User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 25
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Beeblebrox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Beeblebrox. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Gravyring
Hi Beeblebrox. I just wanted to make you aware of the latest WP:SPI I filed on a disruptive sock. Having been plagued on wiki with sock abusing banned editors, I hope you can understand my zero tolerance for these editors. As such, I find the protestations of innocence all the more galling. I will of course take your advice, and leave these socks to Admin's. --Domer48'fenian' 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like (after discounting blocked socks) there are two or so editors who are insisting that AfD is the only way to go to have redirects, before we end up going this way, I wanted to give you a chance to make any comments. Mtking (edits) 19:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know you asked us to work on the omnibus article idea, as a way to avoid more AfD's, and despite my misgivings it was just going to create a fancruft stuffed article I have tried. It is however clear to me that there are a number of IP's and registered accounts that are blocking the progress on this and are intent on talking the issue out without any intent of making progress, as I can see no clear route out of this other than just to return to nominating the articles that fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER that fail to demonstrate any lasting significance. If you have any beter ideas please drop me a note on my talk page. Mtking (edits) 13:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Elk (mammal) DAB page
Elk (mammal) DAB page is orphaned.[1] It seems to be the result of a naming dispute.[2] Should it be retained? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think so, it seems downright absurd to have two dab pages for the same item. Beeblebrox (talk)
Department fo Correction (New Zealand)
I need some advice. I have been following the dispute which has now moved to mediation and wondered if it is appropriate to join the mediation process and if so how? I have no particular issue with topic (that is no conflicts of interest), but note that from a New Zealand perspective some of Offender9000's edit are relevant and some are fairly personalised attacks. I guess the difficulty the other editors have had is sorting the wood from the trees in this. NealeFamily (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think one of the problems here is that an adversarial relationship has developed between the three already involved users, impeding any forward progress, so your participation would be a good thing, and the fact that you seem to know a bit about the subject is helpful as well. When the mediation is formally begun I think you can pretty much feel free to chime in anytime, and of course you can also participate via the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will. They do seem to have got themselves pretty firmly entrenched. NealeFamily (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: Volunteers needed
You may have missed my response to your AN thread before it was archived, but I'm amendable to mentoring/providing a second opinion to DegenFarang with the stipulation that he does in fact adhere to the six-month topic ban from poker biography articles; otherwise, you or I should block him. Cheers, — madman 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking this on, hopefully it will be a simple matter and he will be able to restrain himself. I've unblocked him and notified him of your agreement to serve in this capacity. Thanks again. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
- Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
- The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
- To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
- If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
- A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
- HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
- Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
- When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
RFA
I'm considering a run at RFA, and since you have seen my actions trying to referee during the MMA/UFC debates (and perhaps elsewhere), I thought your opinions would be meaningful as to the wisdom of this move. There is a discussion on my talk page if you care to participate. If you would prefer to not get involved, no offense will be taken. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at the recent contributions for this editor, he has been making a number of personal attacks against myself and another editor relating to the MMA debate. If you would rather me take it to AN/I I can, just think that AN/I might be tiring of this whole MMA stuff.Mtking (edits) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Pending changes
How long is this discussion going to go on for? We're coming up to the 30 day mark on 23 April. Do you think that's sufficient enough? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's not up to me, there are four volunteer coordinators who will be doing the close. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, a huge thank you for taking the lead in this. I can imagine you won't be closing the Pending Changes RfC. An uninvolved admin would be a better candidate to write the final statement. Could you tell me who these four coordinators are you mentioned above? The RfC page itself doesn't state it. I have started a topic about this on the discussion page, see here. Cheers, theFace 20:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know you won't be closing it. I was just wondering how long discussion will be going on for. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- You can reach the coordinators as a group at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012, they are identified in a notice at the top of that page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, didn't spot that! Thanks, theFace 09:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- You can reach the coordinators as a group at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012, they are identified in a notice at the top of that page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know you won't be closing it. I was just wondering how long discussion will be going on for. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, a huge thank you for taking the lead in this. I can imagine you won't be closing the Pending Changes RfC. An uninvolved admin would be a better candidate to write the final statement. Could you tell me who these four coordinators are you mentioned above? The RfC page itself doesn't state it. I have started a topic about this on the discussion page, see here. Cheers, theFace 20:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The weather
Do you really think you were justified in unblocking a user (without proper discussion) and punitively block another administrator? Also, he seems to be right back at it. One could argue that you were too involved with Arcadian to block him, having just overturned one of his blocks. Overall, it looks like a shitty chain of events. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are clearly misinterpreting WP:INVOLVED. I have been involved in this in a purely administrative capacity, I have no involvement in the underlying content dispute. As I noted in the log when unblocking, any uninvolved admin is free to review and re-evaluate the situation, but since Arcadian had been blocked for edit warring in the same subject area with the same user it was wildly inappropriate for him to issue a block, which any admin with five years of admin experiance is well aware of, meaning he chose to ignore it and issue a block he knew he shouldn't. So yes, am quite certain ot was justified and I don't believe the block was punitive, it was intended to prevent him from taking further foolish actions in this area and give him a chance to review the wisdom of his actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I concur. Beeblebrox was not involved in the content dispute, and so did not break the conditions of WP:INVOLVED. And I think the block of Arcadian was justified. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rjd0060, if you have a problem with my edits before or after my block, I would appreciate if you would take it up with me or at least notify me of the discussion. Thank you.--Taylornate (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Advice?
Hope you don't mind my asking for some advice on the new discussion I've tried to start at Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand#Redirection of muscle articles, as mentioned at User talk:Taylornate#Block. I'm not sure who, if anyone, to notify of it. On the one hand, I feel I should notify past discussion participants, but on the other hand, the majority of the recent ones are opposed to Taylornate's position and I don't want it to look like I'm loading the discussion towards one side. Any suggestions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Alaskan Barnstar
Thank you for constantly helping me with articles on Alaskan Highways Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!
My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.
I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.
