User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


Hi Beeblebrox,

I am Daniel Zhang, I hope you remember me, the one who edit the page "ExperVision"

For those days, I have search through Google and other Wikipedia's page, and I collect a lot of information about this company, as I interest in OCR tech. for 4 years, I really want to ade a page of this company in wikipedia, as you know that Abbyy, ExperVision, and OmmiPage are the three most powerful Technology Provider in OCR field, I think it is a pity that our Wikipedia do not have one company's page out of the three.

As you know English is not my mother tongue, so I can only copy and paste whne I edit Expervision's page before, but after reading <The missing Manual>, I realise that this is not a correct way to edit our Wikipedia, some of the content which I paste in Wikipedia is barefaced ADs, I spend four days to draft a article about ExperVision, I will very happy if you could check this crticle to see if it is fit Wikipedia, and I hope you can help me to edit this page, also, I would like this page could unprotected, I read a article about how to make a page unprotected, the article say that it is good to contact with the Admin who protect this page, this is why I wrote this letter.

To be honest, I have a strong interest in non-profit organization and open-source software, I have helped Mozilla to test Firefox 3.0 beta 2 before and I also develop some emule mods with my friends in Germany, so I really want to join Wikipedia.

Thanks for your reading, Best Regards,

Daniel Zhang —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZhang27 (talkcontribs) 03:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, first things first, I'm not actually an administrator. However I believe I can still assist you in this matter. If we can get a draft article together on the subject and show it to an administrator, that should be sufficient to get it unprotected. What you should do is create a user subpage with a draft of the article. Try to find some reliable sources and include the basic facts about the company. Don't worry about the English, I can fix that for you, just concentrate on getting some sources and creating a simple article. Click here to start the subpage, and I will keep an eye on that page and we'll see if we can make a decent article on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help, I have already find dozens of reliable sources, now I will start the subpage, talk soon :)--DanielZhang27 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I finish a simple article here: User:DanielZhang27/ExperVision about ExperVision, please check it to see if it can be accepted by Wikipedia, I have to say that it is very hard to extract the objective information and reviews from google with a lots of ADs, but thanks for Wikipedia, I find a lot of usefull information here. I am so exciting, this may be my first article in wikipedia!--DanielZhang27 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Click here to see my revisions to the article. I think this is ready to go, but we may have to go through a deletion review first because it is currently protected from being created due to having been deleted so many times. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Apparently the admin I approached about this felt it was more appropriate to overwrite your version with mine than to let them exist separately in our user spaces, so my version is now where yours was. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I got it. Thanks so much for your help, now I have more clearly about the Wikipedia's standard. I plan to add another 2 page for "OCR SDK" and "OCR Toolkits" after I finish this ExperVision's page, I hope I can grow up to an experienced editor like you in the future. I hope the page we make can pass through the Deletion review. Thanks again for your help!--DanielZhang27 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems that the article still need to be rewrite, I have to say that it is too hard to blend in an old non-profit organization, I left Mozilla because of this too. I really feel the enthusiasm of these unpaid admins, it is feel so good to protect Wilipedia from any fresh man's edit. Holy Wiki, what can I say. I will continue rewrite untill it pass the Deletion review.--DanielZhang27 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (undent) I've added some references to the article that should improve it's chances. I'm convinced now that this company does in fact meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, and with the improved sourcing, it is already better than a lot of other new stub articles. Not that it still couldn't use some improvement, but if we can get it into article space, there will be more people seeing it and adding to and editing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In fact, the picture in your talk page's upper right always encourage me, thanks for your updates in ExperVision's page, I will imitate your style to improve this article, thanks for god I know Google like know my hands. I always keep an eye on the Deletion review page and I think not every one in here is bad guy, lol.--DanielZhang27 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Now, could the stub page get into article place? I see a new message in Deletion review page about ExperVision' page, sounds like this article is accepted by Wikipedia.--DanielZhang27 (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • WOW! We make it! Thanks so much for all of your help! It is my first article in Wikipedia, Valentine's Day is coming, best wishes to you and your lover! I will continue making contributions to Wikipedia in OCR and other IT field--DanielZhang27 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy of manufacturing processes

