User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

William Houston Blount

Beeblebrox

Just yesterday you deleted the entry of William Houston Blount, thank you for taking the time to consider his entry. However I think I agree with your line that "you are a stickler for the letter of the criteria as opposed to the spirit" and in this case re notability. I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Blount's case was properly considered as he is without a doubt a notable person in the state of Alabama and the southeastern United States. Mr. Blount's passing was covered by an article on the front page of the Business Section of the Birmingham News, in addition an op ed by the same newspaper (I know same source) was written just to cover and reiterate what a significant resource to the city of Birmingham he was. His death was covered on a radio station as well. He was a significant player in the creation and growth of two major NYSE and AMEX listed companies. He was inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame, he had a major tanker named after him, a charity named after him and documented major philanthropist for the state of Alabama. All this was noted in my entry with references and links however even more of his active work which was covered in the 70 and 80's never made it online.

I just wanted to make sure you understood the above significant and notable things he accomplished and just made the deletion decision because he was the focus of only two articles which happened to be the same source. While I still disagree with your "stickler for the letter basis" as it omits a notable person from wikipedia, I wanted to make sure his case was carefully considered. Thanks for your time. Houstonbking (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Houstonbking (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC) —

Here's the thing, when an administrator closes an articles for deletion discussion, their own opinion of the article does not enter into it. My task was to evaluate what consensus was reached in the course of discussion. Arguments with a firm basis in Wikipedia policy are given greater weight than those that do not have it. Lack of multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage is the primary reason articles are deleted from Wikipedia, and that seems to be the case here. I'll grant that if more users had participated a more clear consensus may have emerged but unfortunately that was not the case despite the fact that it was given a full 14 days as opposed to the usual 7. If you feel my interpretation was in error you may appeal at deletion review. (and please add new comments at the bottom of a page, not the top, I didn't even see this at first. The best way to add a new topic to a talk page is to use the "new section" tab at the upper right of the page) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and time. Sorry about misplacement of the new topic. Meanwhile I'll consider next steps Re Wikipedia and WH Blount . Houstonbking (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined CSD on Celebrity Reflection

I had no idea about infoboxes being sufficient reason to decline CSD. Learn something new every day. The sad part is that I fixed the infobox as the original author left it in a sorry state. Oh well. Cheers! SQGibbon (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think it is kind of silly. If you can't come uo with one sentence you haven't actually written an article, but that is the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock on hold template

Please accept my humble apologies for omitting to use this template. As you point out, you already pointed out the same omission in May of last year. I do not think I have omitted to use it inbetween these two errors; it will not occuur again. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness it's not just you. I would estimate that about 30% of recent requests I have reviewed are still listed despite an admin already having engaged with the subject but for some reason they don't actually touch the template. I've even seen cases where they have clearly accepted or declined the request but still haven't altered the actual template. It's kind of aggravating. (conversely, I saw one last week where they accepted the request but forgot to actually unblock the user and they had to request it again) Anyway, you apology is of course gladly accepted, I may have been a bit cranky, it was still early morning where I am at that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Being Human (North American TV series)

I was wondering if you could give me some assistance here. CloudKade11 (talk · contribs) has moved all the articles relating to the "North American TV series" to "US TV series" without commenting on the discussion. I posted a message on their talk page advising them to read the discussion and to comment on it. I also stated that I would be reverting their edits. CloudKade11 simply ignored me and performed the move again. I was wondering if you could protect the page from page moves and then move it back to North American TV series as per the discussion. The user is claiming it has nothing to do with Canada despite the cited sources saying it does. Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  08:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See the talk page, I've re-instated protections. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  09:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thank you too. I guess i missed one set of the moves. B, for the record, the moves of Being Human from U.S. to 2011 to Canadian were not fighting but trying to find a viable disambiguation. Noöne was upset about or contested any of those moves. They were "i have a better idea, let's try this". Please remember to look into updating the episode count Monday night as i am not sure many other admins are involved with the article. Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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

--Bsadowski1 09:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible need for RevDel?

Hi there. I found where somebody cut-and-pasted an entire chapter from this book into the Two Egg, Florida article, in this diff. It was reverted (charitably due to being "unsourced") by another editor, and I've warned the IP editor who added it appropriately, but I'm wondering if this calls for Revision Deletion per CFRD #1? And the IP has put the entire copyvio text on his talk page, too... Thanks for your time. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and I gave them a stern warning about repeating these copyvios and some guidance on how to proceed if they actually have permission to be reprinting this content. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The copyvio is still visible in this revision. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the mop needed to make a second pass, got it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Talk:Sante Kimes.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

remake Women's superiority as redirect to Matriarchy?

A page named "Women's superiority" was deleted. In December, it was visited 311 times. You deleted it Jan. 3 because the related article had (I think) already been deleted. To my knowledge, if it was a redirect, it was not a subject of an RfD. May I recreate it as a redirect to Matriarchy? or should I ask elsewhere? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the term "Women's superiority" is synonymous with "Matriarchy" but you are free to recreate it as redirect. It was in fact deleted solely because it pointed to a page that had been deleted at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not synonymous, but it's close enough, given the articles available and considering that people are trying to get to the information. The intended redirect's subject is discussed extensively in the destination article, so it'll be relevant, and the destination article cross-references the only other article of likely relevance. I'll get to making a redirect soon. Thanx again. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh

No, I did not ask you to verify there was "consensus" about any move. Forget about the move, alright? This is entirely about article scope (WP:SYNTH and WP:CFORK). The move was just one attempt to resolve these problems. I will be perfectly happy with any alternative approach.

I asked you to verify whether the page is in violation of WP:CFORK and whether it is about any reconizable topic. As you may know, Wikipedia pages in article space need to declare that they have some recognizable scope which can be established based on references. As an uninvolved administrator, it should be possible for you to look at the page and understand what it is proposing to discuss. If this is the case, I would be interested in what that is. If not, I would ask you to do something about it.

Please understand that I am not involved in any content dispute. I am involved in an administrative attempt to enforce the "one article per topic" policy. This edit should be sufficient to illustrate the purpose of my involvement even for the completely uninitiated.

Can you please give me the benefit of doubt that I may actually know what I am doing? I have been an administrator since 2004, and I am not known for using my admin tools as lever in content disputes. When I say that this isn't a content dispute, you may consider the possibility that it is, in fact, not a content dispute. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already made it abundantly clear to you that I think what you should do is walk away from this situation. CFORK is a content guideline, so once again you are mischaracterizing the situation. This is not a problem that calls for "enforcement" by an admin, it is a problem that calls for a consensus based decision to a mutually agreeable solution. The fact that it has been difficult to arrive at such a solution does not change that. I never said you were not a generally competent admin, but you did misuse your tools in this case. I don't see any reason to continue to discuss this issue with you since you are not receptive to my point of view and I am not willing to take over your "enforcement action." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Lars Haeh

I have taken the liberty of unblocking this user, despite the fact that at User talk:Lars Haeh you were named as the Reviewing administrator with the unblock on hold. The reviewing admin has been editing infrequently recently, and has not responded to the request to comment. Since you, I, and another admin have all independently examined the case and seen no evidence of the supposed problem, it seemed better not to leave the user waiting indefinitely. If you think I was wrong to unblock at this stage please reblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good call to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What did you mean?