Thank you for your time,
Victor Grigas
vgrigas@wikimedia.org
Victor Grigas (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Request for user unblock: User:Zhou Yu
A user you blocked indefinitely in December 2010 is asking to be unblocked: User:Zhou Yu. I have put the unblock request on hold while I contact you. I'm not aware of any of the context or conditions around the block. --RA (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Will reply at their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deletion review for The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Pedro's recall criteria
You may care to reconsider your position.[3] Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because he removed you from the list or because he's abused his admin status? I've been staying away from the drama boards lately so I have no idea whatsoever what this is about. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's about yet another abuse of the recall process. The back story is a disagreement Pedro and I had over this RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You should feel honored, especially as a non-admin, that he formerly held you in enough esteem to consider your opinion for a recall (which is voluntary, like everything else around here). So he changed his mind about you on that one. Shit happens. Such a display, hitting everyone on the recall list. Would recalling him be punitive? Or... punitive? Doc talk 04:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I should feel honoured? Really? What a strange idea. Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- You obviously are at least hinting at having him recalled, and possibly seeking support. But why should he be recalled? Is it because iyou two got into a tiff? Or is it because there's a really, honestly good reason to recall him aside from this one unpleasant incident? Doc talk 05:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. Had I wanted to see Pedro recalled I could simply have initiated the process myself, as this is by no means an isolated incident, but I didn't. Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You should feel honored, especially as a non-admin, that he formerly held you in enough esteem to consider your opinion for a recall (which is voluntary, like everything else around here). So he changed his mind about you on that one. Shit happens. Such a display, hitting everyone on the recall list. Would recalling him be punitive? Or... punitive? Doc talk 04:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's about yet another abuse of the recall process. The back story is a disagreement Pedro and I had over this RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I gotta be honest here, "abuse of the recall process" isn't a real impressive charge considering that we all know the recall process is a toothless joke anyway. If there was some evidnce that Pedro has abusively used his admin tools that would be diferent, but the recall process is designed in such a way that it basically can't be abused since each participant is free to make up their own rules for it on the fly, and to ignore those rules if they wish. That's why I never bought into it in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then why are you on Pedro's list for this "toothless joke"? Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- It should be noted that Pedro did fly off the handle on Malleus...I don't know if this is an isolated incident or not, nor all the details between Malleus and Pedro, but Malleus can file an Rfc or even an arbcom case if he so chooses...MONGO 15:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then why are you on Pedro's list for this "toothless joke"? Malleus Fatuorum 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Question
Hi, there. Not sure if you were aware of it when happened, but sometime before my indefinite ban, my HUGGLE access my revoked for six months. However, as you know, I was later banned for edit warring by you, so I'm pretty sure that would cancel the six months and I'd have to earn it back. However, I noticed I still have TWINKLE and general rollback rights (non-HUGGLE), and from a lot of advice I read through my archives regarding reverting (when I first started reverting vandalism, etc.), it's a great tool, because it's only semi-automatic. My problem with HUGGLE was that I went too fast and started overlooking some things around the time it was revoked. To get to the point, though, would it be alright to use TWINKLE? I'm just asking before doing anything to make sure. Thanks, Beeblerox. =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Twinkle is nice because it gives you three options when rolling back an edit. You can mark the rollback as either reversion of a good faith but incorrect edit, neutral, or vandalism. Be sure you consider which to use before rolling back an edit and you should be ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. - Zhou Yu (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Question
Hi Beeblebrox! I'm hoping I can get your advice. In March I tried to delete a page that I started because the subject, Jessica Yee, asked me to please take it down. I see that you had the closing words on keeping the page on account of 'no consensus.' I'm a total amateur and I'm hoping to seek your advice on any other way I can re-open the debate or take it down - Jessica's been repeating her wish for it to come down. Thanks a lot, Siggy. Siggy O'Hara (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2012
- As I mentioned when closing the discussion, not wanting an article about oneself is not a valid reason to delete. If it were we would have all kinds of criminals, corrupt politicians, etc getting their articles removed. Unfortunately there wasn't much in-depth discussion of valid deletion reasons so that's why the result was no consensus. If you think you make a compelling case that she is not notable enough for an article here you can re-nominate it for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Why was a PR page deleted as part of a mass deletion? Can you please restore it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- The review was requested by a banned users sockpuppet. Unfortunately this particular sock was very focussed on things like peer review and featured status, apparently trying to prove something with their ban evasion. However since this page is potentially useful and a good faith user has asked for its return I will restore it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- PR/ failed/passed GAN / failed FAN by this user too will be useful in improving articles. If there are more pages like this, I request you to restore them for future reference. Also, the deletions also create problem with talk pages: Talk:Gregory of Nyssa was showing an incomplete PR template, rather than an archived one. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- It looks as though most of them were re-reviewed by users in good standing already. This was the first (and so far only) time I have used the mass deletion feature, so it was a bit of a learning experience for me as well. It's sad really, if this person had decided to follow proper channels to end their ban they could have been a good contributor. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- PR/ failed/passed GAN / failed FAN by this user too will be useful in improving articles. If there are more pages like this, I request you to restore them for future reference. Also, the deletions also create problem with talk pages: Talk:Gregory of Nyssa was showing an incomplete PR template, rather than an archived one. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Boruch Szlezinger
Article about Boruch Szlezinger had been deleted (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boruch_Szlezinger) but since then things have changed and Boruch Szlezinger is known internationally. As proof, a simple Google search is enough to see his fame and his Twitter account too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzeor (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- My only role in that debate was closing it based on the consensus arrived at during the course of the discussion. If you would like I could restore the article as a userspace draft and you could try to improve it until it meets the basic standards for inclusion. Please do note, however, that Twitter is not something that would be considered a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, made that way. I personally brief his twitter account just to show you his notoriety. --82.67.158.66 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand that remark at all. Also, if this is the same user you forgot to log in. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
"Sockfarm"
See [4] - I don't see that the original user has done anything wrong, perhaps you could consider unblocking him... (and I don't consider that I have, either, fwiw - but I don't mind if the accounts I created stay blocked) Egg Centric 20:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't too bright, and now you're indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Gee Ward, don't you think you were a little rough on the Beaver? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) And would a woodchuck chuck wood?
More popcorn, anyone? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) And would a woodchuck chuck wood?
- Gee Ward, don't you think you were a little rough on the Beaver? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- In my time as an admin I have seen what this looked like again and again. Some user with a chip on their shoulder creating multiple accounts with very similar names and having them "discuss" something. So, no, not funny, not even a little bit, to simulate such an event in a lame attempt at humor. April fools was over a long time ago. I enjoy a good joke as much as the next guy, but this was not a good joke. As an aside, during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox 2 a user I considered a mentor to me actually said he would support me because he would rather have George Washington than June Cleaver wielding the mop. I treasure that remark to this day. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the perspective, it's always good to understand the why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not surprised that Egg Centric was socking. (In fact, I had looked for puppets but found none about 3 months ago due to his suspicious "interests".) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- @ReaperEternal: Same here, but for some strange reasons he/she showed up on my sock radar earlier on and, like you, I couldn't find them socks despite his/her peculiar "interests". Maybe if we ask him/her nicely now, he/she just might tell us who/which is his/her sockmaster account, what have we got to lose, right? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not surprised that Egg Centric was socking. (In fact, I had looked for puppets but found none about 3 months ago due to his suspicious "interests".) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the perspective, it's always good to understand the why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- In my time as an admin I have seen what this looked like again and again. Some user with a chip on their shoulder creating multiple accounts with very similar names and having them "discuss" something. So, no, not funny, not even a little bit, to simulate such an event in a lame attempt at humor. April fools was over a long time ago. I enjoy a good joke as much as the next guy, but this was not a good joke. As an aside, during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox 2 a user I considered a mentor to me actually said he would support me because he would rather have George Washington than June Cleaver wielding the mop. I treasure that remark to this day. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've engaged in discussion at Egg's talk page, and I think he gets the point about socking. Have a look at his comments, if you get a spare moment; in particular, he apologized to the original editor he impersonated and pledged not to sock again. I had to prod him a bit, but I think he's sincere for all that. You refer to other problems in the past, above, so I'm not going to unblock outright - but I do think he's salvageable, at least on this issue. As you are the blocking admin, I defer to you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- A checkuser could allay concerns over socking with other accounts.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- A checkuser could allay concerns over socking with other accounts.
- It was a stupid and failed attempt at humor, but as he did come clean once the other editor was blocked, and seems sincere even before you blocked him, it is my opinion that it is worth a second look. As for doing a CU first, that would be justified and he appears to agree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've engaged in discussion at Egg's talk page, and I think he gets the point about socking. Have a look at his comments, if you get a spare moment; in particular, he apologized to the original editor he impersonated and pledged not to sock again. I had to prod him a bit, but I think he's sincere for all that. You refer to other problems in the past, above, so I'm not going to unblock outright - but I do think he's salvageable, at least on this issue. As you are the blocking admin, I defer to you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Egg Centric unblock request
After a long discussion two other users have come out in favor of unblocking and trouting. Would you have anything to add to that? Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves =
I should not have been so sharp in my criticism of the "Rope" essay. It is clear on second and third read that there is more to it than I first believed. I apologize for blazing away rather than constructively criticizing. I did not mean it personally at all, I mistook the essay for a generalized policy or guideline written over time by many, but I should've been way more careful all the same. I went back and left a more constructive comment. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Foreign Article
Hi, Beebs! Hope you're doing well.