Hey Beeblebrox, an update on the taxonomy page. I marked it for speedy deletion because the work is in violation of copyright. The professor who created the work, after reading the GFDL feels that he does not want his more current and unpublished work to be in the public domain. It is a verbatim copy of his work, posted by one of his graduate students. Again, if there is anything else I need to do to get that page removed, please let me know, thanks- Zedii (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'm a bit confused. Earlier you seemed to be saying it was a copy of this [1] copyrighted work. If it is unpublished, I'm not sure I see how it's a copyright violation, although he needs to do something at about that grad student. This is a somewhat unusual case and there is still an intellectual property issue even if it is unpublished I suppose. I'm going to ask for some help from an administrator to sort this out. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


According to the FCC website, KAYO is, in fact, licensed to Wasilla, Alaska. I have reverted your entry under AGF. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 3, 2009 @ 07:33

I'm confused then. the article says the station is owned and operated by Morris Communications and the infobox says the licensee is MCC Radio, LLC, which I would assume to be Morris' radio operations. So, there is some sort of error or miscommunication. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Some companies use "licensees" for their stations. Why, I haven't the slightest clue. KAYO's licensee is MCC Radio, LLC...which is owned by Morris Communications. Why they don't just say that in the license, I don't know. I know it can be a little confusing. Some Clear Channel stations are in fact licensed to "Capstar TX Limited Partnership". That is how it is listed in the FCC database. So, it is confusing. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 3, 2009 @ 07:43
I should have realized the problem was the FCC. Very little that they do makes any sense to me... Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Radio and TV Stations are my department of knowledge and half the time the FCC makes little sense to me either. Take Care...NeutralHomerTalk • February 3, 2009 @ 07:55

Matt Kramer

You just made quiite a few edits in a very, very short time, without consulting the creator. Please take a step back from this article for an hour or so and let a fellow wikipedian finish the start of an aricle, eh? Also, please look at relevant naming conventions before making a ruling like you just did. MURGH disc. 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You don't own the article, so I don't believe I need to ask your permission to make an edit. I thought the original name was confusing, I clicked on it expecting to see an article about a wine, and instead it was a biography. If you could specify which part of the naming conventions you are referring to it would clarify your objection to the move. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

re User:Kneehideep (thanks)

Many thanks. (Knew it was a mess, was pondering exactly what kind. Now I know.... and can take figuring it out off my front burner. :) Cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. The more people are quitely aware of this problem, the easier it is to deal with it, so it always nice to have another set of eyes out there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

re Cassiars and reqphoto|Alaska

Hi; please see Talk:Cassiar_Mountains#Why_Wikipedians_in_Alaska_re_reqphoto.Skookum1 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Impressive maps

Have you seen Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Not bad. I wonder if the State of Alaska created them or if they got them from the census and we could use them directly? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AIV report

Go talk to Gavia_immer about what he's doing, please. Don't just tag a bunch of things. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AIV report declined

Thank you for your recent report to AIV [2]. However I am not going to block Gavia immer (talk · contribs) because (1) he has received zero warnings and the AIV page clearly states that users "must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop" and more importantly (2) his edits are not vandalism. Had you bothered to check his contributions, you would have noticed that he is involved in WikiProject Japan, specifically with their project to create Japanese era/year redirects. If you have any questions or issues, please feel free to drop a note on my talk page. I am sorry if this sounds overly harsh, but frivolous vandalism reports on long-standing Wikipedia editors is not thought very highly of. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Please excuse my hasty action. There were lots of nonsense pages being created yesterday, I was tired and failed to recognize an editor acting in good faith. Obviously, I should have shut down my computer and gone to bed. Sorry. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beeblebrox. You have new messages at Ikip's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mount Nesselrode

