User talk:Balph Eubank/Archives/2010/February

Proposed deletion of Diva Zappa


The article Diva Zappa has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable individual individual. Lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance.  Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:WP:ENT]]

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  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  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ttonyb (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Diva Zappa
I have nominated Diva Zappa, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Diva Zappa&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  ttonyb (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

re BlackJack SPI
Thanks for your note on my talkpage. As per my comment on the Noticeboard, if an active sock is found perhaps they could be advised to take their complaint(s) to WP:Office rather than on project space. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hello. Please check more carefully before accusing people of being sockpuppets. Even without CU, a quick check would have shown it was highly implausible that I was Blackjack. We may have edited the same pages, but he changed some of my edits, and we had quite detailed discussions on talkpages. I supported him in a dispute, even after he was blocked, as he was friendly and supportive when I joined Wikipedia a few months ago. I also feel he has been unfairly treated, while his accuser has escaped easily despite breaking several rules. As well as avoiding blocks with multiple accounts. However, I altered BJs talkpage as it was changed by a probable sockpuppet of the person he was in dispute with. As I understand it, users who are blocked can still change their talkpages, and there was no need for FirstComrade to change it. Nor was there any need to change the other user pages of BJs socks. Another editor made a revert on one of them last week. If I have misunderstood the rules, my mistake. I will not be getting involved in this again, in case I am accused of being Lord Lucan or who knows what else.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Users who are blocked cannot change their talk page except to request an unblock. There are important administrative reasons why sockmasters and their socks are templated in this manner as it helps sysops as well as regular editors keep track of possible future block evasion. I am sorry you were incorrectly named as a sockpuppet, mistakes do happen sometimes. Happy editing Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Possibly unfree File:Drew curtis 2007 photo.jpg
I actually consider this semi-harassment and totally inappropriate. Please read the file description, which states, very clearly, "This photo is licensed under a Creative Commons license. If you use this photo within the terms of the license or make special arrangements to use the photo, please list the photo credit as "Scott Beale / Laughing Squid" and link the credit to laughingsquid.com (from Flickr)."

That copyright statement can be confirmed by clicking on the Flickr link here, which states the exact same thing above, that the image can be copied and reused under the Creative Commons license, which I verified and reverified on Flickr.

You seem to still have a some sort of grudge with me over a previous disagreement, which I find quite disappointing. Please stop this childish behavior. WTF? (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Swift page semi-protected
Just saw your note in the discussion page for Taylor Swift. You may not know that people cannot edit the Swift page unless, apparently, they are an established editor. Something like that - in any event, this appears to be part of the reason the page currently reads like a mailout from the record label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodeoDriver (talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI Burpelson, I am requesting unprotection. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New page patrol
Hello there! Just reminding you it's helpful to the rest of us if you mark pages as patrolled. Thanks! -- GorillaWarfare  talk 02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, that's weird... It does for me, but for some reason ‎Marlborough lake monster wasn't marked as patrolled until I marked it... Maybe there was a delay. No worries! -- GorillaWarfare  talk 02:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh that could be it! And you too :] -- GorillaWarfare  talk 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega
Thanks for your comment. I was a student at General Motors Institute from 1978 to 1983. Yes, I read DeLorean's book at the time, and it disturbed me, as from what I could see from working there (the since closed New Departure-Hyatt Bearings Plant) everything he said about the corporate structure was true.

And I had a Vega, and what he said about that was true as well.

I left GM. It took another 30 years, but eventually, things caught up with the place. The bloated management and overhead that could be supported with a 60% market share could not be sustained with an ever-shrinking market.

I could tell you stories.... Like the plant manager in Sandusky, Ohio who squandered millions of dollars of company money insisting that all machinery be less than 5 feet high - because of his "theory" that shorter machinery would make the workers happier and more productive.

Or the plant manager in Bristol, who squandered millions trying to build a combination starter/alternator, which never worked (Delco tried this years before and gave up). He ended up getting promoted nevertheless.

The place was (and probably still is) a nightmare of fiefdoms and political power bases. For what GM spent on developing Saturn (billions squandered on pie-in-the-sky ideas that never came to fruition) they could have purchased, on the open market, every share of Toyota Motor stock.

Of course, DeLorean was discredited by the subsequent drug bust, and after that, no one gave his book much mind. He was a "madman" after all, right? An outsider with an axe to grind. But if they had listened to him back then, perhaps things would have turned out differently for GM.

Perhaps.

Joe Patent (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

re Blackjack
The JamesJJames item was posted to you as you were involved in the dispute with Blackjack. The JamesJJames user appears to be a sockpuppet of Blackjack and an ofensive one at that.86.153.63.108 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Anyway, it looks like the sock was blocked. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More about BlackJack
Well, it seems he remembers you better than you remember him. He's even accusing you of liking cricket. Next it will be yachting and tiddlywinks! -- &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cricket, no. Although I'm thoroughly enjoying the Olympic curling. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)