There's a Spanish article a user created, and, as such, I added a {{notenglish}} template so it could be translated. However, the user removed it with no explanation, but I am not definitely not willing to get into that situation again, so I thought I'd ask for assistance from you. Thanks! =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like somebody else is on the case, but I did add a Spanish language template to his talk page. Many languages have specific templates you can use to inform users of policy on non-English articles and point them on the direction of the Wikipedia im their native language, they are listed at WP:PNT/T. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for being precise on the consensus. Regarding "more high-profile page", what are examples? --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- In this case I would say either WP:N/N or WP:VPP. If you were going for a policy change it would also be a good idea to list the discussion at WP:CENT. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- This episode and its notability generally and specifically is discussed in WP:village pump (idea lab)#Notability of television (or radio) episodes. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC) |
Apologies
I thought I'd give it a couple of days before saying this so it didn't sound forced. Unreserved apologies for the mess I caused with those accounts, it was meant in the best of fun but the consequences were anything but. Additionally, while it certainly wasn't meant to suggest you had an alcohol problem or similar (or to condemn EWI, as another editor put it 
) I also apologise for the beer comment, as I ought to have realized that would be taken completely the wrong way.
Egg Centric 01:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've never been one to refuse a sincere apology or hold a grudge. your apology is gladly accepted. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Touré
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hello. You closed the Touré RfC. I'd like to get your input, see my post here, Talk:Touré#The_Result_was_Retain, as an editor removed the surname after I put it in the article, per your decision. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Beeblebrox, on the same matter, is there any way we can get a second opinion on this? The point at issue is that the surname is not widely publicised; so it becomes a privacy issue, and the project does have a history of taking subjects' feelings about such things into account (remember community discussions around the Star Wars kid, Jay Brannan, names of celebrities' children, or Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy).
- At any rate, from a BLP point of view, I think it's fair to say that there wasn't a consensus in the RfC (not to mention the influx of Retain voters without a history of quality contributions), and that usually defaults to omitting the information in question. Cheers, JN466 04:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Get a second opinion, User:Jayen466, but I think the consensus was retain despite the "voters without a history of quality contributions" (which is sort of condescending, by the way). I'm pretty sure this admin took that into account and read the talk page. (And Touré's case is nothing like the examples you gave above; and there are plenty of sources.) TuckerResearch (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Guys, the RFC is closed. I will not have it re-run on my talk page. My close was explained at lenght as I knew it would be contentious given all the arguing involved. If you don't like the result, your next stop is probably WP:ARBCOM. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI. Mtking (edits) 06:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- What a load of nonsense. Also, kinda hard for me to be your sockpuppet when I started editing in 2007... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- You know, it's funny that you never see the two of you together at the same time, like Clark Kent and Superman..... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Can I be your sockpuppet too? Pleeeeeaaaassseee. I promise never to be online at the same time, and if anyone discovers me, I promise to stick to the inside of the dryer and go all floppy. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Nikita Denisenkov Recovery
Hi. Can you please copy the article Nikita Denisenkov to my user space. Thanks. Lavd (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. Now at User:Lavd/Nikita Denisenkov. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
William.Martin871
You had previously blocked User:William.Martin871 because his username is the same as the company William Martin and also several people. He was told that he should change his username if he wants to continue editing. He is active again, but didn't change his username. You would probably want to have a chat with him about this. FurrySings (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Final chance for User:Pixiemasters
Hello Beeblebrox, there is a discussion on User talk:Pixiemasters. I have suggested everyone to give them their very last final chance to let them contribute positively to the project as i think they really mean it and want to help. I have also informed User:Materialscientist of this thing as they are the blocking administrator. I have strongly recommended Piximasters to join the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program before doing anything. They will be constantly monitored and if any problems/disruptions occur after unblocking then you or any other administrator are free to take the necessary appropriate action including indefinite blocking. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Until he shows some willingness to follow the advice in the {{2nd chance}} tamplate that has been pointed out to him again and again I can't support that. He says he "agrees" with what it says, yet he would still have us take his word instead of trying to prove it. It's like he didn't really even read it and is just trying to whine his way back in with vague promoses and begging. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
20-Hydroxyecdysone
Do you want to rewrite the 20-Hydroxyecdysone page with me? I feel this page may at worst, mislead people in to buying the compound for anabolic purposes. Cozzycovers 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom appeals for non-arbcom bans
There's currently a discussion on changing the Ban Appeals Sub Committee to allow non-arbs onto it. It's been raised that perhaps the Committee should be wholly non-arbcom in nature. I think that your point on TreasuryTag's page is valid, though I don't believe it's how things currently work - and I thought you might like to raise something since as we have an uncommon chance to reshape the system. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee WormTT(talk) 07:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Gérard Gertoux
Hello! I'm surprised by the delete of the page Gérard Gertoux only on two votes and without real debate. Many informations are incorrects :
- First, his book is published in France at the editor account, after validation by a reading committee, and is included in a collection directed by two specialists on religious history and sociology.
- Secondly, his book translated in english is cited in various books. We find some of them on Google books, for exemple in bibliography of The Encyclopedia Of Christianity (Volume 5, page 824). A commentary in the Religious Studies Review (Vol. 29:3, 2003, p. 285) explains the interest of these researchs : « This detailed treatment of the Name is useful for those who are interested in the history of its translation over the centuries[9]. »
- At last, the author has been invited to participate at international conferences with See for exemple the program of an International Conference on the Archaeologie, History and Reception of Persepolis, Edinburgh University, Octobre 14h-16th 2011.
The page about Gérard Gertoux could be supplemented from the french page.