Hi; I just created this but didn't know which Alaska county/census area to put it in....Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it's either in the Haines or Juneau borough, or possibly in an area without a local government. I'm trying to cross-reference several online maps to figure it out exactly... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • After comparing [3] with [4] it appears it is in the Haines Borough. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I figured out why I'm having so much trouble nailing this down. [5] indicates that it is the corner point between the two boroughs. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I left it to you :-)....also just created the Whiting River and although it's in Juneau Borough or whatever it's called, I don't know the name of the inlet it enters saltwater at. I'll also create the Craig, which begins in Alaska and used to be known as the South Fork of the Iskut. There's a few others of these along the boundary, "deadhead" rivers; the Whiting's upper basin is virtually inaccessible from the rest of BC, it's intereesting that the boundary commission actually managed to agree on it, if you know the history of the case you hadn't seen my inline comment I also created Mount London, which is near Nesselrode.Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Unlike most other states in the US Alaska does not use counties, we call them "boroughs" but they serve the same basic function as counties, but are not sub-divided into townships. And, not all areas of the state are in a borough, although most of Southeast where we are discussing is. Basically, anywhere with a valuable resource such as fishing grounds or oil fields has a borough, but much of the interior of the state is unincorporated and subject only to state and federal government. I know there has been a lot of arguing over the years about boundary crossing rivers and the fish that spawn in them, so I too am surprised they actually agreed on some things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi, I didn't want to have any connection to my old account so I am not even mentioning the name here. I just want to copy the little bit of information I have and some code and then I will request to delete other pages.--Grave Sense (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vease Freck

Hi Beeblebrox. I'm guessing that you marked my first Wikipedia entry as This areticle may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this areticle if you can. Thanks for the links to all of the pages, but without spending the next month or so reading all of those links in my spare time, I'm really not sure what is wrong with the article. Could you please be more specific? Thanks for any help. Vease Freck (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The main issue is that the sources you have provided are closely associated with the subject. Wikipedia articles should be sourced to reliable sources independent of the subject. As he's written all those books, there should be such sources, they just need to be found. Cleanup is more of a general thing, the article is not divided into sections and the tone is not quite that of an encyclopedia. Overall, it's not a bad article and the subject seems notable enough for an entry. Most new articles get a couple of tags on them like this so it's nothing to be too worried about. If I have some time later today I'll see if I can handle the cleanup. I know all too well how overwhelming Wikipedia's wealth of policies and guidelines can be when you are new, my advice is to read the five pillars and everything else will come later. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese (dog)

As soon as you have supported the protection of that article Pietru il-Boqli edited and deleted sourced statements. I know that I ask much but can you tell him not to delete sourced edits anymore. Also if protection is the way to go I would like to know whether you would be so kind to look at the two latest sources that I produced, I have lots of them but selected two most interesant sources which speak volumes in the issue. They are listed in the talk page of the article under the title User:Pietru il-Boqli deleted sources. -- Imbris (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No, I will not. As I said, I endorse protecting this article to stop all this foolishness and get all of you to calm down and go do something else. I don't care what version of the page gets protected. Follow my advice or don't as you see fit, but I'm not getting in the middle of this until all of you take a break. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well how long would that "break" need to last before you choose to get involved (naturally as you see fit). -- Imbris (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, you're quick

On the Yukon Flats article. I hadn't even gotten a chance to fix the photo before you popped in. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Smelly BF101 socks

Good catch on the BF101 sock. After reviewing the edits in question, I semi-protected both the Charlotte's Web and 102 Dalmatians articles, and blocked (talk · contribs · block log), (talk · contribs · block log) and (talk · contribs · block log). Keep up the great work! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Hey, thank you for your quick and thorough action! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

tlingit villages today

Just a thought, since you appear to be from up that way (?). I added Category:Tlingit to Saxman, Alaska and in other cases where I was reasonably sure, i.e. when the presence of hte category for US communities with significant Native American poulations/majority populations is present, the tribal category or categories should also be present, no? I think I did this for Klukwan and Howkwan, but I don't know enough about Alaska to do it across the board....just a suggestion; also that town articles like Saxman's are kind of dry, without any local colour, all "boilerplate stats"....`also that category should of course have a subcat "communities with Native Alaskan majorities"/"signficant Native Alaskan populations", whatever the wording is in each case, as I'm under teh understanding that "Native American" is not used for Native Alaskans; one of those categories talkpages has a discussion/suggestion about that....Skookum1 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, here is that discussion/proposal. Also I think Category:Tlingit settlements would be a useful subcat of both the suggested cat, and of Category:Tlingit.Skookum1 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Also please see Talk:Haida#List of Haida villages along the same lines; historical vilalges vs modern ones....I'll be back to this subject once I finally boot myself into writing the Fort Stikine article; just earlier I came across a reference to the former, older Stikine people settlement slightly to the north.Skookum1 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fort Stikine made

