit warring to prevent Al_tally from closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination), because I'm working on a report on what happened, just begun with User:Abd/MKR incident, and so I reviwed all the edits to the incident report. And now I see your comment to the AfD.[5]. There are a number of users who have expressed very similar concerns, but I was struck by how similar our language was. I actually thought, at first, that I was reading one of my own edits.

You are correct, this is not a classic inclusionist/deletionist debate. However, there is a deletionist issue here. The AfD was started by a militant, enthusiastic Take That! deletionist, a returning editor with a very clear and serious agenda, and with a host of deletionist editors cheering him on. But I didn't get involved because of inclusionism. I am, in fact, a radical inclusionist, but in a very different way than it might seem. I think we've asked the wrong question, the encyclopedic project is about the classification and organization of information, and notability isn't an absolute. If somebody writes it, and it isn't a hoax, it's notable (in a way). But it might be notable at the very bottom of a hierarchy, one that a reader would have to pretty much go out of their way to find. I was around and involved when hypertext was invented, and the possibility of hierarchies of information was pretty exciting. With Flagged Revisions, we could actually do it. But, back to immediate reality, we aren't there, we have notability policy, and there is some level of current consensus about it, and I don't oppose deletion of non-notable articles, as such. I got involved here because of the editorial abuse. It wasn't just here, it was elsewhere as well. The editor involved has been massively disruptive, in the name of cruft killing, quite as he announced himself.

But, again, he is not the point. The point is that AN/I has broken down. It isn't working with any reliability. Al_tally, instead of using his admin buttons, did what he was supposed to do: go to AN/I when faced with edit warring. And he got no support at all. Nothing. That's what is so serious here. There is more, of course. All kinds of crap seems to have been stirred up by this. I've been studying it because I think there are lessons here; I don't know if you've noticed the analysis of votes in Talk for the AfD, but the relation between registration date and vote is, I think, quite interesting. Wikipedia has changed, and not entirely for the better. What made it grow in the beginning has largely been lost. Used to be people wrote articles from what they knew. Sources came later. Now, try that, what happens? You know. What was originally a project to improve the reliability of Wikipedia by adding sources, by requiring them, became the whole story. It has become extremely difficult to write an article, particularly for experts, who, when I talk to them (outside, real world), pretty much detest Wikipedia. Instead of editors coming along and finding sources, and putting them in, or questioning writers about how they know what they know, negotiating content through the discovery of consensus, we get slashers who don't care about anything but "what's the reliable source for this?" and they will simply take it out without discussion, without working to find compromises, ways to satisfy the intent of policy and guidelines. The creative community is largely destroyed and demoralized. Many, many long-time Wikipedians have left with comments about how disappointed they are at how the community has gone.

When I was looking at edit counts, and who had the highest edit counts among those who had !voted, I realized something. Extraordinarily high edit counts can be come by relatively easily by deleting lost of stuff. It takes moments to delete something and sometimes hours to write it. Writing and editing must be in balance, or this project will die. --Abd (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the 10 point comment in the AN/I thread here. Thank you for the complement, and yes, I was also struck by the similar language. Apparently we have some overlapping Wiki philosophies. I wouldn't call myself an inclusionist, however, as I have also many times argued for deletion if there isn't anything there to improve (if there is no there, there). In other words, lack of intrinsic notability is a valid reason to delete. My user page has a userbox in which I declare myself to be an political independent. And I like to believe I'm independent of the Wiki schismatic schools. Thank you for a long and thoughtful comment.

Yes, you are correct that there is a very strong deletionist thrust present. I probably should have said something similar to: That it wasn't just the classic inclusionist/deletionist debate with a strong deletionist thrust, but included a strong goal/process dichotomy as well. If it hadn't been for the AN/I thread, I never would have seen the 2nd AfD, and I completely missed the first. But so did almost everyone, as it was lost in the radar screen ground clutter. As maybe it should have been. Personally, I think the first AfD close was proper. And if in due course, it hasn't been improved, then renominate. No one will ever know how a DRV of the 1st AfD would have turned out, so to assume a relisting is just speculation or wishful thinking.

I also care relatively less about the article, as it's existence, or not, will not make much difference to WP. Although I believe it to be notable based on my experience. But it is borderline and I just don't have the time to spend on finding references for it. Kudos to you for doing what you have done. If deleted, it obviously can be userfied and returned to mainspace when more sources are found. But the damage to community process and trust done here will make a lot of difference and are far more destructive to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.

I was an engineer and worked in the corporate world for most of my life, so I am extremely familiar with goals. I had to write and evaluate a large number of them. And goal focused behavior and thinking is pounded into the heads of everyone in the corporate world, and in society. But I became aware that strongly goal driven people tend to discard anything that doesn't obviously contribute directly to attaining their goal. As I got older, I began to see that process was so very important, and was not just speed bumps on the way to success, but actually part of the goal. And yet, concern with process is discounted as process or policy wonkery, or other similar terms. There are times when more goal focused behavior is appropriate. If someone is in a burning building, the goal of getting the hell out as fast as possible is obvious. The process part comes into play in risk mitigation and contingency planning that hopefully was done before the fire. I should write an essay on process and goals.