Thank you to reconsidere this decision. DroitTJ (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- My only role here was to close the debate. In the two weeks the debate was open, three users commented in favor of deletion and nobody suggested it be kept, so as a closer I really didn't have any other choice. However, since debate was somewhat light I would be happy to userfy the article for you so that you can improve and resubmit it. Let mw know if that is what you would like to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I would like to improve the article to make it more relevant. Thank you ! -- DroitTJ (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Now at User:DroitTJ/Gérard Gertoux. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I completed the correction of the article on this author. What do we do now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DroitTJ (talk • contribs) 08:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you are certain it is ready, use the WP:MOVE feature to move it back to article space. (when you open the move window y ou will be prompted to enter a new title, just remove your username and the backslash from the front of the page title) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Discussion at ANI on banning LPC
LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I saw your comment on User talk:FisherQueen here is the diff dated 8 November 2010. -- PBS (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI regarding user:XB70Valyrie
There's been a lot of edit conflicts going on and one of your posts got deleted. I don't know all of the ins and outs of how to deal with edit conflicts atm but I put it back in and thought I'd let you know. I'm going to read up on dealing with edit conflicts. XB70 has been adding and deleting his own post over and over so that's not helping. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm afraid you have made an error. both my remark and Anthony's were in reference to another thread further up the page. Asa matter of fact that discussion is referenced on both our talk pages one section above the postings you have made. As such I have struck those remarks from the discussion you copied them to and left a note there explaning the error. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm embarrassed by that, and sorry. Now that I look back at it, it was a pretty dumb mistake. I just saw the history showing you put in the support ban comment, and then my post was right after it and I didn't see your comment in the thread. I didn't even think about the fact that it could have been in another thread. I assumed there might have been an edit conflict from me or XB70 because he kept adding and removing his post over and over for some reason, which he eventually blamed on me. I need to be more careful though. Thank you for assuming good faith, I did not mean to do that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
PC RFC
I think we can expect a lot of the comments, especially at first, along the lines of "Were you guys really paying attention to X?" FWIW, I think it's counterproductive to defend the process so far, although I know you've put your heart and soul into it. We don't want people going away unsatisfied; that only means they'll be fighting us in the future. A better message would be: what got us here isn't relevant now, because we've got new people with fresh eyes, and all concerns will be taken seriously. Lay it on us. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good point, I'll back it off. it just bugs me that people keep sniping at the process while not presenting any better ideas. Also, whether she knows it or not a lot of people, myself included, respect Risker's opinions and listen when she has something to say. But you are right, we ned to move forward and get that policy up to snuff. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:Offender9000
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Offender9000 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000. -- Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
221.2.228.202
Apologies for stepping over your intent to respond to the unblock request at 221.2.228.202 (talk · contribs). I presume that you would have responded in a similar fashion. Kuru (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I tacked my response on under yours in the (probably vain) hope that it will reinforce the message that such behavior is not tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, so backward, degraded, and vain. Kuru (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Pending changes question
Beeblebrox, I read this comment, and I have a question. Now that the "consensus" is to implement PC, is the Foundation willing to spend their money on developers to change the tool? Basically, my question is: if I want to change the draft policy in a way that would require altering the functionality of PC, is that ok? Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- (See here if you want more detail for the kinds of changes I'm thinking of.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact I believe that is the whole point of the way the closers set things up. We have four months to decide what changes we want, both to the policy and the tool itself, and then the developers will have one month to make any changes we request before the tool is put back into service. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Cool, Thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact I believe that is the whole point of the way the closers set things up. We have four months to decide what changes we want, both to the policy and the tool itself, and then the developers will have one month to make any changes we request before the tool is put back into service. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The article It Is What It Is has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- None of these subjects has a page. This disambiguates nothing.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I totally don't remember creating that page, but it looks like I created it as a redirect and somebody else made it a dab later. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of It Is What It Is for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article It Is What It Is is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Is What It Is until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Côte d'Ivoire / Ivory Coast: possible move review?
Hi, I am thinking of asking for a WP:Move review of your closure of the Côte d'Ivoire / Ivory Coast requested-move.
In your closing statement, you rejected out of hand the possibility of a "no consensus" outcome on the grounds that this would not be acceptable in your opinion. But a "no consensus" outcome is a perfectly valid and fairly common result of requested-move surveys, and you did not state any grounds for why it would (exceptionally) be unacceptable in this specific case.
Indeed, you yourself state in your closing statement that "there has never been a consensus on this issue", which strongly implies that this could have been your finding, if not for your immediately ruling it out right from the outset.
For this reason, I think a fresh look at the move discussion — this time with an outlook that is open to the possibility of a "no consensus" finding — might be helpful. I'm not calling into question your integrity or impartiality, but I do think you erred procedurally. If you took such a fresh look yourself, is there not a possibility that you might have a finding of "no consensus", particularly in view of your own statement that "there has never been a consensus on this issue"?
PS, I personally did not participate in the requested-move survey; here is a brief explanation: In my personal experience (looking at Quebec-related topics and associated news media) I have the impression of almost always encountering the term "Côte d'Ivoire" in both English and French. So my inclination based on personal experience would have been to oppose the move. On the other hand, the detailed statistics and the many contradictory claims made for them in the long discussions warranted careful consideration, which I unfortunately never found the time to undertake. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Impossible Beebs, seriously ...there was no way to move that article at all (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really have much more to say about the close except to be abundantly clear that Icame to this with no opinion or preffered outcome and I read every single word of the very long debate, twice, before doing the close. As to the specific points raised here, the statement about there never having been any consensus is clearly being taken out of context. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, but could you clarify why a "no consensus" finding was "not acceptable" in this specific instance? I do think it was a procedural error to eliminate it from the set of potential outcomes. I don't question your integrity, and realize it is a thankless task to tackle especially thorny RMs. PS, a secondary motivation would be to help the relatively new and untried move review framework become better known, and this might make a suitable test case in that regard. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- After so many lengthy discussions over a period of eight years it is not acceptable to still not be able to come to some sort of conclusion. Other geographic naming disputes like this have wound up before ArbCom and if this continues to be contested and argued about they will probably become involved in this situation as well, although the nationalism that plagued discussions about Ireland and Eastern Europe are thankfully not evident in this case. However,I did not consider that option to be off the table, Rather I came to the conclusion that after analyzing the various arguments there was a better case made for moving it than for retaining it where it was. My comments about how we might have had another no consensus result anyway were intended to clarify the I could see that if we went by sheer numbers there was yet again no clear result, but if we do what we are supposed to do and consider the arguments as opposed to who or how many are making them it didn't have to end that way yet again. I knew the minute I started looking at this that no matter how it was closed a sizable portion of participants would be upset, you have to accept that when closing something like this. It would have been easier to just look at how things were split and declare that once again consensus had eluded us, but I think this is the better result for Wikipedia's readers, the people we are supposed to be doing all for. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you got my e-mail ... after so many RM's that failed, it takes a super super argument to overcome what is obviously the original consensus, and this discussion did not have it ... default must be to close without moving when the original consensus is in place (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that there was an "original consensus." There were what,like five previous RMs, none of which resulted in a decision one way or the other, and if you look at the move logs you will see a ridiculous number of page moves and the kind of wheel warring that gets people desysopped these days. I don't see any obvious consensus in that chaos. I'm not sure my close was exactly conventional, but I am confident that it was the right decision for Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think sometimes you just have to call them like you see em. I would argue that there is a consensus, which is to keep the article where it is, and there was not a consensus to move it. Having survived so many RMs, with no new arguments or data brought to the table by those wanting to move, it is very strange to have a finding to move.--KarlB (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- After so many lengthy discussions over a period of eight years it is not acceptable to still not be able to come to some sort of conclusion. Other geographic naming disputes like this have wound up before ArbCom and if this continues to be contested and argued about they will probably become involved in this situation as well, although the nationalism that plagued discussions about Ireland and Eastern Europe are thankfully not evident in this case. However,I did not consider that option to be off the table, Rather I came to the conclusion that after analyzing the various arguments there was a better case made for moving it than for retaining it where it was. My comments about how we might have had another no consensus result anyway were intended to clarify the I could see that if we went by sheer numbers there was yet again no clear result, but if we do what we are supposed to do and consider the arguments as opposed to who or how many are making them it didn't have to end that way yet again. I knew the minute I started looking at this that no matter how it was closed a sizable portion of participants would be upset, you have to accept that when closing something like this. It would have been easier to just look at how things were split and declare that once again consensus had eluded us, but I think this is the better result for Wikipedia's readers, the people we are supposed to be doing all for. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Kudus for stepping up to the plate and protecting for a couple days to hope for some better dialog. I'd begged for the same sort of thing (though for a week) at Sophie Lefèvre today but no one at wp:rpp would accept it :-(. Fyunck(click) (talk)
Move review for Côte d'Ivoire
An editor has asked for a Move review of Côte d'Ivoire. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Laurent (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would also like to know what is happening with all the other pages that now have Côte d'Ivoire in their titles, are you saying that these pages are now quite okay to have that discrepancy? In previous requests for move they were asked to deal with this holistically, not on the sake of a single item, and not once have they bothered, they have just banged on about the one article. To me, this consistency is important in an encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have said nothing of the kind. I closed one requested move. I do not recall there being any significant discussion of what to do with the other articles. I agree woth you that consistency is important, But it may be best to save any such discussion until after the move review is completed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Irish Warden
Why am I treated like a criminal, not you but why should I be treated with suspicion by doing thing good? Here is the story: 1. My page is a template given to me by another user who replied to my help request. 2. My signature is like that (spent nearly a day trying to work it out) because I saw other peoples and looked up online how to create a good one. 3. I did read all the guidelines thoroughly and did read stuff like anti-vandal and the patrol section. Different users said to user twinkle so I did some anti-vandal manually which was suggested by a user until twinkle activated. It really isn't hard to use twinkle and wikipedia if you read the instructions and guidelines.