--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that all Arabs have degenerate minds. Maybe I misread what your intent was but if that is what you are saying... Please tell me I'm way off base and have misinterpreted your intent, that would be great. 22:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not saying, and never would have said anything even close to that. Never, ever, ever. Please tell me, where did you see the word "degenerate" that I used. If I ever said something like that I would have asked you to block me indefinitely at once. I was quoting the Wall Street Journal, but I see no such word there too. Here is the google search result. I took the quote from the very first link, and I provided for easier finding what I was talking about just to clear up misunderstanding of apparent copyright violation in the article it was used. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And now I removed the quote from the article and explained here why I added it, and why I removed it. Do you still believe I am a racist? If you do, then please block me indefinitely, if you do no,t then if not apologizing, could you at least admit misunderstanding at my talk page? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the word was "debasement" not degenerate, and it does appear I was a bit hasty. You could have waited for my reply (I've been in and out of being called into work the last several hours) before writing a five paragraph long reply about it on your talk page though. I have struck out my remarks and noted the reasons why on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Being Human

Out of curiosity, why did you fully protect the page from being edited when it's just a move war?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The move war was accompanied by changes in the text to match the various moves. On it's own it may not be enough to merit full protection, but when combined with the move war it seemed the best path was to shut down any changes to the article to try and force discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. It does appear that one editor seems to be placing the Canadian broadcast before the US broadcast (even though "Space" does come before "Syfy" alphabetically). However, would you mind changing the episode count from 2 to 3 as Monday had a new show?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Ryulong : Made in Canada by Canadian company for Canadian cable channel and an American cable channel so what is your issue with saying "Space and Syfy" instead of "Syfy and Space"? If not for me then there probably would be no mention of it being anything at all to do with Canada. Many people are unhappy with me for bringing that to light.
Sorry Beeblebrox for more. I get that challenged of me everywhere these days. I was here to leave a note about ep count and saw the above. I thank you for taking care of that + 1. On the up side this is the most concise of all of my comments on the matter. ^~hugs~ delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Kimes stuff

You are probably right about the ANI outcome but I think your posts there and elsewhere are getting a little bit heated. IMO it would have been better to wait for an uninvolved closure before notifying the subject, and I'd encourage you to phrase your various posts a bit more neutrally. Your basic take on the situation is probably accurate, but we shouldn't pretend to have figured out unknown details. I liked Gavia Immer's comment at the AfD as a good example of discussing this topic in neutral style. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand you point but I have this problem where I don't enjoy the taste of bullshit. In any event, now that it seems likely that, whoever they are, they will be blocked and they certainly won't be welcome at the Kimes article ever I had already decided, at more or less the same time you were making this post, to disengage. They have dug their own hole deep enough and don't need my help with the shovel. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good choice regarding that editor. You're doing a good job with the article. I have asked Stifle to check with Kimes' attorneys whether that "official site" really is one. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi Beeblebrox! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Please see my reply to your post on my talk page. Lord Porchcrop ^POWER 05:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit OK?

Is this edit ok? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruger_No._1&action=history alot of websites i have searched before direct to host monster and i just wondered also what this means and why it happens.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've never heard of host monster before and don't know what it is. There is a dedicated noticeboard for discussing the appropriateness of specific external links at WP:ELN, you can probably get a better answer there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I can't decide whether this is vandalism or just in good faith:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.195.225.38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobbleswoggler (talk • contribs)

I would suspect that the weblink was made deliberately by somebody to create the appearance of a conspiracy between the Illuminati and the NSA. This user is probably just a bit naive and is falling for it. If you want to really get your mind blown read The Illuminatus Trilogy, aka "The Paranoid's Bible". It may take a couple read-throughs before you really get it and your mind actually melts into a puddle. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk please

Hi, Beeblebrox. This statement of yours promoted me to write an essay: Wikipedia:Don't just say it, prove it. Please do not get angry with me, and better help me with this essay please. I mean it is my very first essay, and I need help with both my English and content. Please feel free to tell me where did I get it wrong. I am very open to listen to your opinion, and to do my best to understand where you are coming from. If you are to respond, may I please ask you to explain to me where you see the problems with my essay exactly. Thanks for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are making too much of this. It is possible I mis-remembered the exact circumstances that led to your ban from ANI, but that really wasn't the point of my comment anyway. Users were saying that it was a crazy or unfair topic ban, I was trying to point out that you had agreed to it as a condition of being unblocked. I would point out that it is a bit ironic that you obviously created this essay out of hurt feelings over my remark at ANI, yet you see nothing wrong with implying that I am a "spoiled child" in your essay. I resent that. Should I make a big fuss about it for a week and demand an apology from you? Since you have asked for advice here it is: remove the demands for an apology. It is considered extremely degrading in pretty much every society to force someone to apologize, and a forced apology is meaningless and insincere anyway. Also, your advice to admins to unblock without even talking to the blocking admin is directly contrary to policy. Admins are not required to provide diffs in a block rationale, and should almost never unblock a user without consultation with the blocking admin. Sometimes diffs are simply not needed as the issue has already been discussed at length with the user. Sometimes there are issues that cannot be discussed publicly, and sometimes specifics are not given in the interest of denying recognition of a vandal or long term abuser of Wikipedia. I appreciate your attempt to make peace here, but I really do feel you have overreacted to my remark. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You did not delete my message and even responded to it. Thanks! I believed a wikipedia essay it is a place to state one own opinion, so I did. Of course I understand it will never be treated as a policy. In any case I have changed at least something after reading your advises, for example I took "spoiled child" out, and changed some other wordings as well. Thanks again for taking the time to read it and to respond to me.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

cell phone smuggling

FYI.[1] 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was already aware that this is big problem in the prison system. The difference being that the prison has no way of monitoring a cell phone to determine if an inmate is planning criminal activities with it. If the user under discussion is who I think she is, it is unlikely the prison officials give a shit that she had a content dispute and got blocked from Wikipedia. That's not a crime and does not impact the prison. If you want, you can actually talk to Kenneth Kimes through this website [2] if you want to give him your phone number and let him call you collect. Web access is restricted in prison, but if you are not plotting illegal activity or looking at porn the prison doesn't care. It's more or less moot now anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

STiki

I believe i am fine using Stiki and not doing anything that could be harmful towards wikipedia. Plus,if i'm not sure i will always press the pass button instead of undo just incase. And by the way,i totally understand why you refused to unblocked me and to be quite frank,i would have done the same thing if i were you.I just wondered also,if i needed any help with anything,if i could you? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You believe you are fine with it. That has been your problem all along. Look at your talk page and you will see that I am not the only one who thinks you should only edit manually. The advice Alan gave you on your talk page is good, especially the part about it not being a race. I will help you if I can but the onus is on you to show a better understanding of when it is appropriate to ask that a user be blocked for vandalizing. I don't think it is really that complicated, you just need to slow down and think before you act. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Stiki 2

If i continue to use stiki,even in a good way,will i risk getting banned? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but I would be very careful about making further AIV reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Did as you advised.