Hi; I finally made it, pretty much freehand this last couple of hours, been mulling it over for quite a while...lots of side-articles needed yet, but....see Talk:Fort Stikine and by now you've seen what's on WP:Alaska, similar comments with some other details are on WP:Russia....Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Wow, I went away for a few hours, during which you've been very busy! I'll check out those articles, but I'm not sure how much local flavor I can add. I live on the Kenai Peninsula, although I have visited Haines, Skagway, and Sitka. Most of the info I've added to your creations has come from gnis or the Anchorage Daily News, which is the biggest newspaper in Alaska, and is really the state's newspaper,although the Juneau Empire might have better information on the areas you are dealing with. I can tell you two things: one, which you picked up already, is that Alaska's native population generally considers itself separate and distinct from other North American natives, and they really don't like being referred to as "Indians." The other is that although you are correct in your use of the term "panhandle," Alaskans always refer to this region simply as "southeast." I'm not sure that means we should change that in the articles or not, it's the most common name in Alaska but not necessarily in the world at large. Anyhoo, keep up the good work, and I'll do what I can to follow up on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)



Thank you for the quick revert. :) Queenie Talk 21:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. A disruptive user vandalizing your talk page usually means you did something right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

question about deletion

I will edit my text so that it's Wikipedia friendly. Unfortunately I won't have time to do this until Monday -- is there a way to delete the page without prejudice so that I can try to re-post it in a more neutral, non-copyright infringed way? I apologize for the misuse, it was truly an honest mistake, it will just take me a little time to fix up and I'd like to spare being deleted or penalized without a chance to properly submit. Framebuyer (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • There is a way to do that, I'll handle it for you, and we'll see your new version on Monday. Don't worry, you won't be penalized, articles are only protected from creation after being repeatedly re-created in an improper manner, and users are only blocked if they are constantly acting in bad faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Framebuyer (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, I have re-written the article significantly and was hoping for your input before posting it. In order to not appear an advertisment for the company, I decided to make the article about the president of the company and just refer to it. My references include their website, a book written about Larry and the company, and various articles written about them as well. I've done my best to put things into my own words and not violate any copyrighting, as well as sounding neutral and unbiased. It's posted in my user page. Thanks for any help you may be able to offer. Framebuyer (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure it's quite ready to go, because it still lacks sufficient reliable sources. They do seem to be out there however, and I have added one that I found as an example. The style of writing is better, but phrases like "leading expert" could be taken as promotional unless he is specifically described this way in a source. Just leaving it as "expert" is enough to solve that though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I checked out your change and now understand better how to add references. I will add a bunch and maybe filter it through you again, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks for your help, I'm new to this! Framebuyer (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the article is now littered with references. Care to take a look? Thanks. Framebuyer (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The sources you have added are kind of a "mixed bag." This one [6] looks more like a paid ad or a press release than an actual source, but this one [7] is a good solid reliable source. I think this is ready to be moved over to article space, it can be fixed up further once it is there. If you are ok with it, let me know and I'll move it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

that sounds great, thanks Beeblebrox! You've been amazingly helpful. Let me know if I need to do something. Framebuyer (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. Now that it is "out there" there will probably be other editors looking it over and possibly adding tags to address issues it has, but I think it meets the basic criteria for a biographical article and should be safe from deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive deletion

I see you've listed several archives for deletion - names are in the form "Archive1" (etc) which are redirects to "Archive 1" (with a space between "Archive" and the digit). However you've tagged Archive{space}4 rather than "Archive4" - is that what you meant, before I go ahead and delete "Archive 4"? Tonywalton Talk 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think you noticed it at the same time I did, I did indeed mean to tag the one without the space. Thanks for your help! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome - I'll go ahead and delete the rest of them (including Archive4) Tonywalton Talk 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