Technically I could report Egg Centric for not assuming good faith as I find it offensive that someone things I am 'dodgy'. Regards, TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, as I admonished Egg on his talk page he has seriously failed to assume good faith in this case. However if he is letting it drop I would advise you to do the same and just get back to constructive editing. There is a cultural problem here, which I have gallen victim to myself on occaission. The problem is that sheer number of people who actually do come here with exactly the sort of bad intentions Egg insiuated you may have leads to a climate of suspiscion and sometimes outright paranoia. Add to that the fact that the type pf people drawn to this type of work are often creative and imaginitive and you can see how we have wound up in this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree there is one bad thing about Wikipedia which I have encountered: you get about 10 people telling you off then going on to horass you for doing one thing wrong. I was even threatened with a block for badly giving 2 warnings incorrectly. One IP put gay pimp onto an article I RV for vandalism, and said they should use more suttle words, that was apparently control trolling. Then I deleted an incorrect image correctly which showed no image but random letters but apparently that is wrong. Eggcentric is now like put sanctions on me even though they aren't an admin, I have to not interact with others for 1000 edits. I don't like this and as you said I am going to carry on constructive editing. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ivory Coast
Could you restore the indefinite move (sysop)-protection to the page Ivory Coast? Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I could have sworn I already did that, but sure enough it is not there. Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Pending changes discussion
Just wondering: did you intend to make this revert? isaacl (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did not. sometimes when I'm using my iPad I bump the rollback button when trying to look at a diff. I actually noticed I had done so but my connection is a bit slow today and I thought I had stopped it before it went live. Obviously that was a flawed assumption. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Monopoly on Violence
Hello again,
The Monopoly on Violence page has been massively rewritten by one person without discussion. I have reverted it to the instance before this persons first massive rewrite, however I feel the page needs to be protected from further edits till a discussion is actually had on the issue of the translation of the word 'Gewalt' (German: 'violence').
What do you recommend? Talonxpool (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- What I recommend is that you leave a message on that user's talk page inviting them to discuss the matter on the artile's talk page. Protection is not used preemptively and it is certainly not used to give one side an advantage in a content dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Tammie Wilson, additional information
Greetings Beeblebrox: I have questions about my edit of the Tammie Wilson page. What specifically were "the way you chose to interpret the content in those sources" that violated the neutrality spirit? I felt that I accurately represented the intent and effects of the policies that Tammie has perused. The only "interpretation" I can find in my writing is the statement that smoke is toxic (which many researchers support me on.) Tammie Wilson has been very public in her support of the explicit idea that people should not be cited or fined for producing any amount of smoke, or for burning any fuel they can find to heat their home. She is a politician and is on record with these views many times. I just want to add this information to her page. Please let me know what you feel is interpretation in my article, so I can edit it and re-post. Please realize that Ms Wilson has stated some very unusual positions, and I just want to record these. Also, realize that "neutrality" is not an accurate description of any writing that may come from Ms Wilson herself. AKMcCloud (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)AKMcCloud
- "Tammie Wilson has fought hard for the right of Fairbanks North Star Borough residence to burn anything they want in any way they want in order to heat their home, and produce unlimited amounts of toxic smoke." is certainly the worst of it. The way it is written implies strongly that she supports this position because she wants more toxic smoke in Fairbanks. Abetter approach would be something like "Tammie Wilson supports Borough residents being able to use any fuel they wish in any quantity they wish for heating their homes. Opponents argue that this will produce large amounts of toxic smoke." The same basic information is presented, but wothout the implication that her support is based on the desire to produce smoke. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem I have with your proposed edit is, weather or not burning any fuel in any way they wish will make toxic smoke is not a debatable point. Burning wet wood or wet coal (or tires, or pig manure, all of which has been burned in home heating appliances in Fairbanks recently) in a home stove will make lots of smoke, but your version seems to say only the opponents think it will make lots of smoke. The debate is weather people should be allowed to make as much smoke as they want, or weather there should be a limit on how much smoke one could make. Ms Wilson is on public record saying there should be no governmental regulation limiting the amount of smoke a resident makes when heating their home. How about "Tammie Wilson supports Borough residents being able to use any fuel they wish in any quantity they wish for heating their homes, regardless of how much PM2.5 fine particulate pollution is produced. Opponents argue that there should be some reasonable limits on how much toxic smoke a resident may produce, due to the financial and health related effects such smoke has on neighbors and the community at large" ?? AKMcCloud (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What a clusterfuck of a day so far (it is Friday the 13th, right?). I am getting really, really, really pissed off at having to largely rely on my phone for this, as I don't have a desk job and my laptop would get in the way. I came across the latest mess that someone dumped in our laps, the monstrous WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL violation that is Cheryll Heinze. Unfortunately, they did pick someone who is notable, though nowhere near as notable as many others who served only one term in the Alaska House, or nowhere near as notable as her husband, or nowhere near as notable as her famous cousins, Hoyt Axton and David Boren. I spent all morning in between actual work, like 5 or 10 minutes at a time, typing comments on Talk:Cheryll Heinze, only to see my Internet app fail right before I was finished, losing all that work in the process. I've been wanting to put my fist through something for the past 3 hours. I'm not sure I'm gonna have time to redo it before all these people stop caring and move on to the next lost cause. If you didn't catch the ADN story, she was mentioned as having had a peripheral connection to Bill Allen and the Alaska political corruption probe, so that may be of interest if you're still attempting to maintain that article.
Anyway, on to Tammie Wilson: I dunno if I would consider that a good faith edit. I believe "political silly season" is the preferred term on here for describing such a thing. First off, observe the ongoing hit piece edits to Bob Lynn. I reported it to the BLP noticeboard and it was reverted. Now, the same editor is trying a slightly different tact, attempting to portray Lynn as a proponent of sharia law. The blog used as a source also mentions Carl Gatto, who was painted with that brush within the blogosphere at the same time as others were mourning his recent death. Second, air quality has been a political issue in Fairbanks for at least 40 years or better. I've found references to Tom Snapp using his position as editor of the All-Alaska Weekly to agitate on the issue from years before I moved here, and I've been in and around this town like forever. PM 2.5 is just the latest manifestation of that. In fact, the divergence of opinion on air quality issues was a pivotal factor in the 2009 mayoral contest between Wilson and Luke Hopkins. Ironically, both Lynn and Wilson were relative newcomers to Alaska when they joined the legislature, and both definitely express political views which could be characterized as polarizing. There could be comparisons between that fact and the ongoing battle between Tea Party factions and the old guard within the Republican Party of Alaska. The ADN carried a front page story on that very subject earlier this week, which I didn't have time to read.