I have been editing for almost 1.5 years, but I agree that something about the idea of eventual improvement (Eventualism) has been down played and the polarizing inclusionist/deletionist divide made wider. We need to better understood and rationally handle that polarizing effect if the encyclopedia is to grow and thrive. Just like the polarizing effect of the red/blue states in the real political world. Not that I care to join a particular Wikipedia philosophy school of thought.

This is what I see as the major issues from this whole mess to be thought about and learned from. 1. AfD is seriously broken. Far too much drive-by and/or thoughtless voting and the apparent assumption by some that if the article is nominated, it must be guilty. Of course, that could be partially due to increased visibility. Also, lack of experience/knowledge of the subject matter under discussion. 2. AN/I is broken. And yet, it can function when people choose to make it so. I'm not quite as convinced of this as you are, probably because I spend relatively little time there, but I can see some of that. 3. The damage to the innocent author who inadvertently walked into a WP mine field. I'm surprised he's still here. I don't know how many prospective writers are turned off by having their very first article attempt speedy deleted. 4. The difference between process and goal focused thinking and behavior and why that difference is important to understand and deal with rationally in a massive collaborative and consensus based volunteer project. 5. Why process is so very fundamentally and critically important to the encyclopedia as the glue that holds it together. — Becksguy (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD has been broken for a long time. From my point of view, the very concept is broken. It doesn't take AfD to delete content. It's kind of strange. You can't just blank an article, which is, of course, harmless since anyone can get it back. Blank an article if you weren't the only contributor, and what happens is that it comes back, immediately, and you get a vandalism warning, even if you explained it thoroughly in Talk, etc. No, blanking not okay. Rather, you get a couple of editors to agree -- could be two -- that the article goes and poof! it's actually deleted as far as ordinary users are concerned. Have you seen WP:PWD? That's one approach. But there is another one, which involves a redefinition of the encyclopedic project, which is actually necessary for other reasons. Wikipedia presently has a basically flat structure. Pages are interlinked, but there is no notability hierarchy. Just black and white, notable or not. In reality, the way the mind works, there is a huge amount of information coming in at all times. Most of it is not noticed. But, when needed, I can easily tell what my little toe is doing. There is already Flagged Revisions, coming to a wiki near you. Flagged Revisions as initially proposed (the software is done and they are using it in German Wikipedia) is about the top, about flagging revisions as being "stable versions," another name for it. When readers come to Wikipedia, what they'd see by default are stable versions, not necessarily the latest version. A new class of users is enabled to flag revisions as verified or ready. But any user can see the working versions, or the entire history, if they want. Now, consider the same thing at the bottom. There is a junkyard out back, a place where old stuff sits that somebody might find useful some day. We don't haul it away because that would cost more than to leave it in place, and, besides, once in a while something there proves useful. The editorial task should be to categorize, not to "include or delete." What layer does an article belong in? It would probably be a space, like article space or talk space, I call it a submission space, because, quite possibly, newly created articles would go there until someone independent from the author verifies them, as a minimum, but an article, even after such verification, can go back to the junkyard or submission space. It's possible to have many layers, and a whole hierarchy of knowledge is built. The lower layer(s) don't get google indexed (that's part of PWD, blanked pages aren't indexed). But they could be found with Wikipedia's search, and sometimes See Also links might point to them. To see the lower layers, you have to look for them, and part of that is, essentially, a warning that this material may be relatively unreliable. But then, somebody reads it, becomes interested, and finds sources, and, poof! another article appears at a higher level. The point is to build the project, the sum of all human knowledge, and deletion is, quite simply, not a part of summing. Unless "sum" is short for "summary," in which case it is somewhat deceptive. Absolutely, information should be presented in layers of notability. But one never knows what detail is needed, in advance. We change our focus, notability is not an attribute of facts, but of our attending process.
Anyway, that's quite a ramble. How to get from here to there? There is a way. It involves creating new structures on Wikipedia, a formalization -- very slight, very light -- of what we already have. The formalization doesn't involve any policies or guidelines or anything other than voluntary action in a coherent way, among those interested in it. It involves incorporating in Wikipedia process the lessons of centuries of experience about collective decision-making. Wikipedia is not nearly as new as we think, it's just a new playpen, so to speak. The same principles apply that have always applied in organizations. A small point: in standard deliberative procedure, no motion is debated until seconded. What happens here? One person proposes something and suddenly there is a huge debate with many comments and, quite a while later, it's realized that nobody agreed that it was even a good idea to discuss it. Wikipedia has what might be called a "floating committee process," ad-hoc committees that make decision. It's a great idea. In certain ways it is very efficient, when it works. When it doesn't, it stinks, it is highly unreliable and highly inefficient. Consider how AfDs are structured: Editors drop by and, mostly, vote. They start voting before there is any deliberation! That is the worst kind of democracy, in fact, raw aggregation without deliberation. Now, toward the end of an AfD, sometimes, new editors coming in may read the prior discussion, and so later votes may be more informed. I can't say how many AfD's I've seen where the nominator makes a spurious argument, and three or four or more editors pop up, within minutes, and vote Delete. Or sometimes Keep. They obviously had no time to actually investigate for themselves, from the edit timing. They took whatever the nominator said as true and agreed with it,if they were Delete voters, or rejected it, perhaps habitually, if they were Keep voters. I'd say that !voting should not start in a decision-making process until deliberation is complete. Under Robert's Rules, it takes a two-thirds vote to close debate. No voting takes place until two thirds of those participating consent. So there would be a process "chair," might even be a volunteer administrator who sits with the whole AfD or whatever it is, from beginning to end, like a mediator. In fact, why don't we think of AfD as a mediation process? (When it is contested). There are emergency bypasses to the supermajority cloture rule, the so-called "nuclear option" in the U.S. Senate, but people generally realize that it's a bad idea to use the "nuclear option" casually, and, in fact, it's never been used in the Senate. It seriously damages the quality of decision making that there are decisions before all the evidence is presented. So what would be done? Well, surely we know how to edit articles. We put together an article on the topic of the debate. Evidence is compiled and courced, if needed. (Common law: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. i.e., AGF). The nature of the dispute is described and attributed and analysis presented; the only difference between this and articles about the outside world is that sourcing requirements would be looser, much looser *if attributed*. When a supermajority agree that the "article" is ready for judgment, proposed "remedies" are listed (ArbComm does it this way) and then there is voting. Actual voting. No comment with it. Now, really, to do this right, we need a back and forth process, and that requires either some kind of steady committee membership or representation of some kind. And that's been proposed. First proposal was rejected with a huge flap, and the proposer was blocked, and remains indef blocked, for offenses that might seem puzzlingly trivial. The proposal was WP:Delegable Proxy, and there was serious effort to not merely reject it, but to actually delete it. Why? Well, I think I know why. It's pretty standard human organizational stuff.... nothing new under the sun, in fact. The rules of human society haven't changed because we have a wiki. There is a little on this at User:Abd/Rule 0. What I have in mind isn't merely complaining about Wikipedia failures. Wikipedia isn't a failure, yet. It's a process, and it could become something far deeper and far more influential than most here imagine. And it starts with a few people talking about it, and learning to effectively and efficiently connect.... Ah, I do go on, don't I? --Abd (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Checking in