question on action

hello Beeblebrox this is Harold Diaz and I would like to know more about the Notability guideline that concerns my article on Shubhojit Chatterjee that you have edited today. Precisely how reliable sources or secondary sources would you require for it to be valid? I have provided reference to national newspapers and articles in them, however, that does not seem to do the job. I will appreciate if you guide me through the creation of this article on this internationally acclaimed photographer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harolddiaz (talkcontribs) 09:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, some of the sources you've added since the last time I checked are a little better. The link to the Times of India, however, just goes to their main page, and there is nothing there about this person. If you could find the specific article and link to that, it would be much more useful. Some of the sources, for example this one [8] aren't much use because they contain a mention of the name, and nothing else. Also I don't think Absolute Astronomy is what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source, as it seems to be user-created (Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source for the same reason). If we can fix these problems, the article probably will be ok. I'll try to fix it up as I have time today. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I assumed you meant that the article in the Times was from 2008, I searched the date indicated, but there are an awful lot of stories. Here is a link to the list of stories from that day [9]. If you could find the exact story on this list, it can be linked to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks a great deal ! I had absolutely no idea how to go about the sources. If you google the key word "Shubhojit Chatterjee", there are hundreds of related links, however, like you may say that an interview published as a blog may not do the job, I cannot add that as a source. The link that points to a .pdf file of the Doon School Weekly, has an article on him congratulating him on him receiving the Art Colours in the year 2008. I do not know how much credibility it may hold but I of whatever I have searched about him on google, I have either found him listed in very many "top designers" lists or blogs discussing him and not to forget his Company's website Isislifestyle or Shubhojit Chatterjee- if those could do any help.

thanks for you time Harold

blanking, in the first instance, as preferable because

Quoted from Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Blehblah/x:

  • Preferably Blank or redirect to user's talk page, next time. Delete this time until an explanation is given. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I understand how blanking or redirecting is preferable to deletion. All they would have to do is click "undo" and this junk would be right back... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox,

I see blanking, in the first instance, as preferable because:

  • It is nicer/less bitey to the newcomer. An MfD and the templated notices can be overwhelming to the newcomer
  • When blanked, it is effectively gone, and server space is not an issue
  • The users contribution history remains readily available
  • It is less work than an MfD

Yes, the user might undo the blanking. But it is actually good to give them that possibility, to give them the power of decision to not do it. If they revert, with no meaningful response, then you can go to MfD.

In this case, I predict that User:Blehblah will never return. If so, the MfD has achieved nothing that blanking would have. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for clarifying that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox

How could I possibly further perfect my article on Shubhojit Chatterjee? It'll be a great help if you could check it once and may I now remove the notability guidelines and the Orphan's box with your prior permission?

thanks a great deal for your time !

Harold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harolddiaz (talkcontribs) 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, not that you have to do what I say, but at this time I cannot sanction the removal of the notability tag. The references at the article contain only brief, trivial mentions of this person. My own search did not turn up anything any better, so the notability of this individual is still somewhat questionable in my opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


WeridSmartNice (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) hey you spamed my talk page! i clearly said no spam. got it?

  • Well this is a turnaround, a new user "biting" an established user... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Beeblebrox, belated post holiday thanks for your support in both my RFAs, the latest of which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. WereSpielChequers 10:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


I have agreed to withdraw the nomination. I may have handled the withdrawal inappropriately, I'm a bit of a nubcake when it comes to AFD. SDY (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No problem, I just closed it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


I was looking through the history of the article I created, and I noticed that you wrote "I'll never understand why people back-date tags on new pages...", what did you mean by that? Because I am abviously making a mistake, and I do not want to make another one, Oh an thanks for wikifying it too! Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • When you created the page, it was tagged with {{Cleanup|date=October 2008}} which would indicate that it had been tagged since October, when really it was a brand new article. Not really a big deal at all, just a minor inaccuracy. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Image question

{{helpme}} I need an expert on image use policies here. I uploaded [10] believing it was in the public domain, because it was clearly created in 1914. After the upload, I noticed it came with some metadata, and included in there was a claim of copyright by the University of Alaska. I'm inclined to think that they are mistaken in believing they can copyright a scan of an image that was made in 1914, but I would like someone with more experience in this area to double-check my logic. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the University of Alaska cannot hold copyright over this. I have retagged your image with {{PD-US}}, and have moved it to commons. Feel free to contact me if you need any help. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Cool, thanks for your help! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


The backlog is less due to additions on my part and more due to the lack of admins willing to clear them. My first batch was added 2-1/2 hours ago: where were the efforts to clear them then?

Also, the latest batch is the result of going through about 4 or 5 days worth of unpatrolled New Pages, with some bonus material lifted from Google searchs: where were the efforts to clear them from the 30 days' worth of New Pages?

Finally, the latest bacth is exactly that: the latest batch. I have been adding them in groups over the last week or so, working forward on the New Page unpatrolled pages, and I've done from late January to about February 12. And guess what? I still have about a list of 120, and I'm only up to February 16th.

In short, the backlog isn't my doing, I'm just uncovering them, and I'm doing them in stages. Your complaint isn't with me and no one is forcing you to deal with spammers. There are certainly a lot of others who are willing to help. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Just wanted you to know a lot of the 'delete' and 'merge' people from the AfD are now pushing hard to censor much of these pages. We'll have to be extra vigilant about it I think. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the removal of the children's names, I think that editor may have missed the point anyhow that they already have their own article. I will be watching though. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


If you replace project banners with WPRedir, doesn't that break Article Alerts, since the banner is no longer in place, so that when a redirect is up for deletion, there is no alert? (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what you are asking. The WikiProject Redirect banner has been deleted. I don't know what "Article Alerts" is. I'm not aware of any automatic process that notifies WikiProjects when articles are at AfD, I thought most people just manually notified them or used WP:DELSORT. I don't think most redirects belong in a WikiProject, as they are not articles, but I'm not sure there is really any concrete policy on that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some sort of bot that was set up recently, that's called "Article Alerts" that informs related WikiProjects about deletion requests based on the banners on the talk page. (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hm, that is interesting, and potentially very helpful. I suppose removing banners would remove them from article alerts. Since most redirects are fairly uncontroversial though, I'm not sure it's that big of a deal, you could always watchlist redirects that you are personally interested in. Oops, I just realized that doesn't apply unless you have a registered account. One of the benefits is being able to watch any article you wish and be automatically informed of any changes made to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


thank you for the message- I don't see why I should archive any finished conversation - but I may consider checking the option if there is something worth saving I don't see myself as chatting here to be honest, so I am not sure I wil ever get round to it, but I appreciate the effort --WDIAROM (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC question

Thanks for your reply on the civility page. I agree - more input would help. So far this issue has involved several editors arguing against Sophergeo on four separate pages: Talk:Subduction, Talk:Mantle (geology), Talk:Expanding Earth, and Talk:Ganymede (moon). All of his edits are related to the Expanding Earth hypothesis, and most of his comments are copy/pasted from one talk page to another, so I'm not sure how to address this issue in terms of one article, and I've never initiated an RFC before. Could you give me some advice on how to proceed? Thanks - Awickert (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I see what you mean. I think probably you should pick whichever article has been the most contentious, and start there. Hopefully that will be enough help to determine how to proceed at the other articles. There are instructions on how to initiate an RFC at the rfc page, and it may also be helpful to notify relevant WikiProjects such as the geology project, and leave a notice here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your feedback. I think I'll initiate an RFC at the Expanding Earth page, as that is the central theory that is being debated, and leave notices at the other three disputed pages and at the geology and fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks for your help and time - Awickert (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
RfC is over, thanks for advising it. It turns out I was arguing with a banned user's sockpuppet; (s)he is now banned, along with that sockpuppet and another one. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Afd - Keller

thanks for letting me know, Tom B (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Protestantism and American politicsChristian right

Doesn't make sense. Not every Protestant is a right-winger. Shows a clear POV problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The redirect is maybe inaccurate but it is not wrong, since the majority of political Protestants are self-styled Evangelicals like Rick Warren, while Protestant leftists will more often than not refrain from mixing faith and politics. In any case, it would not be a bad idea to write an essay on the subject. ADM (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions on religion. If you want to write an essay or otherwise express your own views, there are plenty of websites that would be happy to let you do just that, this just isn't one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to make judgements, I was just asking questions about the article Catholicism and American politics, and was wondering why corresponding articles didn't exist. ADM (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We're already discussing this at RfD, there's no need to re-create the entire discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with beeblebrox that wikipedia is an objective source, which I am a protestant baptist christian and I am no right-winger at all! DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS EVER ON WIKIPEDIA!BLuEDOgTn 07:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)