BTW, I do have a photo of Tammie Wilson, but like I said, I'm getting pretty far behind on the Commons end of things. I'm taking time away from work to use a real computer in order to send this off without losing it. It seems as if more messes and crises have come across my watchlist this week than I really have time for. WEIO is next week, so I'll have even less time to deal with any of it.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haven't had much time for this myself, been at Wikimania. In fact my flight home to Alaska got screwed up and I am writing this from Dulles Airport at five A.M. Fun. I do feel like we made some progress towards an acceptable way to express this information, but it would probably be better if we continued discussion at the talk page of her article. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- It could be worse. I've spent the better part of the past three days babysitting two grown adults, who make Dumb and Dumber look like Einstein and Hawking. Maybe there's a good reason why the tour companies deliberately steer their clients away from certain parts of town. Anyway, Tammie Wilson is aware that this "controversy" is occurring. Despite the negative opinions many seem to have of her, at least she's a smart enough politician to realize that this is a tar baby she shouldn't go near, inasfar as any personal involvement is concerned. I agree that this should be continued over there.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haven't had much time for this myself, been at Wikimania. In fact my flight home to Alaska got screwed up and I am writing this from Dulles Airport at five A.M. Fun. I do feel like we made some progress towards an acceptable way to express this information, but it would probably be better if we continued discussion at the talk page of her article. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Back to my original question, how is "Tammie Wilson supports Borough residents being able to use any fuel they wish in any quantity they wish for heating their homes, regardless of how much PM2.5 fine particulate pollution is produced." a misrepresentation of Ms Wilson's publicly stated views? Would you accept things better if I directly quoted her from FDNM or ADN articles? Her stance has always been that the clean air act should not apply to Alaska. 137.229.30.115 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to log in for the above comment. surprised it let me make it. AKMcCloud (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- A direct quote might be a good idea since we wpuld know we had got her position on the matter exactly right without putting our own spin on it, but whatever we do it should be directly supported by the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- How about "In the October, 2010 issue of The Woodshed, Tammie Wilson wrote "... it is a fundamental right of every person, and family, to heat their home, responsibly, with any natural resource available they can afford-- that the immediate need to keep warm ranks above a concern for appeasing the EPA." [1] and the 2010 ballot proposition which Ms Wilson led the support for, Proposition A, text includes: "WHEREAS, the concern for air quality is subordinate to the need for warmth;" [2] Opponents argue that breathing air free from toxic pollutants is more important then saving money on home heating. These people feel there should be some reasonable limits on how much toxic smoke a resident may produce, due to the financial and health related effects such smoke has on neighbors and the community at large" [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKMcCloud (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the stone wall. You have now used your position of power to stop the sharing of truth. AKMcCloud (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- First off, perhaps you are unaware of the guiding principle of assuming good faith. I was traveling when you left this message and it simply slipped my mind to respond after I got back. Secondly, I have not used my administrative tools at all. I don't have any authority over content but I am very familiar with Wikipaedia policies. And another thing I have learned over the years is that pretty much anyone who gets all angry about "exposing the truth" is really someone with an agenda they want to push.
- Thanks for the stone wall. You have now used your position of power to stop the sharing of truth. AKMcCloud (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- How about "In the October, 2010 issue of The Woodshed, Tammie Wilson wrote "... it is a fundamental right of every person, and family, to heat their home, responsibly, with any natural resource available they can afford-- that the immediate need to keep warm ranks above a concern for appeasing the EPA." [1] and the 2010 ballot proposition which Ms Wilson led the support for, Proposition A, text includes: "WHEREAS, the concern for air quality is subordinate to the need for warmth;" [2] Opponents argue that breathing air free from toxic pollutants is more important then saving money on home heating. These people feel there should be some reasonable limits on how much toxic smoke a resident may produce, due to the financial and health related effects such smoke has on neighbors and the community at large" [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKMcCloud (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since we have discussed this at some length I should hope you would understand by now that anything you add to the article must be based non a relaible source and expressed in neutral tone. If you understand those principles and the idea that verifiability, not truth is what we base our articles on you should be able to try again to add the material to the article. There are several thousand other active editors out there, if you feel unable to take my word for it simce toi have rushed to judgement and imagine some sort of abuse of power, feel free to ask one of them for their opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Davedays
Please unSALT Davedays per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 6. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
For being a badass |
| Beeblebrox, you hardrocking admin, your company was appreciated. Keep on rocking in the free world. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
RFC closure
[5] I think your closure a tad ambiguous as those adding this content will now restore a section with just a few lines, unless you mean that the way it has already been added[6] is the consensus you mean? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus seemed to favor including the material with clear attribution so that readers know where it came from. It is outside the remit of an RFC closer to give explicit instructions on the actual wording of the article, hence the ambiguity. All in all it seemed a fairly civil, thoughtful conversation (rather surprising for such a polictically charged issue actually) I imagine the exact details can be worked out through further discussion on the talkpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK thank you, given I just nominated the article for FA I do not want another silly edit war going on there :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus seemed to favor including the material with clear attribution so that readers know where it came from. It is outside the remit of an RFC closer to give explicit instructions on the actual wording of the article, hence the ambiguity. All in all it seemed a fairly civil, thoughtful conversation (rather surprising for such a polictically charged issue actually) I imagine the exact details can be worked out through further discussion on the talkpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- As I suspected it has happened, TG is now insisting he has consensus for the crap edit. Please inform him his edit has no consensus and he must discuss it before reverting further. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, you just closed this RFC and now a new RFC on the exact same thing has been started by the above editor as he did not get his desired consensus. This is a habitual case with this editor, see [7] where he has started RFCs numerous times and would not stop till he gets his "desired results" even though there's not a slight chance of him getting a consensus. I think you should close this new RFC started over your previous closure by DS; I removed the RFC tag but got a highly uncivil reply in return and the user wrongly claiming the "RFC tag" to be a part of his comment. He's also currently under the scrutiny of a report at AN3 for removing the same section repeatedly after the RFC was closed on the pretext that "details" need to be figured even after the closure was keep on the specific questions he asked in the RFC which included the current section specifically with these details. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- You guys both know where WP:DR is by now. This ain't it. I closed an RFC, I didn't volunteer to referee the two of you in perpetuity. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing discussions, that were listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrator's noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 21:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
- Well thank you very much. Beeblebrox (talk)
Lord Huron
hi i saw you commented on the deleting of the article on this artist. i wrote a comment on the talk page [8] saying why i think it should exist with some sources. can i make the article?Happy monsoon day 16:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can, but it would probably be deleted again in short order. The finding at the deletion discussion was unanimously in favor of deleting because the sources found either did not comstitute significant coverage or did not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. The sources you have linked on the talk page are at least partly the same sources that were on the article when the decision was made to delete it, so it does not appear that the problem that led to the deletion has been resolved. Talk pages should only exist if there is an accompanying article so that could be deleted at any second, but if you would like I could userfy the article for you and you could work on addressing these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- thank you for your considered opinion. i am going to read the information carefully and please dont do extra work. i feel bad now for making some veteran guys explain basic stuff to me. i will acquaint myself with the policies and take it a step at a time. when i have an example i may show it to people who are interested. my concept is such: perhaps its not notable now, but some of the current sources may be above the threshold when he is famous so the article could start now and just buidl it slowly and once it reaches a certani threshold it could be considered ok for thepublic. know what i mean? Happy monsoon day 16:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- by the way can i recover the article from before it was deleted; then i can see what was on it?Happy monsoon day 16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's certainly no need to apologize or feel bad, we were all new here at one time and I remember all too well how confusing Wikipedia's mazes of policies and guidelines can be for a newcomer. The userfication I mentioned above would entail restoring the article as it was just before it was deleted and then moving it into your user space. If it does turn out that this peson becomes more notable in the future you can use whatever new sources become available to improve the article and then it can be moved back into article space. i'll go ahead and do that userfication now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. It is at User:Happy monsoon day/Lord Huron. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's certainly no need to apologize or feel bad, we were all new here at one time and I remember all too well how confusing Wikipedia's mazes of policies and guidelines can be for a newcomer. The userfication I mentioned above would entail restoring the article as it was just before it was deleted and then moving it into your user space. If it does turn out that this peson becomes more notable in the future you can use whatever new sources become available to improve the article and then it can be moved back into article space. i'll go ahead and do that userfication now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Wise move