Wanted just to say that the user page and talk page are both restored. I'm not resuming my Wiki-Work yet but will when I feel better. This lousy T-shirt

Vandalism?

Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_(Michelangelo)&diff=prev&oldid=412129343 Gobbleswoggler (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, at least not obviously so - it's a content dispute. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Gobbleswoggler

I've gone back through some of his recent "vandalism" reverts, and although he's getting a lot of good ones, he's still getting too many wrong - see his Talk page for several I've informed him of already today. I'm going to offer him a few words of advice about using STicki, and will check back later. But sadly, he might need to be stopped again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Replies on my Talk page suggest Gobbles is at least listening and is strongly motivated to avoid a ban or a block, so I think we might be making some progress -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=412147587&diff=prev and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahm_Emanuel&diff=prev&oldid=412147316 Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Suggesting a person made a deal with Satan and works for the mafia would be vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Is this vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=412170804&diff=prev Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• No. It is unsourced and unless he won a lot of awards for it is probably not relevant, but there is no obvious intent to damage the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding block

How about if i only do the ones i am 110 % sure on and if i'm only 99 % sure i will leave it? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Plus,I really don't want to go through being blocked again.I mean no disrespect but it seems that when i make just one mistake,i get threatened with a ban. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't made just one mistake. How many times does this have to be explained to you? You have shown a consistent pattern of poor judgement, a distinct inability to see edits in context, and you disregard the advice given to you by more experienced users who, believe it or not, are actually trying to help you. As I said on your talk page, you have a choice before you. What happens next will depend entirely on your ability to show at least some basic level of good judgement and ability to learn. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If i continue to use STiki but only warn users that i am sure of will i get banned? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you keep demonstrating bad judgement you will be blocked again. That is four times now I have tried to explain that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice

This -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I just find it hard to understand how users think they could be ready so soon. I also "turned up the volume" on Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to make it harder to ignore. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that looks good too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always felt there needed to be some exceptions to the "written in userspace" rule.

As you can see, they can basically write a spam or promotional article in their userspace and technically you're not allowed to tag it. HalfShadow 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Blatant advertising, attack pages, vandalism, and copyright violations are things that can be deleted anywhere they are found. But a draft article in userspace that wasn't any of those things but would meet a CSD if it were in article space does cannot be speedy deleted. Doesn't apply in this exact case as it was clearly spam, but drafting articles before posting them is, generally, a good thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you just meant the no context one. I see what you mean. Sorry. HalfShadow 21:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi Beeblebrox. Thanks for posting the blocks at AN/I. I agree they were engaging in minor edit-war, but I thought the block was going too far. I have explained my reasoning more fully on the AN/I thread. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've posted the unblock request I would have made at User_talk:Jheald#February_2011. I would be very grateful for your advice as to how best you think I should try to cope with dab, if he starts all this up again. Jheald (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I find this pretty insulting too, particularly in the wake of this concerning which he has still not been made the removal which I requested. Jheald (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How to cope with dab? I don't know. Apparently anything he does will be excused by his apologists and any action taken will be reversed. He obviously doesn't care that he is acting disgracefully and engaging in a prolonged war over these articles, and his defenders have made it clear they are willing to ignore the evidence of this no matter how many times it comes up, so I'm pretty much stymied here. I guess some form of WP:DR is called for. User conduct RFC maybe? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#CheckUser - not sure if you think it's time? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's six days into February and BSZ has 18 TP messages, 10 or so from that user...and he's been asked to stop..among other things...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sad, but inevitable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Several users I've been dealing with lately seem to be suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect. We tried, but there does not seem to be any hope for this one. I get the impression he is quite young, maybe in a year or two he will have matured a bit. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

He said he was 13....Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I really have to give Boing! said Zebedee and you, Beeblebrox, credit for not blocking (or reporting, in BSZ's case) Gobbles sooner. I'm slowly coming back from a period of relative inactivity, and happened to check in on Gobbles to see when his block was set to expire. After seeing he made 1000+ edits in a matter of three days, and his long talk page full of warnings, it amazes me that you didn't block after the first warning. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Cases of incompetence are no fun for anyone. It's hard when a user honestly means well but is causing harm anyway, so it's best to be sure you really just can't get through to them. It is exasperating though, I thought about re-blocking about five times before finally doing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and the best news is that he hasn't turned to sockpuppeting (yet). Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Failure-oblivious computing

Gotta agree with you about how that AfD was closed; I've been having similar problems myself. Seems a little perfunctory. For example, I would have liked to have seen an actual opinion on the issues I raised in the Afd for Sedra Bistodeau. But no, it's like, "You're cool. Bye." I expect more of an admin. Definitely more than the relisting (and similarly casual decision summary) he did here.[3] It's like he's not even paying attention. And look at the consequences of that relisting. (I had to write the real Richard Hills to get action. Imagine if it had gone to "No Consensus" because of similar inattention.)