Your concern for my well-being has touched me deeply, and I just wanted you to know I am ok, and getting ready for bed. I'm going to the movies tomorrow with my best friend, Janneke, and then on Saturday going to a planning meeting of Democrats Abroad, for which I am a fund raiser. Life goes on, and it goes better with people like you in it. Jeffpw (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the note of encouragement last night. Today starts my real reentry to the world. Work, then fundraising for Democrats Abroad. The big question is how cna I inhale 3 packs a day now that all indoor spaces are non-smoking? THAT'S the most terrifying thing right now.Jeffpw (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

72.76 et al vandal

If anon shows again use WP:AIV and cite User:David_Shankbone/72.76. Banjeboi 00:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Benji. I just got back in and saw the archived ANI thread. So I guess this will be cyclic. Oh well. — Becksguy (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. But at least someone's thinking about us! Banjeboi 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Highlight for LGBT newsletter?

Would you mind or like to be featured in the newsletter? I had an idea to discuss the wiki-careers of some of the more veteran members of the project. If you agree, please answer the following questions, and only the ones you feel comfortable answering:

  1. How long have you been an editor at Wikipedia?
  2. What tasks or projects in LGBT do you focus on the most?
  3. In what very general area (state or country) are you located?
  4. In what decade are you age-wise? 20s, 30s, teens?
  5. Do you have a particular triumph here at Wikipedia?
  6. Do you have a particular low moment?
  7. Why do you spend time at Wikipedia working for the LGBT studies project?
  8. What would you like to see it become?

You can answer here or on my talk page. If you're not comfortable answering, that's ok. Just let me know. I'm going to ask Benjiboi the same questions, and two more next month and on... --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting something together offline. — Becksguy (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute is not vandalism

Hi. I noticed that you reverted the caption on Brent's photo in Twink as vandalism. That is a content dispute, not vandalism, as vandalism is ... a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Arguing about the phrasing of a caption just isn't vandalism, it's a disagreement. Overusing the term robs it of it's usefulness, I think, and we would be better off using it against uncontroversial vandals. — Becksguy (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The revert i made was not based upon capitalization, but rather on a suspicious edit summary wikipedia is not shensured benjy boy, and the removal of a line of text. Normally i would probably not revert even if both of those reasons were present, but in this case i warned the IP before. In those cases i tend to assume bad faith when seeing edits with suspicious characteristics. Is it vandalism? Not really. But reverting with a warning automatically adds the vandalism line, instead of simply "Reverted"

Oh and if possible, please respond on my talk page. I will keep both pages synchronized when responding, but with my current watch list lenght im bound to miss responses on other pages. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for clearing that vandalism from my user page - some website has me as Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) so I think I get some random nonsense from that. Banjeboi 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The vandal's reason for requesting unblocking after being blocked for vandalizing your page was: he's pulling the gay card on me. Rather funny. — Becksguy (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Arrg! Now they know about the gay card! (that also doesn't exist). Banjeboi 12:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sort of...