As an oversighter can you see the problem with copy/paste failing when people wish to send email? Some may not be users or computer literate and get quite frustrated. I don't think we need consensus to add a simple line that copy/paste won't work and the @ needs to be entered manually. If you have time could you add such a line? We can close the edit request then and if anyone whines, feel free to blame it all on me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually at the moment the discussion on Commons seems to be leaning in the direction of not doing that at all anymore and just taking the risk that we might have to delete a bit more spam. I think that is something we should consider here as well, but we would need to notify the affected user groups of any such discussion. That would include the functionaries and the arbitration committee at the very least, not sure who else uses the nospam gizmo. I think it is a conversation worth having though, possibly at some centralized location such as one of the village pumps. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- O've gone ahead and opened said discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Time to do away with "no spam email" gimmick?. Will attempt to notify effected parties as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)::You are correct. I may bring it up there. In the meantime I see no harm in adding a note about the error until a decision is made in this project. The OTRS one in commons was boldly edited to make copy/paste work and has not been reverted as far as I know. A change like that may need consensus here but a simple 'how to' statement added should not need consensus as it merely lets others know of the 'bug'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Such a note has been in the section about emailing oversight for some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)::You are correct. I may bring it up there. In the meantime I see no harm in adding a note about the error until a decision is made in this project. The OTRS one in commons was boldly edited to make copy/paste work and has not been reverted as far as I know. A change like that may need consensus here but a simple 'how to' statement added should not need consensus as it merely lets others know of the 'bug'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- O've gone ahead and opened said discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Time to do away with "no spam email" gimmick?. Will attempt to notify effected parties as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Buried a little though. I will resolve this section for now as it is at the pump. I had an edit conflict earlier and just pasted my post as it was before seeing yours here.
Resolvedin this section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Let the beating commence
The beatings will continue until morale improves! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good answer. I have to admit, I was a bit surprised to have survived that myself, especially given the misstep at the end where I didn't want to deal with failing the RFA in the middle (well, at the beginning) of the workweek, so suggested an early close (at exactly the percentage it eventually ended at, amusingly enough). I was kind of wondering if you were going to duck that as a can't-win question, but you did a good job covering all the nuances. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping to find a comment by me somewhere so I could just say "recuse"... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- *snicker*I looked before I asked. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping to find a comment by me somewhere so I could just say "recuse"... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Beeblebrox/EditCounterOptIn.js
Could you please opt-in to the Edit Counter tool, by creating User:Beeblebrox/EditCounterOptIn.js (with any content whatsoever). Thanks. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, they didn't have that back in the dark ages when I ran at RFA so I never bothered. Done now though. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
About your RfB
I hope you understand why I felt the need to oppose, and that you do not take this as a reflection on your personal worth or the value of your continued participation on enwp. That I think you are not suited for that particular hat in no way reduces the respect I have for you. Hell, FWIW, the reason I'm opposing your RfB would be a reason why I'd support your candidacy on ArbCom! (hint, hint) — Coren (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- *cough*. I fully agree. WormTT(talk) 14:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bah, retroactive copycat! :-) — Coren (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest it's going more or less how I anticipated it would. I know standards are very, very high for the job. I don't think they should be but it is what it is. I do find it odd that a lot of people are suggesting I go for ArbCom imstead. I thought you guys liked me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Heh. Point taken. The reason ArbCom fits is that you have a skill (and tendency) to cut through difficult situations, think, and try to make a decision with the intent to help the project rather than just assess what the local consensus may be; sometimes with quite a bit of boldness. We (that is, I, but I think much the the community agrees) want admins to do this occasionally, arbitrators to do this always, and bureaucrats to do this never. — Coren (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I consider myself able to follow different rules in different situations, but I don't seem to be able to convince a lot of folks at the RFB that I can do so. For example, boldness is most certainly not a quality we want in an oversighter. You have to be very careful how use such a powerful tool, the potential for abuse and real damage to the project if an oversighter went rogue cannot be overstated. But suppression work is done quietly and it would defeat the purpose of having done it in the first place to go talking about specific decisions on-wiki. Whatever though, doesn't look like it is going to happen for me, hopefully somebody more "boring" will step up in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll not hide the fact that I'm in that category. I have no doubt that you can generally do so, and that you clearly understand the need to do so; but when something strikes you as wrong, you strike out to correct it – sometimes brashly. Honestly, I think that the right temperament to be a 'crat is mutually exclusive with that for being an Arb. — Coren (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I consider myself able to follow different rules in different situations, but I don't seem to be able to convince a lot of folks at the RFB that I can do so. For example, boldness is most certainly not a quality we want in an oversighter. You have to be very careful how use such a powerful tool, the potential for abuse and real damage to the project if an oversighter went rogue cannot be overstated. But suppression work is done quietly and it would defeat the purpose of having done it in the first place to go talking about specific decisions on-wiki. Whatever though, doesn't look like it is going to happen for me, hopefully somebody more "boring" will step up in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Heh. Point taken. The reason ArbCom fits is that you have a skill (and tendency) to cut through difficult situations, think, and try to make a decision with the intent to help the project rather than just assess what the local consensus may be; sometimes with quite a bit of boldness. We (that is, I, but I think much the the community agrees) want admins to do this occasionally, arbitrators to do this always, and bureaucrats to do this never. — Coren (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest it's going more or less how I anticipated it would. I know standards are very, very high for the job. I don't think they should be but it is what it is. I do find it odd that a lot of people are suggesting I go for ArbCom imstead. I thought you guys liked me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bah, retroactive copycat! :-) — Coren (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Class Act AND Funny..."Oppose If I can't have it nobody can! No seriously, Support per excellent answers to questions along with already being a great admin with a proven track record, although of course this also means you are "more boring" than me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)" ...work on concerns over the next few months and I'm confident you'll make it next time. I recall it took Nihonjoe 4 tries at RFB. PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- feel free to ping me next time .. I don't watch XfA anymore. Chedzilla (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Closing MfDs
If you close an MFD, than please put the closing template over the header per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fpr some reson I thought they did it that way at mfd. For other xfd discussions I use a script that does all that stuff for me but it doesn't seem to work woth mfd. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment on Kissinger N. Sibanda
Hi Beeblebox:
I disagree, on the contrary, your actions are the ones that show a duplicity. I wish you well, but please lets stick to addressing the point I am raising - that even when the page (Ken Sibanda) is rewritten and one editor approves it, flattertnuter deletes the approval!