But I digress. I've done a little work on the article in question, and I agree that it ought to be merged. Is my merge target right, though? Yakushima (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several suggestions at the AFD for merge targets, but they are all articles that don't actually exist. I'm afraid I am not knowledgeable enough about programming to really be of much help with determining a merger target, you could try notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing and/or the other participants of the AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

White Argentine's deletion

This deletion is outrageous. I'll keep looking for sources, and as soon as I have them, I will ask for the article to be restored and for you to be deprived of your adminship.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but how could you agree to delete the white argintine article? Your statement that "the way it is used is inconsistent, and most Argentines apparently do not self-identify as "white" even if they might "feel white" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and this term is not used by other Argentines to refer these persons." makes no sense. You did not point out how it's inconsistent. Where is your justification for that "apparently"? Yes most Argentines do self identify as white and we gave sources from the CIA world fact book which has to be based on self-identification.Secret killer (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My job was to interpret the consensus of the afd, not to form my own opinion. I believe my decision reflected as much. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

History Merge

Could you please do a history merge on Porchcrops talk page, adding the old history to his new and disguised page? I don't want to play anymore games with him. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be more than appropriate, but I think I may have crossed the line into being WP:INVOLVED in this. I believe policy supports this though, we just need to find an uninvolved admin and ask them to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the new admin (Eric???) would do it. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe just put out a general call for help at WP:BN. I'm tired of babysitting this kid, it seems pretty hopeless at this point. Even if he manages to hide evidence of his past mistakes it won't stop him from repeating them as he apparently does not think he ever makes any mistakes and anyone who says he has is assuming bad faith and spreading lies. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Obnoxious barnstar

		The OBNOXIOUS Barnstar
		FOR YOUR EXCELLENT ABILITY TO BE LOUD AND DIFFICULT TO IGNORE EVEN IN A TEXT ONLY MEDIUM, YOU ARE AWARDED THIS OBNOXIOUS THING!!!! You asked for it :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(nice piece of work by the way! About the only thing I could think to add would be a bunch of annoying animated graphics :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs moar cowbell.  Chzz  ►  12:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Brilliant! This also leads me to think there's an opportunity here to create all manner of insulting barnstars (only given by permission of course). There's already this one, plus the one above. It's a good start :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

admin review

• Heads up! Tommy! 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966)

Please review your close here. The significant reasons for deletion supported by others than the nominator, who was giving every appearance of being vexatious were:

• Eitherway I agree these empty articles should be deleted"
• One single list article, which already exists, is plenty.
• Delete, please, and look for more such no-content creations.

During the time for debate most of the articles were written, which obviates this reason. Further a major complaint by the nom was the naming, I had indicated a willingness to move the articles to a more accurate name, and of course I could have done this during the AfD, but I preferred to not introduce the complication.

I have commented on your review that closing any AfD on the basis of numbers is a mistake: in this case doubly so, since the reasons for the !votes were addressed. Rich Farmbrough, 08:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

As you know, it is the closers job to evaluate what, if any, consensus has emerged in the course of a debate. You presented new arguments, but they do not appear to have persuaded anyone. I really don't see how I had any other choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of persuasion - only the nom really hung around the AfD. The argument was that the articles were empty. I stopped them being empty - the argument no longer applies. Merely because the nominator was not convinced, doesn't change the facts. And the nom fought on solely on the basis of the "nonsense" naming - that is clearly a "move" or "merge" argument, not a delete one. Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

I did not and do not see a consensus to keep the articles. That is the crux of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppose Martin Smith (Croydon) is at AfD as non-notable, you come to close the AfD just when the last comment says he has been arrested for shooting the Queen. Would you still close it as NN? No because the bare facts have changed. If the facts change all the opinion based on the old invalidated facts is worthless, regardless of the sagacity of the proponents. There is no argument for deletion here that stands the remotest scrutiny, except that they were (originally) stubs - which hasn't been an argument for deletion for some considerable time (well a few years a go an wayward admin speedied about a thousand of them - I rescued a few only). Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie the Giant Chicken

I guess before I start WP:DRV, I'm suppose to contact you. I see no consensus to redirect, I see either a no consensus or a relist is more appropriate. You supervoted a redirect, which no one !voted. CTJF83 19:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The consensus seemed to lean strongly toward the idea that Ernie is not sufficiently notable enough for a stand-alone article. Some user felt that meant the article should be deleted, while others argued it should be merged. A few holdouts suggested keeping it, although some of the "keep" rationales were discounted as invalid. Redirecting is intended as a "middle road" to satisfy all those concerns. There is no longer a stand-alone article, but readers can still easily find content on this subject and if anyone is actually willing to do any merging they are free to do so. From my perspective its a win/win situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree, besides Gage, whose keeps should be disregarded? CTJF83 21:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not yours, just so we're clear on that point. It wasn't disregarded entirely but as was pointed out at the AFD, the new sources found were either related to the subject or just kind of weak. This comment [4] is a bald assertion and basically a vote, as opposed to a !vote, so was not really given any weight. If we went by sheer numbers, I would agree that there is no consensus, but that is of course not how it is supposed to work. (although funnily enough I was accused of just that in the thread right above this one) At least one user supported either a keep or a merge equally, and in fact Chzz did specifically mention recreation as a redirect. I think there is enough support both in policy and strength of arguments presented for either deletion or merger to merit the compromise solution of a redirect which leaves the possibility of a merger wide open and does not cause any content to be "lost." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok. CTJF83 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Indian films

The last poster at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest grossing Indian films created a redirect to Enthiran#Box office after your deletion. Whether or not it actually is the highest grossing, the target seems odd for the list title. Do you consider it within the AfD close to delete the redirect or should it be taken to RfD? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not within the scope of the AFD, but it is a nonsensical redirect as it is obviously not directing users to a list so I would say WP:CSD#R3 applies. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The "annoying flashing gif"

If you haven't already (I've been away for a few days), then go ahead and re-add the gif if you think it'll discourage more no-hope RfAs. Apologies for the belated reply. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How dare you have a life outside of Wikipedia! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

AE notifications related to the September 11 attacks subject area are being logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of notifications.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the section for commenting...you should be doing discretionary sanctions on editors that are here to do harm...by that I mean those that misuse the website to promote pet theories/fringe/and conspiracy theories at the expense of the facts. You should never threaten harm to those with a history of promoting facts over fiction...and if you think there has been an edit war, you should remind all parties involved, not single out one editor..it takes more than one to edit war. I do not like being singled out nor threatened with sanctions when probably more than anyone else on this website, I have been at the forefront of keeping 9/11 conspiracy theories at bay...and have suffered the vindictive wrath of these POV pushing trolls by way of having a heinous post made of my stance by a CTer at the encyclopedia dramatica website...I have had a dozen death threats made via email...my userspace suffered long term repeat vandalism to it from this garbage, which still happens to this day off and on...I made it clear on that last edit that I was going to bring the issue to discussion, after doing so I closed it with NO CONSENSUS for my alteration, respecting as well as I could the opinions of most of those that commented. Editing this website, we have had some of the same people that have harassed in real life, engineers and other authorities that have spoken openly about the preposterousness of the 9/11 truth movement...this is not a lie. Checkuser has IDed the IPs that link closely to the known whereabouts of some of the worst of of these scumbags. You may not like my MO and the CTers hate my guts...but you know what, I want them to know as clearly as possible that I don't like them messing with this website and so long as I have any say in it, they're not going to feel any welcome from me so long as they are here to promote fiction over fact.--MONGO 00:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see from the discussion there that some of these users have a very casual relationship with reality, but others are arguing that despite the fact that the "truther" crowd is nuts, their theories may be worth mentioning in the article. I appreciate that it is difficult to converse with people who actually believe that "bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks," but unless those users are vandalizing the article it is still wrong to edit war with them. I haven't actually imposed any sanctions yet, but the ArbCom case requires me to inform you if I am even considering it. The other users who edit warred with you seem to have accepted that this is in fact what was going on. And I also very much do not appreciate the nasty comments in your edit summary when you blanked that notification. This isn't personal, I don't really know you at all, and I would rather it went no further, but I am ready and willing to block anyone who continues edit warring in this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't warn them...from my perspective, no matter how clouded you may think it is, having the CTs in the article AT ALL is vandalism, so I was removing vandalism....that may seem like a draconion MO...but so be it. Warning ONLY me is personal....do not abuse your admin status or act arbitrarily...apply all threats evenly or not at all. Its your talkpage...you get the last word.--MONGO 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find some common ground here, but this is a content dispute. It is not about vandalism. As I've said already everyone involved except you seems to have accepted that edit warring was going on, that is why you were warned and they were not. This isn't about getting the last word, it is about edit warring. Don't edit war and there won't be any problems. Do edit war and I'll have no choice but to block you. This isn't to say I want to block you, I'd really rather not, but blocking people who edit war after being repeatedly warned not to is pretty much the only recourse we have. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

Hi.

I object to your application of "pending changes" protection on all articles [5] simply because, there is no community consensus supporting its use. The polls, and so forth, were concerning a time-limited trial, which is well and truly over. WP:PCPP does say "During the current Interim period" it can be "added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits"; however that refers to the straw poll, which specifically states it was concerning the "temporary continuation" and "hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending Changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed". Some updates have occurred, but...I think it is quite clear, there is currently no consensus agreement to use PC. Best,  Chzz  ► 

Funny you should mention that, as I have just been discussing re-opening discussion so that admins have some clear guidance on if we are supposed to be using it or not. There is no clear statement anywhere that I have been able to find that says to either keep using it or to stop. Currently when protecting a page an admin sees this message "The pending changes trial has ended. The result of a poll was in favor of the temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC-protected articles until a new version is released. Please don't do anything drastic. Please don't fight. No page in the Wikipedia namespace should be protected under pending changes except those for testing." I think it is time to resolve this issue, but somebody needs to get the ball rolling and draft an RFC or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah; I did skim-read that discussion, but didn't take in that you'd written there. This certainly does need some clarification.  Chzz  ►  19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 fire away. Already added to WP:CENT, and I have asked for a sitenotice [6]. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks good, yep; I will follow it with interest, and hope to join in. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  14:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[Outdenting] Hey! Since you started up the latest RfC, I just wanted to introduce myself, though I sort of commented on some of the previous PC talk threads just before you made the page. Like I said elsewhere, I'm in the Community Dept. at the WMF and I'm helping the engineers who've worked on it to date talk more to the community about this. Anyway, you clearly have the right frame of mind when you talk about avoiding a new !vote until there's some deeper discussion now. I want to point you to a request I made to Risker, and extend the same request to you. Let me know what you think about the notion. Cheers, Steven Walling at work 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven, thanks for taking the time to drop a line here. Reading your post to Risker is actually kind of a relief, nobody seemed to sure what the "official" stance on this was, and apparently its pretty much the same as everyone else. That stance being summed as "Are we supposed to be doing this or not? Somebody tell me please." I don't know how the community will feel about the "jury" idea, but its worth running up the flagpole. We'd want to be sure there were non-admin users involved if that is done. If hope you don't mind, I'm going to add a pointer to your statement at Risker's page to the RFC, it may help us cut through some grey areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it's helpful! Anyway, yeah it's totally fine to add a pointer to the thread on Risker's talk page, though I'll make a similar statement on the RfC about what the Foundation has been doing and what we're looking to get out of the discussion so that her talk page doesn't become a lengthy debate zone. Steven Walling at work 20:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary's Spiritual College and Centre

Hi Beeblebrox, in regards to the request for deletion that you denied I was in the middle of putting the reasons on the talk page for the articale when the request was denied.

Can you have a read and let me know what you think please? I cannot find ANY record of this association existing in Australia whatsoever!

It is a genuine request so hopefully you will have a rethink. Cheers Rocketrod1960 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You nominated it as patent nonsense and blatant vandalism. I can understand what it says and it is not vulgar or obviously deliberately disruptive. It might be lies, it might not be notable, but I don't see how it was either of the things you nominated it as. It is now nominated via WP:PROD which is much more flexible than the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Palooka?

Sorry Beeblebrox, but is this (obviously deliberate) misspelling intended as an insult to Wiktionary? you calling them incompetent, huh? them's fighting words! BTW, if anyone needs the option to go back and copyedit edit summaries, it's me... Drmies (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I do that a lot, usually spotting it right after pressing enter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Pike Clinton Ross

I'm fine with this being deleted as a separate article, but I think that it contains worthwhile information and I would like to add it to another article. Is there any way I can get access to its information/sources? Thanks John Milito (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there is, I've userfied the article for you at User:John Milito/Pike Clinton Ross. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

Hey, when RevDeling talk pages, don't forget to also RevDel SineBot, otherwise the RevDeled comments remain accessible. Rami R 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You missed some! :-)

Hi! I see you deleted some of the edit revisions of the so called "Thailand vandal" I reported at AI/V, to find the rest I would suggest looking for Sinebot edits on the related talk pages - this person doesn't get the tilde thing evidently. I'd do it myself, but I don't have that privilege; sorry to dump it in your inbox! Ashanda (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I was actually going just off of diffs posted at ANI, I didn't think to check the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I figured a couple of diffs would be sufficient for people to get the gist, didn't want to bore everyone with a tl;dr post! You might want to look at 178.103.29.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I think that's the last of them... for now anyway. Ashanda (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Collapse of Anti-Christian violence in India discussion

Good call, I was thinking about doing so myself :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Airdrie Astronomical Association

Now that you've closed the AfD as redirect, can you recreate the page Airdrie Astronomical Association and redirect it to the same page, Airdrie Public Observatory? —innotata 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Sept. 11th

I am well aware of restrictions, I have told Vexorg about WP:FORUM and yet he continues to re-insert his lunatic commentary. Soxwon (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradicting FORUM is absolutely not a listed exception to the edit warring policy. regardless of the ArbCom sanctions, I could easily block the both of you right now for plain old edit warring if I was so inclined, but I'd rather try to persuade the both of you to just cut it out. Telling him to piss off in an edit summary was really unhelpful as well, as you can see it has only served to inflame the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a talk page. My comments are entitled to be there. I do not have to put up with distasteful editors telling me to 'piss off' and calling my comments lunatic. I especially do not have to be told what to do by such editors. The editor Soxwon has every right to disagree with my point of view but does not have the right to remove my comments on a talk page. I request my comments be reinserted. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to take a side in this edit war, I have endeavored to maintain a position of neutrality around this page in order that I not become an involved administrator and therefore unable to use my administrative tools or impose sanctions. However I do not wish to simply ignore your concerns so I believe I will write up a report at WP:ANI in order to solicit outside opinions. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think I've become too involved with the 9/11 pages in general, I'll consider taking a short wiki-break. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reinstated my comments. Not because I am edit warring but simply becuase this is a talk page page and my comments should not be censored by peopel wth an obvious political bias. Editors should not be allowed to censor talk pages. Vexorg (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I really, really wish you hadn't done that right after I informed you that it is under discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Point of order: I'm only technically involved, if even that. I reverted once and, to be fair, Vexorg's statements had no place there; he was basically just bitching about the article as a whole. Talk pages aren't meant for that unless he's also offering some sort of solution. But I think you can see what I mean. HalfShadow 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• You were involved in the edit war so I have to inform you of the ANI discussion or I get yelled at. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to wikiediting. Really don't know how to offer edits to a semi-protected page. But I'm a good editor of written articles and I note discrepancies in a wikipedia article that need to be addressed. So I apologize ahead of time if I haven't done this the right way. In reading the September 11 attack wikipedia article, I note the following two inconsistent sentences in two separate paragraphs: Preamble (4th paragraph) - "The new One World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become the tallest building in North America." {unsourced}

Rebuilding - "The 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2011, will become one of the tallest buildings in North America, behind only the CN Tower in Toronto.[253][254]"

I read both 253 and 254 and neither link mentions the CN Tower in Toronto. The article at 253 says the One World Trade Center will be the tallest "in the United States", not North America. The linked article (written in 2006) also gives an expected completion of 2011, but a more recent article says it is currently over half finished and will be 85-90 floors by the tenth anniversary, i.e., 9/11/11. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/26/one-world-trade-center-passes-halfway-mark/ Mthorn10 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)mthorn10

Margins

I understand that what I saw as overwhelming (a 10-2 margin, once the refs were added to the article, and a sold majority in any event) might not be seen as the same by others, which is why I couched my comment as such. But then again, I had a view on the issue!--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing the Black Golden Globe winners AFD

AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached. Consensus isn't decided on votes, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Before attempting to go to deletion review, I suggest you take a second look at those arguments, because any argument for KEEP was unsound, not strong, and was mostly based on the idea that "Black people in cinema" is notable and therefore this is notable. Per guidelines, you and I both know notability IS NOT INHERITED so I strongly believe you should take a second look and reopen that AFD. Feedback ^☎ 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I made sure to note in my closing statement that my decision was not based on head counting. I've just re-red the debate and come to the same conclusion as last time. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, step 1  Done. Feedback ^☎ 05:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(posting this here as it is somewhat off the topic of the DRV) You see, consensus is a subtle thing sometimes. It's hard to describe exactly how a determination is made. It starts with approaching the discussion as an uninvolved party who doesn't care if the article is deleted or not. I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focussing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not. What I almost never do is actually look at the article itself, because then I may form my own opinion and no longer be able to make an impartial decision. If I don't feel like there was a consensus reached I will close it as "no consensus" or relist it for another week. I'm not sure how to define it any more concretely than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I understand that part, but the article has no place on an encyclopedia, and anyone who views it will see it. Reading people saying "the article looks good now" or "there are references now" isn't the same as seeing that the article is 100% trivia and the references do not establish notability. A consensus is achieved from the strongest argument... Without being familiar with what they're talking about, how do you evaluate what the strongest argument is and what the consensus is? Feedback ^☎ 06:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes if there is disagreement about certain issues such as the quality of a particular source then you have to go look for yourself. However an argument like "the article is 100% trivia" while possibly true, is something that can be fixed by editing. What is essential is that the closing admin not make a WP:SUPERVOTE. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What if the "closing admin" figures out the consensus he thought was obvious was flawed and decides to NOT close it? Feedback ^☎ 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Beeb! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't like seeing users trying to beat you up over the thing with Gobbles, which I thought was completely unfair and was mischaracterized. I'm glad it didn't torpedo your RFA. Congratulations, and welcome to the janitorial corps. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Musical theatre

Thanks for looking over my page protection request, and archiving the article talk page. I had already offered to stop editing the article for 24 hours [7] in response to the comment that Ssilvers made to the request. I've made an additional offer to follow 1RR [8] on the article talk page.

While this seems to be a clear WP:PREFER case, the unrelated editing being made to the article made it questionable in my mind if it would be accepted.

I think we're making good progress at getting the article cleaned up, despite all the WP:OWN problems. I'll put more focus on trying to de-escalate the disruption. If you've any suggestions, I could use them. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Beeblebrox. Since your archiving of the Musical theatre talk page today, Ronz has made voluminous contributions to that page under numerous headings, but they are vague, difficult to understand, and scattered all over the place. I have asked, on the talk page, for her/him to make a much more concise list of what he/she feels are the most important items to work on, so we can address or discuss them (hopefully in one place instead of scattered all over the talk page). Would you kindly take a look at the talk page there and try to help us find a way forward? Thanks for any assistance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How much longer should this [9] [10] go on before it's worth requesting protection again? --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also welcome your advice and/or intervention. Note that I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because Ronz continues to post to my talk page, even though I have requested that he/she not post there any more. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'd welcome your input in the ANI thread as a matter of some urgency. There has been what was, to me at least, an unexpected development. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet merciful crap. I take a few hours off, get some sleep, and when I come back not one but two threads from my talk page have moved on to ANI without me. I left this comment [11], the issue seems to have calmed for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I've briefly responded [12] [13] to try to clarify what happened. Sorry for any confusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User forging your name to RFPP

You should be made aware of Pplease (talk · contribs) Pplasse (talk · contribs), a WP:SPA who also uses 75.1.30.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and who, after an administrator fully-protected Jason Plummer (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) against him, asked for "temporary semi-protection" of the same article on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to try to do an end-run around full protection, then cut-and-pasted approval of it to appear to come from you: edit 1, edit 2. Of course, the protection level didn't get decreased like he wanted, yet; but considering the way he's behaved since appearing, it's pretty obvious what he was trying to cause the software to do by pasting that approval line, and I wouldn't put it beyond him to pop up soon and claim that an admin or sysop "accidentally" didn't change it to what he wanted. --Closeapple (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like another admin is already on the case, thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the username above. I keep typoing his username; it's actually Pplasse. Sorry about that. --Closeapple (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The dilemma you pose to content editors

WP:EDITWAR is a policy. If you don't like it get the policy changed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox. You frequent some articles I try to look after. Recently you posted what I presume was a warning after I reverted an editor for the second time who was damaging an article. You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are. This, of course, puts you in a massive power position in relation to content editors. You then blocked a couple of highly productive long term editors, editors who seem to have contributed far more than you ever have, one of whom had never before been subject to the indignity of a block. One of these editors seems to have subsequently retired in disgust. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. But then it is not for content editors to question the wisdom of an administrator, so naturally I won't do that. To be properly informed, I should have spend more time finding out just what else you have been doing, but I just don't want to take time out doing that. This is of course, a major dilemma for content editors like myself, who have a different focus, which is trying to write Wikipedia and protect its content. I have the impression that you do not necessarily even warn editors that you will block them if they continue, and that you consider that you can block them before 3RR. So naturally I've stopped trying to protect articles, except in the case of the most blatant vandalism. Still, it is a revolving and powerless position to be in, and I am getting annoyed now at the slow degradation that is happening to articles on marine biology. I have a confession. Tonight, before I realized the seriousness of what I had done, I reverted an editor twice. I shouldn't have had that extra glass of wine. Not an area I normally edit, and I may have been utterly wrong. I reverted him here and here. So there it is. Are you now going to block me, am I now unworthy of Wikipedia, should I banish myself? If not, can you please instruct us most miserable content editors more precisely so we can avoid raising your wrath. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker) First, remember WP:AGF - your tirade above is so non-AGF, it's not funny - if I was Beeblebrox, I wouldn't reply to such filth. Second, remember that WP:EW and WP:3RR are different - any admin can block you after fewer than 3 reverts. On certain high-profile articles for example, WP:1RR is pretty common. If an admin says that due to high traffic, a specific article is temporarily on 1RR - or if the article is already part a topic of curretn 1RR restriction, then guess what; its restricted. If any editor - longstanding or not - decides to play stupid and ignore that basic fact, well ... you already know what happens. That's the editor's fault, not the admins. If you disagree with the restrictions, you contact the admin (and possibly WP:ANI) BEFORE testing the waters. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Filth. Did you say filth? Did you? Filth... filth... isn't that what they said about the Jews? You say you can block after just 1 RR! Staggering power! You say I don't assume good faith! With Beeblebrox I was most certainty assuming good faith and anticipating a sane and happy outcome. With your outburst, I am most certainly not assuming good faith. How could anyone possibly assume that after your "tirade" (but that's the term you used, isn't it?) You, yourself, are currently a key problematic administrator on Wikipedia, hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project. What space is there now for any content editor on Wikipedia? What has happening to Wikipedia? Is this real or just a nightmare that can be awakened from? Who are you to do this stuff BWilkins? Where is your track record of genuine contributions to Wikipedia? If you have none, how did it come about that we made you an "administrator"? --Epipelagic (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC) First, I'm sensing an accusation of Nazi-like behaviour, and that won't end well for you. Second, I'm currently a "key problematic administrator"? "Hugely aggressive, causing immense damage to the project"? Really? Where? When? Launching an odd and unfounded statement like that really does little for your credibility. You're off your rocker, badly. You might wish to take a couple of hours off, have some tea, and rethink your approach with others on this collaborative project. Of course, my track record of actual contributions is available for all to see...you just need to look before acting as you are. You've really lost it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Godwins Law in effect. Look Epipelagic if you want to get any traction I would suggest that you comment on others edits as BW did to your comments and back away from the personal attacks and assumptions about other persons' motivations. What is the problem? What is your proposed solution?--Adam in MO Talk 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Step One: Stop calling each other names, if you're looking to actually resolve anything. Of course, if you're just enjoying the fight, then carry on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC) The above made its way to ANI here, Beeblebrox, in case you're interested. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

user decided to drag this to WP:ANI

Beeblebrox: I realize the article, at first blush, appears to be the same as the offensive "White Argentine" article deleted a month ago. It is not, however, as it makes no reference to Argentines of European descent being "white," mentions that term only to dismiss it as atypical of Argentine speech, while speaking only of the history of Argentine people who happen to be of European descent (most of whom are the result of intermarriage between immigrants of many different nationalities in Europe). The title is in no way a construct of anything, as the existence of Argetine people of European descent is self-evident, and is is no way different fro or disparaging toward articles about Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, Afro Argentines, or any one else. The article itself meets and probably exceeds guidelines for sources, throughness, and balance met by those on White Latin American, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries. I take my work here, and your decision and reasons for your earlier deletion, seriously, and would not simply "cut and paste" something that had been offensive to others to te point of it's being deleted. Plase write me back if you have any doubts or suggestions at all. Sincerely, Sherlock4000 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I can see that a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article and changed "white" to "of European descent." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Please don't assume that everything in the former article was deserving of deletion. A lot of good research was to be found in the former article, almost all of it from editors other than me, and it included a lot of valuable data and references that would otherwise be tedious to assemble. What was left after I cut out the suppositions, and what I added later, are only descriptions of what happened in the history of Argentine people of European descent, with sources, and contains no unfounded assertions or thoughtless conclusions. Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Beeblebrox: I believe you are jumping to conclusins in this case. You should have read the article, rather than assuem that, because it looks similar, it kept all the same assertions that made the previous one a synthesis and therfore unfit. It does not, and the fact that some Argentines descend from what after all was six million European immigrants is a patent fact. I don't know you from Adam, and detest these conflicts, but I object to unfairness and to being flatly accused of rewriting bunk even more, and feel the article should be reinstated, or at least not be arbitrarily deleted. I had to report this to the Incidents noticeboard. The thing is, I rather agreed that "white" was a social construct. It's just that the history and data themselves were valid, and what I saw was the baby was being thrown out with the bath water. I'd be the first to revert anyone who tried to push the "white" concept regarding this group of people. Peace, Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

PC

• Don't give up
• Don't mistake tl;dr for DRAMA
• "we can always work out any lingering details after the big decision is made" is one hell of an assumption!
• Quote, "establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing." m:Polls are evil
• There are always ways forwards.
• Please look at the very very rough, not-even-pre-alpha-draft, here.  Chzz  ►  05:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't given up, but the RFC is a mess. While I absolutely don't want to turn this into a straight up poll I think a more structured format is going to be needed if we are ever going to move this forward. There are 37 sections already, many of which duplicate each other. I get the impression new participants are adding their comments without reading what has already been said, and the "blame game" has become a massive distraction from the primary issues. If people are ok with the re-start idea I think it could be up and running pretty quickly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

NO SOUP FOR YOU!~

Heh. Anyways, you (will) have gotten mail. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, got your email. I don't see any compelling reason to have this conversation in private so I am responding here. The problem with single purpose admins is that they have the entire admin toolset and all we have is their word that they won't use the rest of it. Since you promised three months ago to not nominate yourself at RFA for a year I doubt your word would be enough of a guarantee for most users comfort. However, the ban is not binding and there is nothing except your promise not to stopping you from nominating yourself again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Puzzles in films

Pretty disappointing. If I were to nominate every page that I was personally uninterested in, I wouldn't have enough time in the day. Why not do what I suggested? What happened to the original goal of collecting the world's information? Instead, the information is lost forever. Deletionists win rather than giving time for articles to grow. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my closing statement? I thought I was pretty clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(I also don't agree that it was ever WPs mission to collect every conceivable piece of information. Information and knowledge are not synonymous. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I read your closing statement. Wouldn't it have been better to follow my suggestion than to delete the article and have somebody start over? (trick question: answer is Yes) Deletionists drive people like me away from Wikipedia. I don't have 10 hours a day to edit. Maybe 10 hours a year. But, when people delete before giving an article a chance (and note I didn't create the article, I just made a few minor edits and defended it), that absolutely does not help Wikipedia grow. BTW, Back in 2000, when I first started editing Wikipedia, a stated goal was something along the lines of "collecting the world's information". Of course, that goal has long since vanished.

Sometimes I feel that I should go find a few hundred pages that I think are below the quality of what belongs and nominate them for deletion. It wouldn't be hard. I'd say 50% of the pages I find on a random walk are such candidates. Of course, people would claim I was just trying to disrupt Wikipedia.

Here's a quick random walk experiment -- ten clicks on Random article.

• List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - completely original research
• List of spatial analysis software - the table is original research (there are tons like this on Wikipedia, which shows OR is ok if it's a topic people like)
• Doepfer MS-404 - not notable, minor piece of hardware from a minor manufacturer, nothing particularly special about it, no longer made
• Murad Ismail - a Pakistani polo player, doesn't seem notable in any way
• Once You've Tasted Love - single song by a band I've never heard of - does every song by every band get a page?
• Bomb damage assessment - probably ok even though I'd never heard of it, very poor references, why isn't this part of a larger article on warfare?
• Lagging (epidemiology) - no idea why this isn't a section in the Epidemiology article
• Kakuvälja - village in Estonia - first that clearly belongs but empty
• Buddireddipatti - village in India, a little less empty
• Chris Todd - Welsh football (soccer) player - supposedly, every professional sportsperson, even those playing for obscure teams, belongs. And, btw, the other Chris Todd's page is a total mess.

So, of those ten, I'd nuke more than half, if I was a deletionist. Try it yourself and see what you get. RoyLeban (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you (or anyone else) want the article userfied so you can re-work it all you need do is ask, as I stated in the closing statement you claim to have read. Nothing is ever lost "forever" on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Afd/Old

I wrote a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old to your question.

By the way, if I don't reply soon, ping me on my talk page or send me email. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Very nice

I think you did a very nice thing in your recent edits. Undoubtedly you will catch a measure of flack from some with a inclination for conflict. I think the reasoned view will fully support your properly bold actions. I am feeling optimistic as a result and wanted to share a bit of it with you. Bravo My76Strat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm hopeful the new format will allow us to move forward and get a clearer picture of consensus. We can only hope. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, full support, your re-format may well help break the discussion deadlock, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

PC RFC

Hi, I changed the wording of the "PC drives away new users" section very slightly. If you mind, please revert and I'll start a separate section, but since it didn't have any votes yet and it's essentially the same, I didn't think that was worth it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do think that there are users who support the more "extremist" version, but they can always add their own new view if they wish. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bebblebrox

I've been busy for a little bit and found this message on my talk page. I wasn't sure who to contact about it. Shinerunner (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish editionExcuse this request. I used to collaborate in the Spanish edition, that´s my mother tongue. Unfortunately, a few group of Spanish administrators are expelling many contributors as well as deleting thousands of relevant articles which are well redacted too. I would like to "appeal to a higher authority". I tried to talk to other Spanish administrators but they don´t dare to do anything. I´m not the only one complaining about this. I think that if no one intervenes, the prestige of wikipedia is going to decline, at least in the Spanish edition which forms part of the global project. Who could I talk to? Thank you, regards.

--Bromley80 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia project makes it's own rules, there's not really anything we can do about how they do things at the Spanish WP. The only "higher authority" is the Wikimedia Foundation, and there would have to be a very serious problem before they would interfere. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll leave a note on the user's page.Shinerunner (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Syndrome

It's that syndrome again, isn't it - what's it called? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This?  Chzz  ►  01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, ta. Always nice to learn something new. Chzz  ►  07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks - quite sad really -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And once again, daja vu

My apologies for this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair the arguments made are not nearly as ridiculous as the ones made here and here. Somewhere in all the puffery there do actually appear to be couple of decent refs, and nobody was making up new rules in the middle of the debate. Thanks for the sympathy though. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Buy yourself a bushplane, sell tickets and Air Beeblebrox will soon be a featured article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. No thanks. Those things crash a lot. Law of averages I guess, there's so damn many of them already. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointed

Hi Beeblebrox, I am extremely disappointed by by your comment here. I hoped that an admin with your experience is able to exercise, no not fairness, but just a common sense. Of course the articles that are displaying at the main page should not be tagged. I said it was unwritten policy, but I actually found something Please see here. It states: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags" So if the hook that have tags are rejected, of course the articles that are already at the Main page should not be tagged.HJ Mitchell understands it Do you? regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy which states that articles at DYK are exempt from being tagged. Period. Therefore what you were doing was edit warring. Period. Administrators are not allowed to make up new policies on the spot and start applying them. Period. The section of the DYK guide you cite does not say it is prohibited to tag an article while it is on the main page, it says a disputed article will probably not become a DYK while it is under dispute. Not even remotely the same thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I said there's no written policy about this, but there should be a common sense. One cannot rely on policies for any case, you know, Of course some people have common sense while others do not.

BTW you forgot to add the word "Period" after the last two sentences of yours .Care to add those now :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just being insulting so I believe we are done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Revdelete request

Would you please review this offensive vandalism that I reverted - Diff - and revdelete it if you agree that it is particularly offensive. Thanks. Roger (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Help Please

I'm tryin to unify my user globally on wikipedia, but on this wiki some user have logged whit the same user name. He or she doesn't have eaven a user page, maybe he or she even use it really. I am asking you for help to unify me, my user name is Qban answer me on wiki.es[14]. My native language is spanish, but you should answer me in english(it is medium, please be understandable). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure how much help I can offer. The only way for you to take over that username locally is to file a request at WP:USURP. Unfortunately they usually will deny a request if the account has any edits that have not been deleted, but it may be possible to get an exception. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25