A moot point now, but when I took a look at the article Non-heterosexuals it was a drastic improvement over what I nominated for deletion, and all of my objections to the page have been fixed. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks!

Thank you so much! I was just stunned that it was needed but now I'm glad I did it - I have 3-4 more now to focus on. Cheers! Banjeboi 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you did it also. You more than earned the barnstar, Benji, in fact, I wish I could offer more. The amount of quality editing work you do frankly overwhelms me. Take some pride that there are editors here that recognize your contributions. Peace and tranquility! — Becksguy (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're so sweet - thank you again! Banjeboi 05:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cookie for Becks

August DC Meetup

Greetings! We're working out the details about the next DC Meetup sometime this month and would love your opinion. Please check it out at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 5 and spread the word. Staeiou (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


This is a reminder that the WikiNYC Picnic is tomorrow (August 24) from 2 PM to 8 PM. If you plan on being lost, be sure to come ahead of time! To clarify, the picnic will be taking place within or adjacent to the Picnic House in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. I hope to see you there! --harej 03:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan.png Wikis Take Manhattan

Next: Saturday September 27
This box: view  talk  edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.


WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

349 W. 12th St. #3
Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop


Check out:

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.



You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just telling the truth, jerkhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, to be so popular. I'd remove it if I knew your preferences for keeping such endearing statements on your talk page. I, for one, would like to collect them. Like daisies in a vase. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's an small indication I'm doing my job, helping to keep the barbarians from the gates, so I'll keep it. It was also used as an exhibit by another editor to get the IP blocked. — Becksguy (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


At least one of us is paying attention! Thanks for the catch. Can I strike your comment since it doesn't make any sense right now?.........:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks much. Glad I noticed it also. — Becksguy (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well argued

Your argument on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Joe the Plumber was very well written and summed up my thoughts exactly. Thanks for putting the effort in to so elegantly arguing the position! --Falcorian (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. I wrote it off wiki (in a word processor) and then pasted it in. That usually gives me enough time for the necessary rewriting. — Becksguy (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for noting the editwarring on Joe the Plumber. Sometimes I am not sure that we are not in a third grade class at times ... Collect (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Some times I wonder also. It would have been better if I had spelled checked it first. — Becksguy (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit War Continuing on Joe the Plumber Page as of 10/23/2008

Hi. Sorry about this, but the edit war started right back up again today. Special attention was paid to constant reverts and undos on the "tax lien" information and his views on taxation. The matter is still being discussed in the BLP Discussion section, and even discussion participants jumped out of the discussion to mess around with the topic on the JtP page. I hate to ask, but I have the feeling that perhaps someone needs to freeze the page again. There were at least four or five reverts, undos, and redos today. If this is out of line, I apologize in advance. It's just that I am trying to participate in the BLP discussion. I have refrained from messing with the page at all. I am being patient. --VictorC (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

oh baby

Sorry honey. Won't happen again you sweet thang ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Felice Picano

There is no clear definition of 'modern gay literature'. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be 'post-Stonewall gay literature'. But again, 'gay literature' is a contrary notion. 'Founding Father' sounds comical to me - can't you see? It harks back to post-colonial America... Also, the problem with the phrasing I removed was that it assumed gay literature comes from America. I think post-Stonewall would be far less biased. I appreciate your interest. Have you read any of his books? I've not had a chance to yet.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article would really do with some references, perhaps from Google Books. I may help if I find the time.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 6/01/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Edit timer

Add this script to your monobook.js


Press F5, then when you view Special:Contributions/MBisanz, you should see little tabs at the top. My favorite is day/time. MBisanz talk 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bylaws process (ending December 1)

Per discussion at the November 16 New York City meetup, bylaws will be decided on-wiki with a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the process. Please read the proposed bylaws, and comment on them before the process ends on December 1. Thanks for participating!--Pharos (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Fair enough on the vandalism comment. I don't think his edits were good faith, but that is truly my opinion and I could certainly be wrong. Would welcome input on the rest. It may not be convenient information for those who want to say Joe's legally a plumber, but the articles seem to explain in detail the facts.Mattnad (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


For the welcome back! :] - ALLST☆R echo 01:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

hello my friend

Dropping by to say howdy doody. I hope you've been keeping yourself occupied in NY. :-o APK lives in Dupont and Gomorrah 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area
Last: 11/01/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush (4th nomination)

The arguments you are raising on this are succinct and excellent, and exactly the ones I would make. You've got quite a good brain in that head of yours. --David Shankbone 15:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

Wikimedia New York City logo.svg New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza

Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum
Last: 01//2008
This box: view  talk  edit

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your efforts to mediate the New York Times talk page, as well as to provide an orderly forum for the exchange of ideas. Discussion of the Grey Lady often isn't so grey. :-) Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Like many other subjects here.... Liberal or conservative bias, like beauty, is probably in the eye of the beholder. Note the archive cleanup. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

hearts & members

A vandal after my own heart. APK is ready for Spring 19:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I might have left it there, or more likely will move it to a special section or page where I will collect clever or funny comments by users after being warned. See Moni's comment here about vandals leaving little notes of appreciation after being warned. Like daisies! Thanks buddy. — Becksguy (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art at the Jewish Museum

Our meetup at the museum is this Thursday, February 19 from 6:30-8:00 pm. See Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Thursday evening at the Jewish Museum to sign up. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Becksguy. You have new messages at Staffwaterboy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Future of newspapers

Great idea on a separate piece on the future of newspapers. Since I started posting on the subject back at the beginning of November, the thing has snowballed. Hard to believe that a major American cities will be left without a daily paper, but, sadly, it looks like that's in the cards. I look forward to helping with the article you've suggested. Good call. Thanks and take care.MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for wading in there. I sort of lost it when I was told that my sources are 'entertainment magazines.' lol. Anyway, your idea is excellent to create a new piece, and glad to see it's getting a good response. As a longtime newspaper and magazine staffer, I know from all my friends what's going on out there, and it's ugly. Take care.MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind message. I also figured that you were an old newshand from your use of language. That's interesting about your father, too. I will have a look at the Journalism project. I received a message from someone there when I expanded this piece. [6] I agree with you about structure on this, but am glad you're happy with the way things are going. Thanks for all your help. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I spend most of my time here writing about arcane history that no one probably ever reads. :-) But awhile back, I did create this piece that I thought you might enjoy [7], and I substantially expanded this one [8]. I'm afraid as an old investigative hand, my signature 60-odd footnotes usually give me away. lol. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't use "-30-" or "###" to end the article. lol. I actually remember five hole paper tape and arriving stories printed out on banks of clackety teletype machines via various wire services. The news services Reuters, AP, UPI, and France-Presse now, of course, send their content as electronic feeds to the newspaper editorial systems. The more footnotes/citations, the better. Your piece on John Brooks is the way I would love to see journalists treated here, as it's so much more than a Who's Who of Journalism article. Great. One of my favorites is the legendary A. J. Liebling, also from The New Yorker, interestingly. — Becksguy (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL@ " -30- * ! Hey, I remember those days, too, along with the typesetters in the back shop slapping things together. More the era of "The Front Page" than today's newsroom. By the time I got to TIME, things were already changing quite a bit, and now, though I'm no longer there, I'm told that it and the other newsweeklies are so changed they'd be unrecognizable to me. (Incidentally, I noticed someone posted my old colleague Walter Isaacson's link to his recent cover. That's already in the footnotes.) Glad you enjoyed the John Brooks piece. I was a longtime fan of his, and was amazed recently to discover that he had no entry here, even though the current economic environment (shades of AIG) brought back some of his anecdotes.... I agree about Liebling, by the way. Great. A pleasure chatting with you and enjoy your evening. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, I agree with your point about the British newspaper market, although I'm certainly no expert on that. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I've added my name to the Wikipedia Project on Journalism.MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Surprised at the C rating on this one. Certainly it could use some more international stuff, as well as more exploration of the numbers (although there is some of both now). Oh well. Take care. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I assessed it at C-class. Clearly it's way better than start-class, and I believe no one will dispute that. All articles are automatically a stub-class on creation, even though someone has to slap the tag on them. Typically a single established editor can assess at start, and depending on the project assessment requirements, at C-class. C-class was created because there was a very wide gap between start-class and B-class articles, and it took too much work to increase the quality of an article to bridge that gap. This provides another rung in the article quality ladder. B-class and A-class article candidates have always required a project assessment process with at least several editors agreeing, and usually a formal assessment process, again depending on the project. I thought about this assessment at length, and for a comparison, I browsed the Journalism start-class articles, and also the C-class articles, and it's very clear to me that this article is significantly better than start-class in several measures, per the assessment scale. And it isn't B-class, although I think it can be, but that requires a more formal process. I think many will agree it meets the requirements for C-class. Can it be better, obviously yes. However, the Journalism project also has a very large backlog of unassessed articles, more than 11K, so this is doing my bit to help. If I was the creator or major contributor, I would not have assessed, but all I did was add a few refs, do a bit of copy editing, and add my encouragement on the various talk pages. If the Journalism project or another well established editor with assessment experience objects, then so be it, although I personally think that will be against the best interests of Wikipedia and the project. This is a good article, thanks to Barnabypage for creating it, and to you for bringing it up to it's present state. Kudos. — Becksguy (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

PS - I'm going to spend some time looking into the Journalism assessment process requirements and compare other journalism articles with this one, so as to get the article promoted. More information on other countries is needed, I think, but the US is well covered and the article is excellent. — Becksguy (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're happy with the way it's going. I've added quite a bit more since yesterday. I agree that sources and figures outside the US are needed. I've tried to add a few, but more would be better definitely. I guess I'd assess it myself (and I'm admittedly biased!) at B, especially given the 'on deadline' nature of the writing. :-) But I'm more concerned that it is inclusive, encyclopedic and doesn't shy away from the hard news thrust (i.e., the industry *is* in crisis). That said, there are some bright spots, and I am going to try to add a couple more of those. Thanks for your help. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Another wikipedia user, [9] from Brooklyn, nominated the newspaper piece for DYK, so it's now in the queue, so at least it won't get deleted now. :-) Cheers and have a good day, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, you're dead right about the lede of the NYT piece. MarmadukePercy (talk)

You're invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area
Last: 01/18/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Future of newspapers

Updated DYK query On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Future of newspapers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you for all your help in getting it off the ground and riding herd on it. A pleasure working with you. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent cartoon! Thanks for pointing it out. I'd missed that one. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, breaking news today. [10] and [11] This thing just goes from bad to worse. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought you would enjoy this. [12] MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Good piece, yes I did. Right on. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and agree with, your points about the demise of reading. What troubles me as much is the facile nature of information today, in which we seem to be pandering, or at least packaging a 'product' for consumption. What happened to the old 'comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable'? As the news succumbs to the 'free market,' it increasingly becomes an off-the-shelf remedy like Ivory soap. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

watchlist bot (can watch all edits for a user)

See User:Crazycomputers/WatchlistBot#watch.

--Jeremyb (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I bought you something...

Why, thank you APK. Becks appreciates wikilove. How you durrin? Becks Talk to me 19:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

3rd Ban reset?

Hi Becks. My third ban reset was never reduced or removed by admin User:Stwalkerster. He/she had told me he/she would do so but never did and now I see he or she is retired and I'm left stuck with this. I'm not thrilled. Now what? I'm stuck. Caden S (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Caden: I dropped a note with Black Kite. Lets see what happens. In any case, don't let it get to you. — Becksguy (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Stwalkerster retirement is an April Fools Joke, given the edit summaries. — R2 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, we will until tomorrow (or 1 min after midnight UTC). As to April Fools foolery, see this , then this, and finally this. Becks loves recursiveness (and talking in the third person). — Becksguy (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
PS - Thanks for checking into that, Realist, and for letting everyone know. Edit summary was "if you believe this....", and we did. Serves me right for not checking myself. The best pranks are those one falls for or those one admires for creativeness and interest. Stwalkerster user pages now reverted, BTW. — Becksguy (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem. :) — R2 01:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Becks for the help! Caden S (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


They may be helpful... they may not... but I added 7 additional sources showing Cabal as influential in the work of others. diff. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello Becks. I was wondering if there's a specific guideline for biographies of deceased individuals. I know we have BLP but I'm not sure if it applies to the dead. Is there any direct policy regarding the protection of notable subjects who are deceased? Or does it fall under BLP? I don't know. I would think there is a moral duty as well as a legal duty to protect such articles from harm since the deceased subjects would in most cases, continue to have living family members around. Caden is cool 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question Caden, and something we all should be discussing more than we do. Officially, WP:BLP, as a whole, does not cover people who are no longer living. However, there is also WP:BLP1E which covers people who are famous or notable for only one event, even if that event is being murdered, for example. Here is a guideline on biographies in general: WP:Notability (people), in addition to BLP for the living. There has been some discussion about amending the WP:BLP policy to cover the recently deceased, but it didn't get enough traction to become part of the policy.
Here is an interesting essay (not policy or guideline) that speaks to your question, but on recently deceased: WP:Avoiding harm which says, in part:

Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy once stated An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". There are a number of conflicting interpretations of this policy, and in marginal cases it is often problematic to determine how this rule should be applied to information on living (and, in some cases, recently deceased) persons.

I think it also depends on the specific case. For example when Jerry Falwell died in 2007, someone ran and semi-protected the article to keep BLP type vandalism away from the article, since he was a controversial figure and was "recently deceased". Historical figures clearly are not subject to BLP (especially since their immediate family members are also not living), however, all biographies (as are any article) are subject to WP:NPOV, WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:BIO, and so forth.
Basic content inclusion principles for any article, especially including all biographies, should be "Do no harm" and "Respect basic human dignity", as shown in this WP:ArbCom case from 2007: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.
Just remember, when commenting on articles, talk about content only, and not editors or their perceived motivations. If you have a specific article in mind and would rather chat off-wiki, just email me, or ask on my talk page if it's not sensitive. That's my advice. Hope it helps. — Becksguy (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Becks for answering my question. I kind of thought BLP did not cover subjects who are no longer living but I was not too sure. I appreciate you clearing that up. I believe BLP policy should be changed to cover not only the recently deceased but to cover historical figures as well. I'm not sure how this could be applied but I think the community needs to discuss this and find a way to protect deceased subjects in the exact same way living subjects are protected. In regards to your question, no, I didn't have any specific article in mind when I asked you my above post. Caden is cool 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Caden, take a look at Talk:Richard Gere#Gerbil for a current example my arguments on what I think is BLP. I argued that the old Gere and gerbil urban legend is a BLP violation, reverted the last inclusion before the article was protected, and also urged "Do no harm" and "Respect basic human dignity", but a few editors feel different. There are enough editors that argue it shouldn't be included to form consensus, plus an admin locked the article down for excessive BLP violations. So I doubt it will be included. I would suggest you don't comment there while topic banned, as it's indirectly associated with LGBT. Just suggesting it as an example to look at. — Becksguy (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's it

I'm thinking of leaving for good because of Black Kite. I'm fed up with all of the nonsense that goes on around here. I'm tired and sick of it. Caden is cool 15:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't, Caden. I know I would be very upset if I thought someone was enjoying a bad situation I was in, but I very strongly believe that Black Kite did not mean or intend you any disrespect. There is nothing in the way he treated you before to indicate that. Count to a hundred billion before you do anything. — Becksguy (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not leaving. It was miscommunication based on his word usage. Sorry I have not been on that much. I've been busy with finals. Caden is cool 23:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Becks can you help me please? User:Cuddlyable3 left me a message. He's accusing me of leading a politically charged smear campaign, which is not true. What do I do about him? I'm too stressed with finals and with studying to deal with him. He has a way of pissing me off and I don't want to lose my temper. Caden is cool 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter eggs

APK bought you some Easter eggs, but he had some mayonnaise that was about to go bad. He decided to make some deviled eggs instead. APK is really sorry about eating your Easter present, but promises to make it up to you on Cinco de Mayo. (although he's likely to drink your present) Happy Easter.

Journalism books

Hi there and thanks for your message on my talk page. Shall we continue by email? Mine's, fullname being the same as my Wikipedia username. Regards, Barnaby Barnabypage (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Future of newspapers

Thanks for letting me know about the additions. I'll have a look and try to do some editing. Yes, I agree that the fact that the W. Cronkite school entitles a course 'Future of journalism' does lend support to the title of the piece, with which I've never had any problems. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. No, I think that the loss of journalism jobs nationally should be incorporated into the main piece, and not broken out into a separate section. I'll have a look and try to work it in, but it may take me a few days as I'm not here very often these days. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect RFC

Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect [13]. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Becksguy. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area
Last: 03/29/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message

I gather you were/are Caden's mentor, but the conversation we were having (which was over anyway) was hardly extreme. You may wish to point out to Caden, however, if you are his mentor, that the Carrie Prejean article is related to his former topic ban. Not to make him stay away from it, but as a reminder to keep things in perspective. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm his mentor. And yes, I agree it wasn't extreme. But it looked like it might be escalating and so my advice (not a warning) was meant to hopefully keep it from getting extreme. And if it died out before my comment was posted, even better. I will look into the Prejean article now that I have some time. — Becksguy (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
As his mentor, you may wish to review Caden's posts here and here. He's involving himself in a discussion relevant to his topic ban that really doesn't concern him, in a manner that is unhelpful and, I would suggest, misleading. I'm concerned that he appears to be veering close to his former pattern in characterising a gay figure in a public dispute with a straight woman as "a hateful bigot out to promote an agenda." Exploding Boy (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

240th Street Yard

Its not the 207th I was thinking of. It was the 240th Yard near VC Park.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


On wikipedia, it can be conclusive, as there are users out there that when socking, do it extremely badly. Are you saying, per a Minority Report understanding, that all users found to be socking per the duck test should be unblocked? This isn't the time frame of the McCarthy witchhunts, this is wikipedia, where blatant socking does and will occur.— dαlus Contribs 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Remember our Asheville discussion last year? I saw this news clip and thought you might find it interesting. APK straight up now tell me 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


If Caden were indef'd, I would probably argue that his own comment should be zapped also, as it's basically a carpet-bombing personal attack against every editor that has ever "wronged" him. The difference, though, is that he's not blocked. He's simply pouting. So others posting shots on his talk page should be discouraged, while his own rant (at least for now) should probably be tolerated. If he doesn't turn up in another week, though, I think it should be cleared as being inflammatory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


You get one too! It's not my template, I just found it while searching through WikiLove designs and I love cats so I've been spreading it like wildfire. Wikipedia will so be overrun by kittens! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, that cat looks like a gopher lol. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Becks. Is the Meetup/NYC/Wiki-Conference 2009 open to all wikipedians or is it just for New Yorkers? My second question is about ideas. Are all ideas welcome? Or do they have to be specific to a particular project or topic? Thanks. Ned ac 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically open to all, and I'll provide more shortly. — Becksguy (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks! Ned ac 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you don't have her talk page watchlisted...

...let me know if you'd be interested in a GA-run. Happy Independence Day. (To hell with George III and our British overlords!) ;-) APK coffee talk 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Becksguy,

You mentioned BLPN here twice, and I wonder if you still think it's a good idea. I've never posted to that noticeboard and don't know what to expect. Everyone else seems to have abandoned the discussion, but the BLP question is still there and should be answered, imo. Whatever the answer may be, I think it's something that has come up repeatedly in various articles, so maybe it should be addressed in WP:BLP.


Rivertorch (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I felt the discussion wasn't going anywhere (even before it died away), and I had two rationales for suggesting BLPN. One was to get the opinions of fresh and uninvolved editors on this, especially editors that have experience in the area of BLP. Another was to unclog the discussion. There are several options to help editors to reach consensus on a article. Dispute resolution is one (with several sub options. If this was just between two editors, a third opinion might have been useful, but there are more than two editors involved and even more than two positions. Mediation cabal is another. I hate to see an RfC filed, as that is normally a 30 day process. I no longer like the original "E.O. Green ..." title either, per Rebecca and others, but it's better from a BLP viewpoint than "Murder of..." So maybe reverting to the original title until the trial is over, or until we can reach consensus here, is the next best road to take, but BLPN is still a viable option. More later, as I have to run. — Becksguy (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have gotten disengaged from this. Other matters, on- and off-wiki, intervened. I didn't believe another RFC was likely to be helpful, and it didn't strike me as a mediation issue (it could become one if someone reverts Kotra's change). I still believe the question of whether there was a BLP violation has implications for many other articles. In your opinion, now that the title is back to what it was and there's no longer an immediate potential violation, do you still think BLPN is worth pursuing? Maybe a discussion begun somewhere else, such as at the policy talk page? Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: No to BLPN for this article, unless it's moved back again. But yes on a more general discussion of this kind of title at the policy talk page. Good suggestion. I agree there are wider implications than just this one article. — Becksguy (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to get something going over there in the next few days and will give you heads-up at the time. Rivertorch (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks RT, and I have that page watchlisted as well. — Becksguy (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal updates on E.O. Green article

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date on the legal developments at Talk:E.O. Green School shooting#Updates on legal proceedings. It has been helpful to see how it progresses. -kotra (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I figured it would save everyone from searching for the latest. Too bad we couldn't get to consensus on a title. — Becksguy (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


I found it here, though I've seen the image in other places as well (ie TV Guide). --Silvestris (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Vomiting Keep

Hey Becks, You are citing Hoary in your keep rationale, you do realize that Hoary is not advocating keeping but deleting? I have no problem with your citing him, but I would be curious as to how his delete and criticism of Berian's edits are rationale for keeping?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr. B. I wish I could say that I was being brilliantly ironic (although I do remember intending a bit of irony). However, I had originally intended to use Hory's talking points as part of a framework for an extensive point-by-point rebuttal against deletion, but didn't complete it. And I forgot to add a qualifying phrase similar to what I included for Edison's arguments on merging. Sorry for the confusion, especially since I highly respect you and your insightful and helpful contributions to the RfA and speedy discussion arena. I will either strike Hory's name, or post a note of clarification. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Have fun! Tell Dave and Steve I asked how they be durrin. APK say that you love me 06:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL... I wish! Thanks buddy, and you know I do. Going upstate NY where there are real actual trees and stuff. And you can actually see the stars in the sky. And no car fumes in the air. And no pushing to get into the subway car. Ahhhhh... Becks may never come back. Becks wonders how hard it is to find a connection up there so as to get his daily Wikipedia fix. — Becks 07:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your ANI request

Just a courtesy notification that I struck your RfC close at the Gere/Gerbil section and re-closed the debate here. I left your comments intact, but feel free to remove them if you wish Fritzpoll (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Smile from Caden

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan.png Wikis Take Manhattan

Next: Saturday October 10
This box: view  talk  edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.


WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets


Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.



You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved your comment

I took the liberty of moving your last comment at Talk:Matthew Shepard with this edit. Nothing was changed, but Policefact chose to comment above you, and it made your comment look completely out of place. Just keeping conversations threaded. AniMatedraw 06:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. — Becksguy (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Becksguy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Crotchety Old Man : WP:TALKO violation/warring and abusive edit summaries. Thank you. --Cyclopiatalk 10:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
For your thoughtful and extremely well-reasoned rationale at the David Shankbone DRV, I hereby award you this Barnstar. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. It did take a lot of work. I only wish Jake had reverted himself; to increase people's respect for him, as a learning experience, and to decrease the drama. — Becksguy (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm willing to accept that Jake thought he was doing the right thing, but it was clearly an error in judgment. Whatever the outcome, it will be a learning experience for him. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area
Last: 09/13/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)