What gives her the right to right to delete pages and noi have to post an explanation during the arbitration, is she above this? The accusation on racism is based on that flattuntter made the rather unfortunate remark that, Ken Sibanda has done nothing in essence than just "exist." How is it that the first real voice of science fiction from the African continenet is treated so unfairly. Different cultures evolve differently, something that wikipedia should document -Unless, you can address these points please don't reply, this is not personal but academic and by the rules. Thank you!Mziboy (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have been told repeatedly how to properly contest a deletion decision and your request for arbitration has been rejected. If you are truly concerned about rules I find myself puzzled as to why you choose to ignore them. And so long as you continue to make baseless accusations of racism it's very unlikely anyone will listen to you. There is nothing of a racial nature in the remark you keep reposting. Again, either follow the proper channels for challenging the deletion discussion as has alraedy been explained to you many times, or drop it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Just fer a laff
If you're irritated with the naysayers who can't see you being a bureaucrat, then once you are why not spite em all by making Penyulap (or even me!) an admin the moment you have a bit? Don't respond to this here because if you let out your true feelings of that being a fantastic idea then they'll totally discriminate against you. The buggers.
Oh and a preliminary congrats - you're gonna make it and you totally deserve it :) Egg Centric 01:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, Brox. I just wanted to let you know that I was checking out an essay that you are the primary author for "Ignore Meta". Because it's my opinion that it is against the spirt of WP:NOESSAY, at least in its current form, I'm going to see if I can tone down the Polemic language. I think it can be a useful essay if the nutshell is "Meta is much, much 'bigger' and more ethereal the en.wiki and a good place to focus your time would be here, where people actually come for information". I think, perhaps, it would be best for all involved if this work started after your RfB is closed. I'm not particularly looking for drama here, but I think cooler heads can prevail and the message of your essay can come forth without any real need to take such a combative tone. Achowat (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since I do ignore meta (not 100% but in the way advised in the essay) I don't really care that much but I hope you are not planning to change it to have a completely different message as that would be some other essay. You have not made it clear which part of NOESSAY you believe it violates either. It is directly related to WP, and it does not violate or contradict any policy that I am aware of. One thing I had already thought of doing was removing the section where uses sign up to pledge to ignore meta. That never really caught on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with that. So that's one more thing. So let me get the Nutshell of it down first, so that my rewriting offers the same message as your original. What I garnered from the essay is the idea that "Meta does stuff, important stuff, but en.wiki is big enough not to need it, so the general workings of it will have little to no effect on that way you procede in this project." That about right? Achowat (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty close, what I was going for was more along the lines of "the important stuff they do is very important. However, their dispute resolution process and other internal policies have no relevance to this project and given the hostility over there can and should be safely ignored." Meta, outside of the areas where they actually coordinate important things, is a completely dysfunctioal environment and almost totally incapable of making any type of decision at all. Most discussions opened there just sit there open forever, and their RFa proces is a joke. Not a funny joke, just a joke. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Moose aggression
Hi Beeblebrox,
I though I might help out in looking for sources on moose aggression towards other animals. Here is one, describing moose driving off bears. Page 118 and 119 describe moose aggression to each other, and not always in rut either. It is also described in Big Game of North America and Grizmek's encyclopedia of mammals. Unfortunately, these are not available on google books. However, this book give very good descriptions of moose behavior towards prdators. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
RevDel request
Hi, I picked you more-or-less randomly from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests (actually, I tried another admin from that list first, but he or she appears to be inactive; hence the staleness of this request). Assuming authenticity, a naive new user apparently thinking he was writing to the article subject. I've reverted but this might be a good candidate for RevisionDelete. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- zapped it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Need some admin help
I'd take this to WP:AN, but the user in question appears never to have been warned before today, so I don't want it to turn into sanctions or unwelcome notice from the community unless he keep going.
Stormbay appears to concentrate on Manitoba local government. This summer, he appears to have been emptying lots of small-town categories that were created by Backspace; I've restored them to the applicable pages in his last 50 contributions, but I'm running out of time — I need to go to my house, and a storm today cut the Internet. Could you please go into his last hundred or so contributions (or ask another admin so to do), restoring categories to these pages and undeleting the categories that have been repopulated? It might work best to check his deleted category contributions, since as soon as he empties a category he tags it for C1, apparently not noticing that the criterion doesn't permit deletion for categories deleted out of process. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time there has been issues with Stormbay.
- (See further up their talkpage for some comments I made there) - jc37 01:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- eep. You caught me right on my way out last night. I'll have a look now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Your request for bureaucratship
Hi Beeblebrox, I just wanted to let you know that, in view of the final vote tally, there was not a consensus to grant you the bureaucrat maintenance toolkit. I suggest you take the views of opposers into mind, and consider running again in some time; on a personal level, I do believe a need exists for more crats. You might consider working in areas of Wikipedia that demonstrate an improved understanding of, and respect for, consensus, since this was a common thread in opposing !voters' arguments. Best regards, Pakaran 00:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Meh. I probably will not be running again. The opposers ask that I change who I am as a person. I won't be doing that just to get some extra buttons on WP. Best I can hope for is to inspire more admins who may be a better fit to apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, but when Super Deathmatch Referees opens up recruiting, you'll be a shoo-in! Sorry things didn't go your way. I hope you don't let it affect your confidence; just about everyone seemed to agree that you and your current set of bits are a good thing for the project. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I really wasn't that excited about it to begin with so it's no big loss. And it looks like 28bytes is going to sail into it, so we are getting a new crat. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I said! (But I tend to call 'em Arbitrators, not Super Deathmatch Referees). :-) — Coren (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for both your comments there, truly wonderful! I didn't support you because you happened to be the one who closed the one and only deletion of an article I wrote, but may change my mind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, but when Super Deathmatch Referees opens up recruiting, you'll be a shoo-in! Sorry things didn't go your way. I hope you don't let it affect your confidence; just about everyone seemed to agree that you and your current set of bits are a good thing for the project. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Serving readers
Hi! Wrt this statement:
- In that closing statement, you state that "serving readers" (which you interpret to mean readers finding the article at the title they would expect) is the core issue. On what basis did you decide that this consideration, rather than say the application of policies such was WP:NPOV and WP:RS, was the "core" issue?
A:Well first off serving our readers should be the core issue in everything we do.
Boy, am I with you! Isn't the whole reason for the project to build an encyclopedia?? Why would anyone go to all the trouble of writing an encyclopedia? Surely so it would be used?
Contrast with: We're not here to pander to our readers either. Really?? (Sorry, I don't know how to make a link without the little chain icon. :-P http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#Christina_Schwenkel_preface)
So, what's this about? Just to tell you I'm glad you care about readers! Regards, Yopienso (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can't speak to that specific discussion but I do think it is something a lot of us have lost sight of. One discussion after another turns into "dueling policies" where each party is trying to show how some subsection of a policy or guideline seems to back up their position, with no thought as to which position makes more sense from the persepctive of trying to present properly verified information to as broad an audience as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I really hope you can spread that message among administrators and in whatever WP venues you may have access to. Maybe starting with Jimbo's page? You have put the issue clearly into one sentence. As a user of WP, it's easy to tell which articles have been battlegrounds just by the garbled, tiptoed way they're written and the overkill on sourcing. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion
..is sought relative to this thread on EdJohnston's talk page. Cheers,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Beeblebrox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |