User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 26

Serving readers
Blanked this, as it really did amount to a tangent (as opposed to what I seem to be accused of filling articles with). Moved it to User:RadioKAOS/Sandbox/Philosophy in the hopes that I can one day turn it into a coherent essay on the positive and negative aspects of one's individual motivations for doing this. Let's just say that a lot of users tend to validate the criticisms of those who believe that this is just a form of video gaming for autistic teenagers.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter
Shall this article be broader right now? --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if broadening the article must be done right away. The DRV is over as "endorse", and I'm still waiting for your reply. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus at the RFC was that it should be broadened and moved. There was no mandate that it be done immediately, but there is nothing to stop anyone being bold and just doing it right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

David A Schwedel
Please place a copy here for me User:Morning277/sandbox/DASSCH. --Morning277 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * TY --Morning277 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Block resolution policy note
Per your closing-ish note on the AN discussion on unblock policy, I have changed the policy to reflect that consensus, noting "Any user may discuss or comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the review (either declining or unblocking).". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration committee question moved
Beeblebrox, just a note to let you know that I've moved your question here. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Kezie Ibe
At WP:RFPP, you indicated that you blocked the users responsible for the edit warring. I saw the request, but ended up acting as an editor rather than an admin. The person you blocked User:Hanckock is only half of the problem, and technically the better half, in that at least the name he was putting was the one used in newspapers (not that he was sourcing them, mind you, but at least it was correct). The IP you blocked, however, is the one adding some completely random name, possibly based on some sort of "birth record look up website" which definitely doesn't meet WP:RS. I think you can get the IP on a 82.132.249.0/26 rangeblock (only 64 users); alternatively, semi-protection on the article would work (although I think I see productive IP edits in the past). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have the slightest idea how to do a rangeblock I'm afraid. I'll watchlist the article though and try to keep an eye out for a return of the same problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP's already twice reverted me to re-add the non-compliant source, so I opened an ANI thread at WP:ANI to see if there's someone who can lock up the range for a while. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, for the actual question I had...
...since I couldn't go back to sleep after being woken up by my roommate's boyfriend for no reason. Picture a cross between John Belushi's character Ron Decline from All You Need Is Cash, and the drunk guys that Bob and Mark (of KWHL fame) portray in that bit which ends with "Hey Joe Beer. When you can't afford Natural Ice.", and you get an idea of what I have to put up with there.

Anyway, I had a concern for quite some time, and I was looking for an individual admin's opinion before I took this question further. I see something come across my watchlist a little too often for my comfort. Namely, an article will see an edit or series of edits by an IP, but one which acts just like an experienced Wikipedia editor, as opposed to the usual sort of clueless newbie edits you normally come to expect from IP users. Perhaps not coincidentally, these edits will result in large portions of the article in question being gutted, or the tone or context of the article will suddenly take a drastic turn. The actual question is this: would an editor have to go to probably more trouble than it's worth to document these changes in order for there to be a sockpuppet investigation, or is this the sort of thing that any admins are paying attention to? I have a lot of articles on my watchlist that I suspect few other editors watch, and therefore they appear to be easy targets for this sort of thing. I see that there is a sockpuppet noticeboard, but I don't know if I want to take on more tasks which may achieve only negligible results. I already have enough on my plate on here, not to mention the real world. Anyway, let me know.

While not the reason I'm bringing this up, I pretty much gave up on improving Mr. Whitekeys after all the vandalism, and everyone throwing up the BLP shield as validating the notion of pushing the article more in the direction of subtle promotion rather than a proper biographical article. That problem doesn't seem to be limited to that article; I see that in any number of biography articles of people of marginal notability. The pro wrestling version of WP:NOT would be "Wikipedia is not a Baron Von Raschke promo", yet "dat is all dat da people need to know" manifests itself more often than is necessary. Getting back to Whitekeys, I would think the fundamental issue there is this: he can give his real name and date of birth to an ADN reporter, and the ADN can publish it in an article (link here), yet it's a BLP violation or crime against humanity to repeat that information on Wikipedia? Whether or not it was Whitekeys himself who vandalized the article, one thing is for certain: the person is savvy enough about the Internet to realize the difference between that information being buried in the lifestyle section of a Sunday newspaper, and being featured front and center in a Wikipedia article. Judging from his recent activities, an update would be helpful. There is also the issue of his departure from KTUU, which is another can of worms. The whitewashing of details concerning Schurz Communications taking over the station and replacing a number of the station's longtime staff and management, also "due to BLP concerns," seems suspicious to me because it's too coincidental with the current article reading like a commercial for Schurz.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On the SPI thing, unless you can point to a pupeteer and not just a suscpiscion based on an IP knows too much I don't think you will get very far. There are actually some pretty long term IP users around these days. A better approach might be to open a discussion on the talk page and try to get more users looking at the specific problems.


 * As to the situation with Mr. Whitekeys, there is a policy (that I don happen to agree with one bit) that if a living person makes it clear that they do not want us publishing their birthdate we do not do so, even if the whole world already knows. The specific case I am familiar with involved a British talk radio host who had an on-air birthday party every year. He happens to also hate Wikipedia so he used this policy to get his name removed just to fuck with us and unfortunately we let him get away with it. They have to prove they really are that person though, usually be emailing OTRS. Publishing their real name is a whole other affair. As it happens I have closed some discussions dealing with this exact issue. some folks were trying to expand the policy I mentioned to include real names of people who use stage names withpout first getting a consensus from the community that this was an appropriate interpretation of the policy. There is no policy that says we can't publish their real name if we get it from a reliable source, which ADN certainly is. Actually after taking another look it says in the cases of persons of marginal notability you can publish the year but not he exact date.


 * I'm kind of surprised he even has an article. If he is notable enough, surely Hobo Jim is too. He actually goes not only all over the state but down to the lower 48 to perform. Some people I know saw him perform at some tourism trade show in Tenessee a few years back. If I'm not mistaken his claim to be "Alaska's Official Baladeer" is not just a marketing gimmick and he really was so named by the legislature. Plus I have never seen anyone who can drink that much and still hit every note. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Diddy ;)
Remember closing the discussion at Sean Combs? It's rolled on, anyway. See: Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ANEW and
 * Talk:Sean Combs (it passed over Gimme's objections)


 * Can't say I find that particularly surprising. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wustenfuchs
Hi!, this is my account allowed by the WP:COMPROMISED

Please, can you look at the unblock request one more time. It's not about the message you think. I explained everything the best way I can at my talk page. When I was explaining the whole thing there was a misudnerstanding that someone removed some message in order to hide it from me. It's not that. The message I'm talking about was never removed and you may see it on my talk page. The whole thing is messed up. Can you please read my explanation in detail. Thx --FuchsWusten (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please Help me
I think my IP address is constantly changing. So, sometime It shows that Your IP is blocked by checkuser. This glitch is very annoying. Can you help me in this matter ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like there is an abusive user in your neighborhood. I am not a checkuser myself so I can't really look into it any deeper on my own. What you would need to do is outlined at WP:IPBE. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

special ed
Hi. Noted your contributions to the special education article (e.g. correcting the wrong view that LD is diagnosed as a medical condition) but now it is heading towards an edit war. Not sure if it is possible to talk sense into the two editors who claim (and have, as history shows for some time back and forth on this article) that it is biased. As someone who has worked on it (and I think education articles need more attention anyway) I'd like to avoid and edit war. I'm hesistant to work on it, as there has been reverting by these people to anyone they see as biased. Not sure what you can do but since you are an admin I thought it best to get perspective here.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't do anything administrativley as I would be considered WP:INVOLVED. I don't anticipate the situation working itself out, I think some sort of WP:DR is going to be the best way forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

kim ung-yong
Some information in this article about the graduation at the age of 15 from sources [], [], and []. Also i see no support in regards to him learning languages and cant find exactly where in the history it was added. Seems to be a fabrication based upon the sources list.(posting here as i have no honest idea how to edit a protected page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkytabby (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You would need to use editprotected on the talk page, and make a specific proposal for exactly what edits you believe should be made. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh?
Hi Beeblebrox. Just curious of the sudden blocking of both accounts, one of which I had just given Rollback to as a legitimate alternate account. I am aware of the bit of drama that was stirred up over the whole cabel thing awhile ago, but didn't seem pertinent to wanting to have the right transferred to a "public" account. I saw he was semi-retired, rather than plain retired, so I granted it. I wouldn't had if it was retired as it wouldn't have been an Alternate, but rather a new account. Did I miss something big? Kindly Calmer   Waters  03:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it appears to be in regards to the whole double redirect thing. I thought of it as just some odd tangling that resulted from redirecting his main accounts talk to his user page today, but having the original redirected when the account was first made. That is why I had undid it. I can now see that he did it before requesting the right on the other account (ie. making it difficult to communicate with him). Well hopefully I didn't e.c. you while trying to answer my own question :) Kindly Calmer   Waters  04:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The reasons for the block have nothing to do with rollback, so there's no problem there. The issue is more to do with his communication, or lack thereof. Several threads regarding this are in the recent history of his talk page. Even after three different admins spoke to him about it  he still saw fit to redirect his talk page to his userpage, making it more or less impossible to talk to him. It's a shame really, I don't think he is such a bad guy, but ever since the incident you mention he has displayed a very hostile attitude towards anyone who makes the slightest remark to him that he doesn't like, and it is clear that he has been deliberately making it difficult to communicate with him. That is pretty much the opposite of what is expected of any good-faith user.  Hopefully the block will serve to reinforce this point as he will have to communicate if he wants to have it lifted, and will have to do so in a less hostile fashion than has been his habbit lately. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense and sorry for the e.c. :). Thanks Beeblebrox. Take Care. Calmer   Waters  04:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Jeffwang
Hey Beeblebrox. You indef blocked Jeffwang but left a temporary notice on his talk page. I don't know which one is a mistake, but you might want to clarify that. Thanks! Ryan Vesey 04:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops.  Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also change it from "temporarily" to "indefinite" on his alternative account's talk page. Thanks, Electric Catfish 20:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Why do you want to block me? --216.54.1.10 (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Beeblebrox. I was just plodding around wikipedia and I noticed this. I can't see any on-wiki reason for this block... Is there some off-wiki reason, or would you mind pointing me to further on-wiki information. Feel free to email me if you'd rather.  Worm TT( talk ) 12:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe he was blocked for refusing to communicate. He repeatedly took measures to make it difficult to discuss with him on his talk pages and removed messages when people informed him of it.  He placed a retired message on his userpage, continued to edit, and refused to explain why to those who commented.  He finally redirected his talk page to his user page so Beeblebrox blocked him for not desiring to be a part of the community. Ryan Vesey 12:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I guess I didn't go far back enough to see that many issues. Cheers Ryan.  Worm TT( talk ) 12:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

requested account - too similar to your user name or not?
There is a request for an account with the user name Beberox. It does appear to be a fairly common user name out there on the internet. It doesn't have enough similarity for it to automatically have picked your user name as a conflict but it did remind me of you. So i though to ask if you think it might be seen as impersonating you or if you would be ok with it. delirious &  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 07:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's ok with me, but thanks for asking. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Syria
Can you please unlock the page. We have an agreement. -- Wustenfuchs  14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be wise to give it another day or so to make sure all involved parties have had a chance to review the compromise solution and respond to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Big delete
Howdy Beeblebrox. Are you familiar with the 'bigdelete' permission? I've been toying with the idea of proposing moving that permission from a meta-only function (i.e. stewards) to an en-wiki function, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. My thinking was that this should be added to the oversight group, but I didn't want to sign you guys up for extra work if you didn't want it. I suppose it could just as easily be a 'crat function or an entirely separate user right (or even just bundled into the standard admin package), but it seemed like a more natural fit for the oversighters since that involves a different type of "super-deletion". Thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While I suppose I wouldn't oppose this, it doesn't make all that much sense to me to roll it into oversight. I've never once, in the almost-year I've been an oversighter, had any call to do a bigdelete (or, really, a delete of anything bigger than about 100 revisions). That's not to say it couldn't happen, I guess; I just don't think it's a natural fit into OS duties. Rolling it into 'crat or making it a stand-alone right would make more sense to me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know what the userright entails and I can't seem to find any information on it. What is it exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If a page has more than 5000 revisions, in addition to 'delete' you also need 'bigdelete' to delete it (i.e. admins on this wiki cannot delete such pages).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I don't see any reason stewards should be required for that, it would be better to have someone local who is familiar with our deletion policies, so I support he idea in principle, but I'm not sure who should get it. Possibly crats and oversighters would make sense.Crats could handle any normal requests for it based pn a deletion discussion or other consensus based process, and OSers could use it in the rare event that such a page would need to be deleted for privacy or defamation concerns. In those cases we would want to be able to do it the way OS does everything, quietly. If we had to go ask a crat it could be a Streisand effect situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) What Jasper said. If you check my Meta contribs, you'll see I have to constantly go over there to bother the stewards to delete my bot's logs, since I get an error message when I try to delete them myself. It seems to me this would be something that en-wiki ought to be able to handle itself. 28bytes (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have archived your bot's log page anyway before the 5000th edit. Any deletion of a longer history can harm the servers, and who knows if that'll be neccessary on your page once too? For this very issue we on German Wikipedia have a bot that notifies our sysops on ANI about long histories of esp. meta discussion pages, see de:Benutzer:MerlBot/Lange Versionsgeschichte and de:Hilfe:Versionsarchiv. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps slightly off-topic, but one problem is that there's a bug or inconsistency with whatever code determines how many revisions a page has. My log page, for example, had less than 4500 revisions, but I was still prevented from deleting it. My bot typically makes around 150 edits per day to its monthly log page; I can, of course, add some code to my bot to work around that, by spreading the edits to different log pages, but that's somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether enwiki should be self-sufficient regarding deletions. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stewards recently discussed this issue with sysadmins. Fortunatelly, VasilievVV created a tool for this problem: http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php . Examples:
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=Main+Page — fine
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=Vladimir+Putin — probably fine
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=The+Beatles — may be complicated
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=George+W.+Bush — most likely to be problematic, you should not really delete this
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=Wikipedia%3ASandbox — already proven to break the site
 * http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator+intervention+against+vandalism — headshot
 * I once had to restore and delete dewiki's sandbox (with more than 90 000 edits) for a police investigation and caused some problems to our servers which have been solved by our sysadmins shortly. So please take this problem serious and if you want to discuss whether highly trusted and technically skilled (!) enwiki users should be allowed to use this right, please also invite (!) stewards and sysadmins in this discussion because they are the ones who already have this experience although they're “just from meta” … Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, certainly, I will be happy to include anyone, especially the knowledgeable folks who've performed this task on meta, in the discussion. 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rape during the bangladesh liberation war
Hi beeblebrox. You closed this rfc. Now a question has arisen whether this edit is in accordance with your close. Could you please take a look and clarify. Perhaps User_talk:RegentsPark or on the article talk page. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 01:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lilith Sternin
I have changed the scope of this article without merging. I just moved portions. Is that okay? --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You will find my answer on the article's talk page and in its protection log. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After I saw the protection log, I wonder: Have I screwed up lately? --George Ho (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is the protection necessary? As Hutton said, I've not done any edit warring, have I? --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * George, I am watching the talk page, let's please try to keep this in one place, and please try to be patient. There's no hurry. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gulf War syndrome
You might also consider the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus. --Amble (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thrissur Metropolitan Area
We'll have these Metropolitan area articles for some 50 + cities in India. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I closed the AFD, I did not participate in it and I have no opinion on the matter. I did re-open the stale merger discussion, your comments may be of more use there. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions for FDC candidates
Hi :-) thank you for putting yourself forward for the FDC. I want to draw your attention to the list of questions that people can answer to help the Board of Trustees learn more about the people volunteering for the committee.  Look forward to seeing your answers. Sydney Poore/--FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor amendment to YRC RFC closing statement
I made a minor amendment to your closing statement in the YRC RFC to clarify one word which I felt could have given rise to a misunderstanding about the timeframes. Hope this is OK with you. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure that was necessary since he obviously is familiar with the terms, but that's fine with me. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
I think I already thanked you, but I just wanted to make sure.

Ahem...

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Although you abstained, I appreciate your sentiments and I hope I'll continue to see your name pop up around Wikipedia.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh I'll be around, and I look forward to your next RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports
Beeblebrox, I'm not at all familiar with Wikipedia administration, so perhaps you could explain to me why you closed this discussion. I don't see consensus. I thought we were making good progress before Naapple declared "This conversation has gone on long enough," and, "The End." --Nstrauss (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Progress? If by that you mean it was becoming progressively more obvious that nobody agreed with you that the content belonged in the lead section, I would agree. Of you meant you were getting close to getting agreeement that it did belong I would say you have a case of selective deafness. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please re-read that thread. There were only 4 participants, including me. From the very start Naapple flagrantly violated WP:AGF and was very uncivil. Orange Mike only came in at the very, very end and did not explain his view. The last participant was Safehaven86. Although he and I had our differences we were clearly moving toward a common understanding.
 * The discussion lasted for only 8 days before you closed it, and the page has not been particularly active. Why not give others the opportunity to weigh in for, say, a couple more months before closing? --Nstrauss (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of months pf debate over one sentence in the article lead? Why? Why could this possibly be so very important to you? You may want to examine your own motivations for wanting thos so bad. Beeblebrox (talk)
 * I don't understand, are you accusing me of editing in bad faith? I demonstrated good faith by explaining in detail my motives in the discussion thread. It seems that you never read the thread before closing it. Please do so. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I merely asked you to honestly ask yourself why you are so fixated on the idea that the content be right on the lead section. Of course I read the entire conversation before performing a close. A close I stand behind 100%. I did not say you were acting in bad faith, but I did say you were having a problem listening. Re-opening the discussion would make it take longer to reach the same result again, but if you want to keep beating a dead horse I suggest you seek dispute resolution. I'll thank you to stop badgering me about it as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've opened a new AN/I discussion here. Sorry to keep pestering you on this issue; I wish there was a less painful way to do this. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: speedy deletion
Hi! Thank you for clarifying. I may have made similar mistakes a few times more. However, I will be more cautious. Cheers!--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion has a lot of little details like that, it takes a while to get them all down. Even some admins don't know all the ins and outs of the criteria. One good way to be sure is that every time you have nominated something go to WP:CSD and double check to be sure there isn't some detail you overlooked or were not aware of. It takes a bit more time but eventually you will be able to nominate articles with total confidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What about this one? I tagged it with notEnglish. Is that ok? Even the title is in some other language. SO it was difficult to ensure if this existed in other Wikimedia projects.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like that was an article in Thai about white-tailed deer, so it was deleted as WP:CSD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got it. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records
Thanks for locking the CBS Records article. This incarnation of CBS Records is not related to the former CBS Records entities which changed their names to Columbia Records regarding the label and Sony Music Entertainment regarding the company. In 1988, CBS sold CBS Records to the Sony Corporation and CBS gave Sony only a temporary license on the CBS name which forced the name changes and eventually allowed CBS's parent company CBS Corporation to form a new CBS Records in 2006. The dispute has to do with the insertion of too much material which actually belong in either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not looking to get involved in the actual content dispute, just shutting down the edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please re-lock the CBS Records article as Norton changed it back BEFORE the dispute was settled. I have a compromise solution of creating a new article called "CBS Records International" regarding the international arm of the former CBS Records (now Sony Music) that was founded in 1962. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Norton is at it again. Please take action.  I've already report this in Dispute resolution noticeboard. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Russ. Is there a way to keep the CBS Records article a DAB page permanently? Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just reading your post at AN. It reads like an announcement of intent to edit war. Frankly I think the both of you should walk away from this issue and let users who haven't been warring over it sort it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How do we start a WP:ARBCOM case regarding CBS Records? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:A/G for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hi, Beeblebrox. Would you be willing to take a look at this discussion and voice your opinions about it there? We are trying to come up with a resolution. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Speedy Gonzalez!

 * Hi, as →User:Память← was confirmed as a sock of the BANNED →User:Rinpoche← per SPI result, I requested for it to be speedily deleted per WP:DENY as indicated by the CU admin. Subsequently, it was indeed deleted but a newbie who was clueless about WP:DENY just went to re-tagged the user page. Could you help to delete it? Thanks and best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again~! Please disregard the above, Boing! said Zebedee just beat you to it... and I bet he watches this page~! Cheerio~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on the Ken Sibanda page
This is not possible. I am merely raising the fact that Altfish80 is a sock puppet that was created to attack the page. Thanks, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know what you mean by "this is not possible" but I was posting on your talk at the same time.please see my messages there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan
If you haven't seen the post at ANI please take a look. Any objection to me indefinitely blocking him now? IMHO I think I can do this on my own without community approval, but... Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Had a look, replied there, short answer is it has npthing to do with the terms established at the RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI case
Hi Beeb. It appears that User talk:94.12.133.144 may have resumed editing immediately after coming of his IP block. I am tempted to reblock, but I would like your input on this. You may find his recent editing  history  particularly  interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I actually declined one of those speedy nominations yeaterday without putting it together. When I see an IP edit its just a string of random numbers to me. Seems likely to me, but User:Acroterion may have more info as the blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

RAN
Something you told to Richard Arthur Norton apparently gave him a very wrong impression of what consensus is. See Talk:CBS Records, specifically this comment by RAN: "However we set time limits for debate and decision making here at Wikipedia. An administrator gave us three days of lock down to come up with consensus." You've mentioned it to him on, and I appreciate that you did, but could you tell him directly? He still just does not get it.--SGCM (talk)  19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#lead:_conservative_leaning_or_independent,User_talk:Beeblebrox#Rasmussen_Reports". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 21:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

suckpupeteer
Not seen that before. A valuable addition to the language! pablo 23:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I stronly prefer it to the term "sockmaster" which I think plays into the sockpupeteers image of themselves as a clever genius circumventing WP with their brilliant plan. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


Thank you for your Wikipedia help...

Daviddaved 00:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 

Userfy a deleted article
Is there any way you can userfy Articles for deletion/Huá to me? I know it's an old delete but just thought I try. —  AjaxSmack  02:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Now at User:AjaxSmack/Huá Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think there's anything worth salvaging but I couldn't remember.  —  AjaxSmack   05:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hi Beeblebrox, I wasn't aware that there was already a discussion going on at AN, must have missed that one completely. Would you mind me merging the thread you closed at ANI into the AN discussion? The 1RR proposal would have to get admin approval anyway so why not have a subsection at the relevant AN discussion. De728631 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind if you merged them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will do. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection on Goodreads article
Hi! I noticed you put an edit block on the Goodreads article because it was turning into a revision war, and I'm glad you noticed it so soon. I was actually just looking for the process of reporting a revision war. I just wanted to ask if it's possible for you to either revert to my previous copy of the article or to remove the controversy section entirely. I'd originally added it because the controversy had gotten some coverage and it resulted in the changing of several of the rules on the site as far as reviews go. I'd like to keep it in there in as neutral a fashion as possible, but if it's going to just cause drama then I'd just as soon not have it at all. In any case, the current article revision lacks reliable sources and looks to be biased towards the side of the side of the sites that are against the negative reviewers. I don't really have an opinion either way, but I would like it to be more neutral than what it currently is like. Could you compare the two versions and make a decision as to whether it should be changed to my version or otherwise deleted? The current article state is atrocious.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the short answer is probably not. Per WP:PREFER, protection usually means just protecting whatever version is currently on the page. (for a more lighthearted description of the same issue see the wrong version at Meta. Admins do not make rulings in content disputes and have no special authority over article content. What is needed is for a consensus to be established as to how the article will deal with these issues. If you don't feel the two of you can work that out a thord opinion is a good first step in informal dispute resolution. I see you have already tried to engage the other user in discussion, hopefully that along woth the protection will help resolve the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem so far is that the other user, although well intentioned, is new and unaware of how notability of persons is established and neutrality. I'd really, really appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the conversation between the two of us. I would prefer that we not have to go to dispute resolution but I doubt that we will be seeing eye to eye on this so I'm also going to put in for a third opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

One question added after your vote
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re Penyulap
I'm not able to post on Penyulap's talk, but please see this. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC).

AN
Hi. Disappointed to see you closed the discussion (request for moratorium) and suggested a RfC. Perhaps my opening statement wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking for a random admin to just declare "moratorium imposed", I was hoping there could be a bit of discussion by some uninvolved parties (admins and non-admins) and they could come to a consensus on whether a moratorium would be useful. The community has the authority to do this and AN is a central noticeboard, not an admin only area. To suggest a RfC, which would be along the lines of "well, we have this RfC over here where we can't get consensus, so I'd like to have a 30-day discussion (usually longer) to see if we shouldn't move these articles until we get a community consensus on the issue", is pretty ridiculous. Surely it's common sense, but try telling that to those involved. As for AN3, of course no one has technically edit warred (these are all experienced and intelligent editors), and a report there would just end in walls of text with no result. In addition, these editors just need a clear cut warning along the lines of "do this and you will be blocked, whatever your justification", something un-wikilawyerable, and they will stop. I'm WP:INVOLVED and unable to make these calls (plus, as you've noted at AN, it's not really something a single admin should be doing), and of course no uninvolved admins want to wade into the mess (can't blame them). Can you please repoen the AN discussion? P.S. – been meaning to say this for a while, but I thought your close of the Ivory Coast RM was excellent and tough break about the RfB. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is, AN is explicitly not the place for settling content disputes. The discussion got very long very fast but the majority of it was the same already involved parties just continuing their argument. The remainder of the remarks were me and one other admin trying to explain that there is no mandate for us to do anything. Without a consensus, there is simply no basis for an admin to do anything here, and that conversation was clearly not helping.


 * Some thoughts on how to proceed:
 * WP:DRN is usually a bit faster than RFC, maybe they could help.
 * Or a time limited-RFC. I agree that thirty days is probably not warranted for such a discussion, but the RFC framework is not set in stone, it can be modified as the situation warrants.
 * I am generally the last person on the world to suggest this, but this may even be that rare case where a poll is appropriate. Since the goal is not to resolve the content dispute but to calm things down so that it can be resolved, a time-limited poll (say five days or a week) to establish the moratorium would give admins the consensus that is needed to enforce any such moratorium, and the poll structure would hopefully discourage the involved parties from posting walls of text.


 * To be honest I wasn't going to formally close it, I pretty much marked it with NOTHERE and was ready to be done with it, but then I saw on my watchlist that LittleBen was going back in and posting, not new remarks at the bottom but modifications to remarks he already made that had already been replied to. Rather than have another argument with him it seemed best to just shut the whole thing down.


 * Oh, the Ivory Coast move. For me that served as a big reminder to keep it short and sweet when trying to explain a close. If you give too many details, people will jump all over them and look for the most sinister interpretation of them they can. It was funny actually, I was at a talk at Wikimania, less than a week later, where the presenter mentioned that nobody cites IAR anymore. Afterword several of us were discussing how he didn't get that admins use IAR all the time, we've just learned not to say so because it makes people go crazy. Thanks for your condolences on the RFB, but really, being told "you're too decisive we want someone more boring" is about the nicest rejection I've ever gotten. I obviously had not realized it, but if boring is what the community wants from crats I probably would not be a good one. I thought they wanted competence and a record of good judgement. Mu mistake. They want competence and no judgement, good or bad. What amused me is that I said right out that I would not answer what has long been the stupidest part of RFB: being asked to re-examine 10-15 old RFAs and say what you wpuld have done. A few people were really bothered by that, but then when 28bytes ran right after me, nobody tried that with him either. I basically count that as a win, we got a new crat and they weren't subjected to the usual hazing. Ok, you caught me just after getting up and clearly I am feeling a nit refelctive this morning and have now posted my own wall-o-text. Coffee time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi Beeblebrox, I replied to your suggestion a few days ago. Would you mind having a look and letting me know what you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devaraya (Telugu Film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This AfD removal
I'm a bit perplexed by this edit. Was that intended? AllyD (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! I guess not, seeing you've reverted. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Been editing with an iPad. When looking at a list of changes sometimes a lot of links are close together, all I meant to do was look at the diff but the iPad thought my finger was on the "rollback as vandalism" link. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I spent some time on holiday a fortnight ago with a (much cheaper) 7" slab for company and several times thought my fingers / the unresponsive little screen were on the brink of putting some grotesque tag onto an article. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! Ebe 123  → report 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I was about to give you one for shutting down that pointless DRN thread, I'll do that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved the star and copied a choice quote to help me remember in the future to User:Hasteur/HallOfPride. Because the quote uses your signature and timestamp exactly, please let me know if you want it removed.  Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I used the talkpage and did not edit war..The issue has been discussed numerously on the talkpage. Thank you--108.18.145.11 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * many users operate under the mistaken assumption that discussing on the talk page at the same time as edit warring makes it ok. It does not. You discuss instead of edit warring, not concurrent with it. It is a shame that the other user involved apparently refuses to do so, and is now blocked as they have clearly been at this a while but that does not make it ok to keep reverting them. There is no "right side" in an edit war, anyone who particpates is wrong. should this issue come up again, please seek dispite resolution and/or page protection as needed and do not edit war as you have been doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "the ahihud incident"
This page should not have been speedily deleted because... ( In a site that allowed the "Jerusalem UFO incident" page to remain for months without any sources until I came in and had it removed because it was a definite BLATANT HOAX and proved as such many times, the removal of "The Ahihud incident" is not just unfair but insulting, as the article about the ahihud incident, even at its incomplete state, had much more valid information in it the many other articled related to the subject, and the incident itself despite being debated over for almost 20 years has never once been proved to be a hoax, and actually proved not to be the product of a hoax, not once but twice, once by a government institute and once by a highly regarded research university. because of these reasons i will request the article deletion to be undone as soon as possible, so i may amend it to fit all wikipedia standards.) --The truth is around here (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article, despite being incomplete, was obviously not a "blatant prank" and only perceived as such because of its unusual topic, but if the editor was actually to read the article in its entirety he\she would have noticed the paragraphs featuring and quoting two different studies conducted at two different facilities, one from the from the L. Greenberg National Institute of Forensic Medicine and the other from the Technion Israeli Institute of Technology which prove the findings as impossible to be created by a hoax.
 * Because i am currently in touch with people who were involved in the researches conducted on the findings and investigated the event, i was indeed hesitant of adding specific information about the incident without learning from them if the information is accurate or sourced in rumors, the article was incomplete (a fact which was mentioned the end) and lacked important material and sources that would add to its validity a great deal. (photographs of the original documents issued by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine with the study conclusions written by professor Yehuda Hiss, chief pathologist and head of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine at abu kabir as of 1988-present, proving beyond any doubt that the findings from ahihud could not have been the result of a hoax, along with sources to the information featured in the article and links to media coverage of the incident.)


 * See, you merely claimed those entities investigated this supposed incident. Tell you what, you come up with one reliable source that mentions this supposed incident and I will restore the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The majority of the information written in the article about the circumstances of the event itself was not sourced in the entities who investigated the event, but was reported by each of the two dozen witnesses who were present in the event including Ziona damti, the female resident that first encountered the scene and Chief Superintenden Danny Elcoby of the acre police department who made a media appearnece following the incident explaining how things went down once he arrived at the scene (an apearence in can link to) and many other residents that agreed to be interviewed to the news that day, but all of the eyewitness accounts put togeather would still not have the value attributed to them if not for the actual physical remains left at the scene and the unusual conclusions of the two major studies conducted on them. reliable sources can indeed be provided and linked to the article if it was restored, i had recived a message from some editor telling me the article was nominated for deletion three days before, a warning i did not pick up on because as you may have noticed, im completley new to wikipedia editing and decided to get in to this to create the article about the ahihud event, which was in my opinion, quite supprisingly absent from the site (at least in hebrew, considering english mentions of the incident are quite few on the internet, and the fact that it is known in israel, as it occured in the countrys relativly recent history), so if you restore the page i will change the written information to include names of people involved to make it less obscure and change the phrasing to make it more straight forward but skeptic nonetheless. links to the few media mentions of the incident where the same information that was discussed and debated over in media forums by individuals involved can also be provided, along with links to the original documents leaked from the study conudcted on the remains by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine which was the second study to conclude that the findings cannot be the result of a hoax. The truth is around here (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understood what I said In my last post. Show me a reliable source, here, on this page, and I will restore the article. Providing the names of supposed witnesses is not going to cut it. Show me the source that says this incident occurred at all. The deletion was not based on the idea that the incident itself was a hoax but rather that the article you posted was a hoax. If it was not, show me the sources proving as much and I would be happy to restore it. Beeblebrox (talk)

Oh I got you, well if that's all i need then here is the news report brodcasted at that day in december of 94 about the incident, the lady who speakes first is mrs Ziona damti who first discoverd the findings and the man with the jacket that speakes after her is the police office that was sent to the scene, Chief Superintenden Danny Elcoby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REKi4JerDXs (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.222.212 (talk)
 * While it would be better if you could find something directly from a source as opposed to a repost from YouTube, it seems this is not a blatant hoax after all and as such I will go ahead nd restore the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes the video is on youtube but was uploaded on the official channel of the channel 2 news network (major channel in israeli television), the opening slide sais "internet news 2", so it's not exactly a repost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth is around here (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:SCWA Ladies Champion
Can you ban User:SCWA Ladies Champion? This user has uploaded countless copyrighted images from WWE and claiming them to be his own work.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really sure why you brought this to me specifically, but I will have a look. (FYI, a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN are not really the same thing, a single admin can't ban anyone, but I understand that you probably meant block.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And you're right, I meant to say block.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At glance it looks like they genuinely do not understand that hey are violating copyright by doing that. Unfortunately for them it makes no difference, we can't allow that. I've blocked them and deleted all the images as obvious copyvios. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for them and they can return to editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, to be fair I had just deleted another article they created that was tagged as a hoax, so it was easy to see the pattern, but thank you very much for the star! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: the natural gas issue
There already is Natural gas in Alaska, Alaska gas pipeline (which wasn't even tagged for WP:ALASKA until I took care of it just now) and Office of the Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects. Only the second one has any relevant history. They had a big pow-wow here about a week ago with Larry Persily and others. I attended (even though I'm cautious about my real-life identity on here, I'm the guy seated next to Scott Kawasaki in this photo), but it was a lot of talk we've all heard before for years decades. Maybe I should have gone to Arizona anyway, since I had the plane ticket. Last winter was ROUGH.

I'm actually rather amazed that I seem to have the ear of local legislators, with the exception of Bob Miller and David Guttenberg. One of those legislators told me that the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce lobbied for a gas pipeline from the North Slope during the mid 1950s, or around the time that exploration was occurring in Umiat. Then again, other chambers of commerce were pushing at around the same time for the Knik Arm Bridge and the road to Nome. It's like we're revisiting a bygone era of boosterism. The political mantra over the past decade has been "good jobs." The fact is, there just aren't enough of those good jobs for the population base we have now. I watched a lot of the legislature this year on Grovel to Grovel for the first time in many years. It seems like we have a government/labor union/oil company axis of evil which is content to take care of its own, with the rest of us fending for ourselves.

I haven't been to Chena Hot Springs in a long, long time, apart from accompanying Japanese tour groups. Basically, issues with the folks who currently run it. I always preferred Circle Hot Springs, but it's been closed for probably a decade now. There's also Melozi Hot Springs, but that's out of the way even for me at present.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We never stay at the actual resort. the public use cabins in the rec area are more our speed, and the North Fork cabin is a five minute walk from one of the few places up there where grayling fishing is legal. Great spot for the canoe and a bottle of wine as it's a stocked pond, I suppose to keep anglers off the Chena until wild stocks there rebound. I'm missing it right now, there is a reason we aren't usually in Homer in mid-September. The wind is howling, it rains most every day, and half the good places to eat are closed while the staff takes a long post-summer break. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment on Jimbo's talk page
" loads and loads of ignorant arguments, ethnic/political/religious mudslinging, wildly off-topic rambling postings of all kinds, name calling, trolling"... and those would be its better qualities! -- Orange Mike |  Talk  18:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that it has become clear who was really proposing the idea it all makes sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

James Klar and The Magic Pig
I googled it before tagging it as a hoax and this is what I found. It provides no indication that the book exists, and therefore, I believe that it is a hoax. Please take another look at it. Thank you, Electric Catfish 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC).

History merge
I was wondering if you could merge User:Zac/Sandbox/Liz & Dick to Liz & Dick for me? Thanks. Zac  22:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been done without me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Keith Vaz.
Could I ask you to look at this and change if and only if necessary. Regards JRPG (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverting it was probably sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records redux
It seems that Moxy cannot admit that what he believes to be true the admins do not agree with. I lost my patience with him as you can see from the back and forth in the Talk:CBS Records page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point it seems unlikely that administrative action alone can resolve this problem. I again suggest that this dispute has risen to the level where WP:ARBCOM may need to become involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's already in RfC at Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies but I have yet to see outsiders add their input. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well thank you! It's nice to get the right kind of notice when one has recently gotten the wrong kind. Not that I am ashamed of my remarks, but to see them used by Fox News... gross. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Wrong barnstar -  it should have been the 'Defender of the Wiki' one ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PC
FYI. And FWIW, on a slightly  different  note regarding NPP, although I am not entirely in favour of creating a right for NPP, I fear that  the question may become inevitable when the NewPagesFeed is finally  released for general  use and has been monitored for a while. The reviewer right (whatever that will  be) could be a possible guideline, and might incorporate both if need arises. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 :- ) Don 04:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC
Hello Beeblebrox. I happened to see your comment at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Recently User:Arthur Rubin was reported at WP:AN3 by MrX, per WP:AN3 for some reverts that involved mention of SPLC opinions. So far no admin has decided to close the AN3 report. In the effort to nudge things toward closure, I have begun a discussion at User talk:Arthur Rubin. It's my hope that a compromise with Arthur could be found that would allow closing the AN3 report about him. If you have anything to add to the discussion on his talk page it would be fine. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, Can you warn this ip: ..I am not even sure if all of his vandalisms were undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅', although anyone can issue a vandalism warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Blah blah...
I realized that the same discussions were raging on. After thinking about it, I decided that further contributions on my part would amount to beating a dead horse. I saw the announcements for those research accounts. Unfortunately, I'm back to getting my Internet access primarily through the library or through Wi-Fi on my phone. Therefore, it would be a waste of those accounts. Besides, there's a treasure trove of material available at just about any library to anyone willing to spend the time required to find it. For instance, I came across the Pioneers of Alaska's history of Homer the other day. Looking through the 1930s-1950s photos made me realize that Homer hasn't really changed all that much in the years since.

The borough's library director has a column every Monday in the FDNM. His column this week ended with the lament that Alaska is pretty far behind other places in biographical coverage of its people. I talk to a lot of like-minded people on subjects like these, and the attitude is that everyone is waiting around for a grant or a book deal. The ones who have made their living on the sort of thing that you and I and others have done on Wikipedia for free pretty much loathe Wikipedia for that very reason.

That 1964 Milepost I previously referred to mentions that Wasilla was (at the time) well-known as the home of Gerrit "Heinie" Snider, a highly notable person from Wasilla who had the misfortune of being somewhat lost to modern history. I wonder if it's worth mentioning elsewhere or if people would wind up scratching their heads. If Sarah Palin lives on Lake Lucille, she probably lives on part of the Snider homestead. Also, Snider's daughter was mayor of Wasilla when Palin was in junior high. Lots of history that's not being taken into account. Like when I was glancing at the FDNM website, look at the attention given to Coleman Barney versus Richard Frank, and tell me who is the more historically important person.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites talk page
Please could you enforce the 'rule' you posted on Talk:Crimean Karaites that "New remarks below old remarks. Don't insert remarks into the middle of a thread." Kaz is inserting comments into the middle of the thread on Talk:Crimean Karaites, and has started doing the same at Talk:Karaim language.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does Toddy1 always do something, then when I copy him he points out how wrong my actions were but never points out what he himself has been doing. Classic straw-man attack. I think it best for me to simply continue to reply where Users are talking to me. But I promise, that if Toddy does what he wants me to do then I will follow him. I am only copying him after-all. Kaz 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am so sick of this bullshit. Go find some other admin to babysit the lot of you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting WP:FORUM statement for Talk:Crimean_Karaites
I'd appreciate it if you'd reinforce the Wiki Not A Forum on that TP - the page is a mess in many ways, but there is also waaaay too much discussion between some editors about their personal beliefs/experiences instead of discussing Reliable Sources to improve the article. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to the thread directly above this one. I have asked at WP:ANRFC for a previously uninvolved admin to come in and close the move discussion. The rest of it is probably going to need some form of WP:DR,  not an admin babysitter. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Renaming User: Shanequinlan01
Listen thanks for the courtesy blanking but I'd rather have the account renamed. I'm finished with wikipedia and I really don't want any reminders as well as the fact that I want to protect my privacy. The name still comes up despite the page being deleted. Stockprice(temporary) (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) PS This account is only temporary for the purpose of dealing with my request.


 * I've emailed the bureaucrats mailing list asking them to consider renaming the account. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much.

Stockprice(temporary) (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

On Ceviche
I read that you took the page under protection, as I understand, against non-consensus moves. Lately I have been the only user who wanted to move that page to: Cebiche. It was not possible manually so I asked admin help. Than I saw that there are several users who opposed a possible move. So I opened a discussion on the RM. (In fact I only added an RfC tag to the discussion I had already opened and nobody had joined by then.) Anyway, after this we will only discuss the RM and at the end of the discussion wait for an admin to close it, in favour or against. Nobody is making a move without consensus. (When I tried to move the article there was no visible controversy -no discussion on the TP- so I never thought doing something arbitrary. Could I make myself clear? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is in trouble or anything, the protection is just to stop any future moves from being made without a consensus. It is usually a good idea to check the talk page archives before making a move, in this case it has in fact been discussed before so it cannot be considered an uncontroversial move. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings and...
Greetings Beeblebrox. Have seen your note over at es.wiki and requested the corresponding speedy deletion. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

whack
For false minnowing.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw, c'mon. your nom suggested merging, and when pressed about that all you added was "I think this ought to be deleted". there was a 0% chance that you would convince anyone because you failed to actually present the case for deletion. I would expect more from someone with such an enormous laptop. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Greetings Beeblebrox. I want you to know that I mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Case because I believe you are involved in this case and if it is accepted, your input is required. Thank you. 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I normally try to avoid "in-jokes" but that one was too much too pass up. Glad it served its intended purpose! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Stone Bond Technologies Questions Deletion
We see that you have deleted Stone Bond Technologies from Wikipedia with input that the company/product is not significant. Since we are new at the Wiki environment there may have been some missteps in some of our links but this is no reason for deletion. In fact, this seems to be a rather targeted effort as our page was in the review, comment, edit mode within the review structure.

A few facts...

Our software technology is covered by multiple patents. The software dramatically changes the manner in which complex data integrations take place resulting in significant dollar savings for users. The size of a company (44 people) does not denote significance in any way. What a user can accomplish denoted significance. The fact that there has not been much written about the software or company also does not connote significance. I demonstrates the company likely invests in R&D rather than PR.

Finally, if Stone Bond does not qualify then neither do any of the following...

Composite Software Denodo Technologies Oracle - Data Service Integrator Informatica JBOSS - TEIID Data Virtualization OpenLink Software Radiant Logic VirtualWorks Group Adansys

Please contact me directly if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddbrinegar (talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, it seems there are a few things that need to be clarified.


 * First off, the deletion was not my idea or my decision, I closed he debate at Articles for deletion/Stone Bond Technologies as part of my role as an administrator. The discussion there reflects a consensus that the article should be deleted. Consensus is Wikipedia's primary model for decision making.


 * You say that the fact you have not been written about much is not a reason for deletion. In point of fact that is the primary reason that articles are deleted from Wikipedia. The bar for inclusion is based not on "significance" but on notability. Wikipedia aims to only cover items that meet its definition of notability, as reflected in coverage from reliable sources. This is not the place to try and establish that notability, and we obviously can't just take the word of someone with an obvious conflict of interest such as yourself. If we did that we would have to cover every organization on earth so long as they took a moment to tell us how great they are.


 * This is an ongoing, evolving project and it is entirely possible that some of the other articles you mention should be deleted, it's just that nobody has gotten around to nominating them yet. there is no indication this was a "targeted effort" articles are deleted by the dozens as the result of deletion discussion, every single day.


 * I hope this clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI. Thanks!  Theo polisme  20:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites and User:Kaz
After seeing an ANI thread that Kaz had moved this page in spite of the ongoing move request, and in a way designed to prevent moving it back, and after seeing that he is continuing to screw with the formatting of the talk page, I have blocked Kaz indefinitely, and Drmies and I have reverted the page move. You appear to know much better than I what's going on here, so if you think the block was a mistake, please feel free to adjust in whatever way you think best. (FWIW, my thinking is that I don't mean "indefinite" as in "infinite", but "indefinite" as in, "need to convince an admin you'll knock it off"; that's why it wasn't an escalating 2-day or 1-week block) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I had been thinking for some time that it was just a matter of time until something like this happened. Neither of you is as quick to block as I am, if I hadn't unwatched the whole affair a few days ago I probably would have done the same thing. It's been exasperating. The talk page is an awful mess too. I archived anything older than September but maybe now would be a good time to clear the air and by archiving most of the rest of it as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to waste anyone's time, since there appears to have been a lot of discussion there, but yeah, I wonder if the whole thing shouldn't be archived, and start over clean. I mean, I'm not an idiot, but I cannot figure out what is going on on that talk page. I'm not really even clear on whether Kaz is solely to blame; there appears to be at least one other very wordy very battelground-y person there (I stopped looking after that).  And now Seb seems to be implying they're not even agreed on the subject of the article?  Unwatchlisting seems a very good idea, and  think I shall be a coward and do so right now.  Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave it a couple of weeks, but I suspect this may end up before ArbCom. The content issues are continually overshadowed by bickering and general misbehavior on the talk page, and you are quite right that more than one user is responsible. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"downright desperate"
I can assure you, I am not "downright desperate" to get 12.153.112.21 blocked. I actually would work with him if he would follow the rules and policies of Wikipedia, lose the cocky attitude of his that he knows more than everyone else and tries to be on the same page as everyone and not jump the gun and edit war. Maybe calling his place of work was a little overboard, but when the user continuously vandalized a page, time and time and time again, after warnings not to, after warnings from 2 admins to stop editing, reverting to 2007 information, I felt it was the only way to stop the user. The page is deleted and I am still having to deal with this user. I'm not "downright desperate" to get 12.153.112.21 blocked, but he and Powergate sure seem "downright desperate" to get me blocked and admin approved userspace pages deleted. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 07:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like that WP:BOOMERANGed pretty badly. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox. I am restoring "my" userpages to what I think they ought to be according to WP:SOCK, over the (unsourced) objections of other editors. I'm sure I would be told cogently and with policy sources if I should be doing anything different. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriots and Vandalism User:E4024
Hi. In 27th September, one user delete some important informations from Turkish Cypriots article with an argument like "source" wasn't suitable with info and change that part of article with totally Turkish Nationalist perspective info. Today I did try to edit Turkish Cypriots article with using more reliable sources (eg. Governmental infos and research which supported from European Commission) and suitable with the version they deleted and I shared my ideas in Talk Page of article. But after few minutes User:E4024 turned article back to old version with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". And I was wondering in Wikipedia can users decide to choose "better edition" which have nationalist and fictional perspectives and delete versions which "has lots of reliable sources" and objective perspective? Isn't it vandalism? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghuzz (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the short answer is no, not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism as changes made with the obvious intent to harm the encyclopedia. It is unhelpful and frankly rude to accuse a person you are in a content dispute with of vandalizing. A more appropriate response is to open a discussion of your reverted changes on the article's talk page. If you can't resolve the dispute between the two of you there are many forms of dispute resolution available to help you reach a solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your answer. I listened your advise and again opened a section in Talk Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_Cypriots (Last 2 title). And I write everything long and polite way. Can you please spend 5 minute to read my writing and the reaction that user give. Here is wikipedia and we are need to edit things with reliable sources and but i didn't know that some people have chance to choose whats going to write in article and whats not. And can you also help me about figure out how other users will talk and find a middle way with this user who trying to use wikipedia with their turkish nationalist purposes? Thank you for your time and kind regards (Ghuzz (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC))


 * That would be why I suggested dispute resolution. Administrators do not have any special authority over the actual content of articles. I would suggest WP:3O as a place to start, or WP:DRN. You might also want to check out the teahouse, they can help with a wide variety of issues. I will also ask at Wikipedia talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board for more eyes on the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Link?
I'm curious to see the post you refer to here, any chance of a link and background if not obvious? FT2 (Talk 17:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't really want to call out the person by name as they were eventually blocked briefly for their behavior and I consider the matter settled now, but if you look at the history of this page for Sept 30 I think you can piece it together easily enough. The actual dispute occurred at WP:AN (and is now in archive 240, section titled "for the future") but spilled over onto both our talk pages until I removed the thread here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your unblockables essay
I just wanted to say that I found this very interesting and well-written, and if I do one day become an admin, something that I could benefit from. I took the liberty of correcting a couple of minor grammar-related errors, but other than those, it was a great read! AutomaticStrikeout 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The knowledge there was earned through some somewhat embittering experiences with the type of users described therein, so my primary goal in writing up the phenomenon was to serve as a warning to others. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you can use your negative experiences to help others out, you are making something good come out of it. I say bravo to that. AutomaticStrikeout 01:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

, but you already knew that...anyway, it must be the comparatively low level of activity or my deliberate avoidance of certain topics, but I'm utterly amazed that I've yet to be blocked or banned. Especially given my tendency towards uncivility and bad faith, amongst other things.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned
This is to let you  know that  you  have been mentioned in  a discussion about an event  in  which  you  may  have been involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Outing! Outing! Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick note
I've altered the capitalisation of sections in the RfC you started. I hope you're okay with it. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

name of Azerbaijan
On your deletion, I would like to say there used to be a page History of the name Azerbaijan and there is controvery with regards to the application of the name (see section all the way in the end). Consequently, it was agreed long time ago to make this page..which was then shortened to name of Azerbaijan and now removed...There was a working page on the idea which should not have been removed. Anyhow, I did not duplicate but restored History of the name Azerbaijan.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I fully understand what it is you are trying to say, but that page would appear to me to be covered by the decision reached at Articles for deletion/Name of Azerbaijan and as such I have deleted it. Any "working pages" on this topic should either be subpages of Talk:Azerbaijan or user subpages. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that is because you did not read all the past history of the article and did not read the work page of that article.. Now you deleted the work page of the article..Can you restore the workpage of that article? No.. so all the debates and ideas that went from 2006..was deleted by yourself!  No matter that material is in the Persian version of Azerbaijan and can be restored by other users in another time.. but your deletion was too hurried without reading the /workpage of the previous article?  How can now one access that workpage?--108.18.145.11 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also you deleted the link that went from Iranian Azerbaijan.. why? Just to let you know..the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not even mention the Caucasian country under Azerbaijan. At least in the pre-Islamic times, it has nothing to do with the modern republic --108.18.145.11 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Also you did not count the keep votes? They were more. Just FYI: So you basically deleted all of this information.. the reason that E10204.. wanted the article deleted was because he wanted the working page deleted.. But all of that information exists basically in Persian wikipedia.. --108.18.145.11 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC) And there was really "no concensus" based on the votes of the talkpage but you deleted it?. --108.18.145.11 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Minorsky, V. ; Minorsky, V. "Ādharbaydjān (Azarbāydjān)." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P.Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. <http://www.encislam.brill.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_COM-0016 “ called in Middle Persian Āturpātākān, older new-Persian Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲agān, Ād̲h̲arbāyagān, at present Āzarbāyd̲j̲ān, Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη, Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων, Armenian Atrapatakan, Syriac Ad̲h̲orbāyg̲h̲ān. The province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander's invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muḳaffaʿ, in Yāḳūt, i, 172, and al-Maḳdisī, 375: Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲ b. Bīwarasf)
 * Rouben Galichian, "Historic Maps of Armenia: The Cartographic Heritage",I. B. Tauris (July 23, 2004)(pg 9-10:"In accounts and maps produced prior to 1918, the region of Iran called Azerbaijan or Aderbaijan(also known as Atropatene, which is the old version of Azerbaijan) has always been to the south of Arax(es) River, which is the border of Iran and Armenia today.... This territory, prior to being called Azerbaijan, was called Albania (Arran), which included the various khanates (khan's districts) of Derband, Shirvan, Daghestan, Talish, Shusha and Moghan
 * Ben Fowkes, Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002) pg 30 “ In fact, in medieval times the name 'Azarbaijan' was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbent
 * [] "The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad. This new entity consisted of the former Iranian Khanates of Arrān, including Karabagh, Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Talysh (Ṭāleš), Derbent (Darband), Kuba, and Nakhichevan (Naḵjavān), which had been annexed to Russia by the treaties of Golestān (1813) and Torkamānčāy (1828) under the rubric of Eastern Transcaucasia."..
 * So basically you deleted the information about the whole controversy.. It exists in the Persian wikipedia anyhow, but your deletion of it in English wikipedia was due to your lack of experience on the subject and not researching the previous histories of the topic itself. --108.18.145.11 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem like you are kind of freaking out about this right now, So I am going to stop discussing it for the moment as it doesn't seem like a productive use of time. I'll reply later when you have had a chance to calm down a little. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not freaking out.. I have been here since 2006..I know the article very well and contributed to it. I was out for a period and the article was shortened to a working page (because of multiple quotes). But you deleted it based on its condensced version and not based on the fact that the working page was there to expand the article again.  The working page was there to expand the article, which is not something that you considered.  The working page had 100s of lines..  So I ask you to repeal the decision based on the fact that material from the working page will be put in the article (when users agree).  Thanks--108.18.145.11 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop posting here and go do something else for a while. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. When you have time, please read the /workingpage of the previous article and its history.  I know deletes can be undone --108.18.145.11 (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, Let's start with what appears to be to the basic premise of your complaint: that I decided to just go on some sort of spree of deleting pages related to the name of Azerbaijan. What happened is that a user nominated the article for deletion. It was debated for a week. I see from your contributions that you made edits on three of the seven days the article was being discussed, but you did not participate in that discussion. That would have been the appropriate place to make your argument for retaining the article. When a debate has been open for more than a week it gets listed at Articles for deletion/Old. I was helping out clearing the backlog there and clicked on this AFD. Why I closed it the way I did is explained at the debate itself. please be aware that AFD, and all other content discussions on Wikipedia, are just that, discussions, not votes. I know they kind of look like votes the way they are formatted but sheer numbers do not mean an automatic "win" for a position.


 * So, we have established that there was a week-long open discussion of whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on the subject of the name of Azerbaijan, and that in my capacity as an administrator I determined that a consensus existed amongst those users whose arguments were based on Wikipedia policy that we should not have such an article. This is a very common scenario that happens dozens of times every single day. As an administrator who closed the debate it was my responsibility to delete not only the article itself but all pages dependent on it. This included a rather wide array of talk pages and archives whose names did not match with the article. Somehow in that confusing mess I missed the "history of the Name of Azerbaijan" redirect page until you posted here indicating you had turned it back from a redirect into an article.


 * The discussion that I closed was to determine whether Wikipedia should have an ar title on the subject of the name of Azerbaijan. When you editied the redirect to make it into the same article I really had no choice but to delete it, which I actually should have done two hours earlier when deleting the rest of the pages. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion of what was on those pages or the substance of the arguments made there. As you correctly assumed I did not read them, nor was I required to in any way. This was purely an administrative action and part of the process of being thorough when closing a debate.


 * This may seem like a very long explanation but you seemed so upset yesterday and to be coming at this from so many angles that I felt it important to be abundantly clear about how I came to delete all these pages and that the bulk of your comments about why this should not have happened are misplaced. I have no opinion on the matter myself, my actions were purely administrative.


 * So, that brings us around to the issue of restoring some of the deleted pages. As far as restoring any page into article space, obviously that can't happen due to the AFD decision. I'm looking at the history of the deleted page Talk:Name of Azerbaijan/workpage. and while there are certainly a lot of contributions in that history I am not seeing any edits by you or any other IP users, and no edits at all since April of this year. That doesn't look to me like an active discussion but if it is needed I could restore it as a subpage of the main Azerbaijan article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks for looking into this.
 * You said: "Somehow in that confusing mess I missed the "history of the Name of Azerbaijan" redirect page until you posted here indicating you had turned it back from a redirect into an article. ". That is the problem I am trying to point out.  Other uses mentioned in the AFD page, but how did you miss it?  The issue is that there was a lot of keep votes, and this issue was mentioned.  No offense to you, but  it seems without careful consideration (no offense to you), you deleted the page.  Of course, if I was in your position, and did not the history of the whole article and probably hundreds of edits that went into it, I would have done the same.
 * Note the fact that there is an article Iranian Azerbaijan is itself enough to make the article name of Azerbaijan worthy of restoration.
 * "Azerbaijan" is not the mainpage, as historically, Iranian Azerbaijan is Azerbaijan. This is the definition at least in the prestigious Encyclopaedia of Islam.  Please look at the Encyclopaedia of Iranica entry: .  It does not even correspond to the modern day country (where many allege the name was chosen to detach the historical Azerbaijan).
 * The discussion has not been active since April, but there have been active discussion since the beginning. I contributed 6 years ago to that article (with a previous a username).
 * The issue has some resembelence to Macedonia naming dispute (from a history point of view at the time). If all the quotes are restored back, eventually, the article will be rewritten.  For example:
 * "Ben Fowkes, Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002) pg 30 “ In fact, in medieval times the name 'Azarbaijan' was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbent".
 * Rouben Galichian, "Historic Maps of Armenia: The Cartographic Heritage",I. B. Tauris (July 23, 2004)(pg 9-10:"In accounts and maps produced prior to 1918, the region of Iran called Azerbaijan or Aderbaijan(also known as Atropatene, which is the old version of Azerbaijan) has always been to the south of Arax(es) River, which is the border of Iran and Armenia today.... This territory, prior to being called Azerbaijan, was called Albania (Arran), which included the various khanates (khan's districts) of Derband, Shirvan, Daghestan, Talish".
 * I should note other quotes also exist that might differ with this opinion and that is why it is good to have them all in one article..else this issue keeps coming up.
 * Anyhow, I believe the justification that there is a workingpage is sufficient to restore the old page..these controversial quotes were moved to the working page, since the article had too many quotes (the reason being that users did not agree on these quotes). Which means eventually there is a need for mediation on how to proceed with the article sometime in the future.  Thanks.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since restoring Workingpage is not a problem for yourself, please restore it in Iranian Azerbaijan (if you cannot restore the AFD article) but please restore it with its history (as well). Then future users can at least work on the issue and the issue would not keep recurring (which it does once in a while).  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dirty Filthy Mugs recreation
Hello

I am pretty new to Wikipedia but i want to make a page that previously had been deleted by you.

"A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 21:45, 25 December 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted page Dirty Filthy Mugs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty filthy mugs)"

As you can see, it was deleted almost 2 years ago, with the reason they are not popular enough. They currently have 2 studio albums, and 2600 'fans' at their Facebook page. Also if you listen to the 'popular' online radio called sky.fm (poppunk section) you can occasionally hear their songs. I think that makes them pretty popular.

To make one thing clear, I am in no way judging your ban on the page as it was the right thing to do by your rules and standards. I am only saying enough time has passed and that they are ready for a Wikipedia page. Also if it is not a big problem, it would be easier for me to re create and update the page if you would restore it to its original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silwanas (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Awaiting your reply -Silwanas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silwanas (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the reasons you present here that they are now sufficiently notable (which is not quite the same thing as popularity) to warrant inclusion are not going to be considered sufficient. What is needed is evidence that the group and their work have already been the subject of significant coverage by entities that meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. A Facebook page and personal observations that they have been heard on Internet radio are not going to be helpful towards establishing that. However, what I can do is restore the page as a user subpage for you. This will afford the opportunity to build on the work already done and to rectify the issue of adequate sourcing. When it is ready it can easily be turned back into a proper article by using the page move feature. Let me know if you would like that done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - I see your point now. Yes, please do that and i will look into it with more precision and maybe as some help from their fans.

I thank you again, you have been very helpful in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silwanas (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ It is now at User:Silwanas/Dirty Filthy Mugs. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong username
I am confident I was right to make this change. It took me all of half a minute or so to find the right account: just look for the one that has been doing stunningly similar editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. and I just moved the declined request that you pasted over the block notice. hooray for teamwork! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ! JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS talk page
Thanks. Although "Disruption is not tolerated" is more neutral. I will retrain the old title in the collapsed section. Apteva (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I am getting dragged into this by editors' using my name
I have no edits on WP:MOS. My only edits to the structure of the RFC thread on the talk page have been two hattings, both not undone by anybody. I have never reverted anything else, endorsed any particular state of that thread and its closure, and never reverted such state or edit summaries in there. I have no idea why two editors are using my name to continue an edit war on the talk thread. Churn and change (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they like to use your user name as a verb? Apteva (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Close
I saw your close here. Not sure if it was me identified in the close (which I appreciate), but I did need to apologize to Logos-Word, which I did here. I apparently lost my sense of direction in what I was trying to say, and made it worse by doing it with a new editor. If I make those kinds of bad posts again, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

MoS
Hi Beeblebrox, would you mind unprotecting the MoS so that the conclusion of the recent RfC can be applied (or adding it yourself if you feel the page needs to remain protected)?

It is regarding Darkfrog's edit of yesterday, which Noetica reverted. We held an RfC from September 1 to October 4 to ask whether those words ought to be restored to the MoS. Nathan Johnson (an uninvolved editor) closed it on October 4 as consensus in favour of restoration. Noetica is strongly opposed to those words, and twice reverted Nathan's closure. He argued that an admin ought to close the RfC. I therefore asked (on AN/RFC and AN/I) for an uninvolved admin to endorse or overturn the closure, which RegentsPark did yesterday, restoring Nathan's closure. Noetica reverted RegentsPark's too, though RegentPark's restored the closure, and left this note. 

Darkfrog then attempted to implement the conclusion of the RfC, and Noetica reverted him also. That is the version of the page that is protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The protection has nothing to do with who was right or wrong, it was done solely to stop the edit warring. See WP:WRONG, which I imagine a user as experienced as yourself is already aware of anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that, but the RfC conclusion ought to be implemented. Your protection has favoured the only person who has edit-warred throughout the entire RfC, including overturning the closure of the RfC multiple times against an uninvolved editor and an uninvolved admin. It doesn't make any sense to me to reward that. It's not a question of who is right or wrong content-wise, but who is right or wrong in terms of the process. What we have been trying to do here is follow process, despite Noetica's attempts to derail it, and I would very much appreciate admin support for that position, because respecting process during disputes is the only thing that is sustainable. I wonder whether you were confusing the reverting on the MoS over a separate issue; there has been recent reverting over hyphens (or similar, I'm not sure), but that is not connected to the RfC. Darkfrog made only one edit to implement the RfC and Noetica reverted him once (this time). So page protection over that issue seemed premature. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You may notice I have consistently used the term "edit warring" without ever mentioning number of reverts. Between the page itself and the talk page there was edit warring going on and I put a stop to it. As a completely uninvolved admin I couldn't care less which version of the page got the protection, the edit warring had to stop. I don't see any urgent need to implement anything. As I have tried to make clear at the talk page if edit warring resumes after the protection expires or is lifted the option of blocking instead is very much on the table. However I won't be around to babysit this situation all day today so if there is a solid consensus on the talk page regarding how to proceed feel free to file a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP, with a pointer to this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I'm reverting Noetica's last revert at WP:MOS because that was the consensus of the RfC and I believe we should implement consensus, especially at the conclusion of a consensus determining process and because it is best, always, to do things sooner rather than later. Since there has been plenty of drama already, and I have no desire to add admin drama to the mix, feel free to undo my revert for any reason or for no reason at all! --regentspark (comment) 18:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As we are both obviously working towards introducing some sanity into this messy situation I am more than happy to let your edit stand. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

McFly85
Not to drudge up something entirely pointless, but I thought I should clear up the matter in this. The reason he was not blocked was because he said he was leaving, back in 2005, and he never left. The sockpuppets you questioned are in fact, his. They were checkuser confirmed by User:Fred Bauder after relentless sockpuppeting to !vote on my RFA's and vandalize my userpage. Obviously he has not left and he is still actively editing, and given his past conduct, he is likely under another account. Regards, — Moe   ε  05:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ithaca Bakery and Collegetown Bagels
Please userfy this article and tell the students where it can be found, they may want to try to improve it further. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am usually more than willing to do so, but I'm afraid I don't see how or why it would be a good idea to speculatively userfy something that was properly deleted. without anyone putting themselves forward as being interested in working on it I don't even know where to userfy it to, and it is also unclear how one would contact these students, who remained strangely silent during the AFD itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've left a note on the instructor's talk page, feel free to clarify anything there. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_4#Talk:Marvel_Studios.23Disney_Distribution
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_4 - Give the RFComments some time? Not sure. The RFC as I pointed out is not needed I already agree when they actually showed me a source that agreed with their position. Then I was reported to AN/EW for expecting them to talk on the talk page and expecting a verifiable source not one that implied. There is no reason for this RFC. It is because I seem to have entered a Twilight Zone of no one capable of understanding that the argument is over ... done ... Hence the caps and the request for closure. When I already agree with them and I point that out and then they continue edit warring and RFComments for no reason? Why in the world doesn't any one understand me? I am using English. Spshu (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm
This, sir, is looking very cool and interesting. I think we could learn a lot from fifty (or however many) people's answers to a questionnaire like that, and I'm really interested to see where you take this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this could be a good way to gather input without expecting users to wade through the confusing mess the main RFC is becoming and without all the misunderstandings and so forth we are seeing there now. It'll be a lot of work to go through it all, and still more work to turn those results into an actual policy proposal, but this was never going to be easy. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS
First, thank you very much for taking the time to help out with reducing the nonsense there.

I am well aware of my responsibilities as an editor. The incivility there, though is not something that I brought there or contributed to. It is, however, something that I am contributing to ending. From Talk page guidelines "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." Warning others that others have been brought to task for violating the sanctions there is clearly irrelevant. Complaining about an editors conduct is clearly irrelevant. Apteva (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And under good practices: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."

While it is essential to comment on the climate of incivility, naming specific editors is not, in my opinion, appropriate. --Apteva (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is that you are not helping the situation. You seem bent on getting the other users involved in trouble and you have edited their remarks again and again. Somehow you have failed to notice that your actions are not improving the situation but rather are making it worse. Best practices are not iron-clad rules that you must enforce, and the fact that you are attempting to invoke the arbitration sanctions for that page is at least tangentially related anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. Actually I am trying to keep them out of trouble. But editing their remarks again and again if they are again and again adding off topic sections is what I would expect every editor to do - but of course not to the point of edit warring. In one place I made a joke and it was not taken very well so I retracted it, and someone deleted my improvement, to leave the joke there. What's up with that? The joke was not appropriate and could have been deleted on sight by anyone, and especially by the editor who made the joke. The decision to delete content from a talk page for inappropriateness is sometimes easy, and like every decision, is sometimes less obvious. If someone says " " (insert your favorite expression) on a talk page, it is disruptive to the discussion. Would you delete it and warn the editor, comment on it there and not warn the editor, or ignore it? And if the offended editor deleted it and someone else put it back? Apteva (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

So then...what is ANI for exactly?
You recently said "Some users seem to feel that being in the right as far as content gives them permission to insult others. It's an unfortunate situation, but not one that can be resolved by ANI." Please direct me to a link that states this about ANI. Not just because I think you are incorrect and are just not willing to do a block over user conduct until it has exploded out of control, and then ask why nobody notified you, but because I will need to know where to send editors as part of the DR process and borther...ANI seems useless in the DR process. I am not joking. In fact, it makes things worse a good deal of the time. If ANI is not a part of the DR process and admin are not the civility police, admin should NOT be able to block anyone for any reason. Stick to the mob an bucket and stop playing authority.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this deserves a reply at all as it seems you read the first two sentences of this remark and then came here to somewhat angrily reply to it without reading the rest of it, where I specifically stated, for the second time in that same thread, what other option might be more effective. My point wasn't that it is not permissible to report incivility at ANI, my point was that chronic incivility from long term users is not a problem ANI seems able to resolve. From your remarks it appears you arrived at the same conclusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I cracked up about WP:fuckoff ;-) Corporate 14:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No Consensus closure
Would you mind clarifying your closure of Articles for deletion/Tune In, Tokyo... for me? Granted, User:Black60dragon and I debated in circles a lot more than we probably should have, and I may be biased, but I really don't see how you can read the discussion and arrive at no consensus. The !vote count was 5 in favor of deletion (including myself), 1 strong keep (Black60dragon, the creator), and 2 weak keeps. At least 3 editors made good-faith efforts to find significant secondary source coverage (Michitaro, myself, and I'm assuming Black60dragon as well), and this was the most comprehensive thing found: just a track listing and a chart position, and the chart position is already covered at Green Day discography). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well first of all we don't close by "mahority rules" so the numbers aren't the only factor to consider. Arguments with a basis in WP policy are more important. On that note, if it is already covered in another article I am confused as to why you nominated for deletion at all as redirecting seems the obvious choice there, as is normal for an album that in and of itself may not be notable but the group that released it obviously is. That is exactly why I suggested further discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that it be determined by vote counting, but by the weight of the arguments. All 5 delete votes expressed or agreed that the topic has not received sufficient secondary source coverage to warrant an article. This is an argument based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, embodied in WP:NALBUMS. I quoted the notability thresholds within the AfD (ad nauseum, I admit), and 4 other editors agreed with my assessment (see in particular the responses by DAJF, Narutolovehinata5, and Batard0). Black60dragon's arguments amounted to little more than "keep because I wrote it" and "keep because this is Wikipedia". 1 weak keep vote was based on the release having charted, which in and of itself does not merit it having a stand-alone article since the chart position is already mentioned in the discography article and there is no other significant secondary source coverage to be found. The other weak keep vote amounted to "sources might exist".
 * As for redirecting, I tried: The title previously existed as a redirect, since 2009. A stub version at an alternate title was also redirected in 2009 (both on the basis of NALBUMS). Black60dragon un-redirected it last week, and when I turned it back into a redirect he reverted and got rather huffy about it. So off to AfD it went.
 * I don't think further discussion is going to get us anywhere. Multiple editors made good-faith efforts to locate significant secondary source coverage and came up empty-handed, yet Black60dragon is adamant that this and other minor releases (which also lack any significant secondary source coverage) deserve stand-alone articles simply because they are by Green Day. Again, that's a situation specifically addressed by NALBUMS, a guideline that has widespread community consensus. If you're set in your "no consensus" reading of the argument, there's little I can do. I might take it to DRV, or AfD it again sometime down the line. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently someone else sees a point to the merger discussion, which is now open at  Talk:Green Day discography. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But there is nothing to merge. Green Day discography already has Tune In, Tokyo... listed along with its release details and chart activity. That's why I nominated the article for deletion rather than merging. Am I missing something here? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if no actual content is merged it is still preferable to have a redirect so that those looking for what information we do have on this, even if it only a listing in a discography, can find what they were looking for. I agree, and so does nearly everyone else, that it should not have a stand-alone article, but the redirect serves a valid navigational purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh I agree, leaving the title as a redirect is definitely the way to go. But since we all agree that we should not have a stand-alone article on this, the content of the article should be deleted to avoid re-creation. Otherwise there is nothing to stop any stubborn editor (like Black60dragon) from simply clicking 'undo' once it's redirected (as already happened, which is why it arrived at AfD in the first place). Too often "redirect" closes are only half-done: The article is redirected, but the content remains in the history just waiting for someone to un-redirect it without addressing the reasons it was redirected in the first place. Interested editors (like myself) have to keep such pages on their watchlist for years just to keep reverting every time this happens. A true "redirect" verdict would involve deleting the content, then re-creating the title as a redirect only. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I just came across Articles for deletion/Tune in, Tokyo.... Seems this article (at an alternately-capitalized title) was deleted 3½ years ago by AfD. Had I known that in the first place, I would have just Db-g4'd it. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Deletion review/Log/2012 October 22
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Deletion review/Log/2012 October 22. 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. IllaZilla (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

EC
Sorry, didn't mean to ec with you : )

Saw the questions page and thought I'd help. - jc37 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. However I made one edit where I seriously screwed up the page and I think we both made one more edit before I realized what I had done and reverted to prior version. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think (I hope : ) - I fixed it. - jc37 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-arranged and reworded. Split a couple and added a couple. And tried to follow a pattern of asking the commenter how they think things should be, rather than how they may think things currently are.
 * I think the idea question should probably be merged to "examples". But I didn't do anything with examples (save toy with the header) or enforcement.
 * Hope this helps : ) - jc37 01:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Self Requested Block
Hello, I read your requirements for a self-requested block and agree to your terms, namely that it's a hard block and don't ask if one is not serious. Would you please block me until December 1, 2012. While I am not under any official ANI or WP:CCI I just went through a situation where some of my edits were identified to have close paraphrasing. Long story short the paraphrasing has now been cleaned up. (The long story is at User_talk:Moonriddengirl) This situation really shook me. I had been unaware that my articles had left too much source material I was "caught" from two incidents which had the best of intentions. (Another editor nominating an article which I authored for a DIY. And the other copyvio occurred when I attempted to re-write an article which had an over the top promotional tone and zero inline citations.) After what happened it may be best for me to stay away completely for a while. Furthermore, I understand that a self-requested block will not prevent any editor or admin from initiating a formal CCI or other action should the content of my past contributions so warrant. I also understand that the block will remain in the blocklog. NightSt✷r (talk)  01:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was unintentional close paraphrasing, I would say you should rather stay for two reasons: by editing more, you will learn how to write without close paraphrasing, something useful outside Wikipedia too, and, two, the issue is not ethically as big a deal as you seem to feel. Beginning editors do have problems with close paraphrasing; I found a few ways to deal with it: use multiple sources and mix up citations so that order of what I use is different from that in the source, take notes, rest for a while and write up stuff afterward so that the original phraseology is no longer at the top of my mind, and, arbitrarily reparaphrase everything after it is written. This last will help if there was close paraphrasing earlier and won't hurt even if there wasn't. If you continue editing without paraphrasing problems, over time, this issue, unlike vandalism, blocks, personal attacks, incivility and the like, will be put to rest. Churn and change (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * O tend to agree with what Churn and change is saying. You made a a mistake. It happens. Wikipedia can be surprisingly forgiving to anyone who, as you have, acknowledges their errors and learns from them. However, if you feel it is that important to take a break I am willing to consider the block. Whenever anyone asks for one of these I usually ask them to wait 24 hours and to consider again if they are really sure they agree to my standard terms for making such a block, and that they really think it is the only way to resolve whatever issue it is that is compelling to ask for this. Let me know if that is still the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Churn and Change and Beeblebrox. A 24-hr wait is certainly reasonable considering that it's hard block and therefore no appeal.  I also re-read the terms and understand that any circumvention by creating a sock account will result in an indefinite extension of the block.  I thought that I was an a good positive roll to more active contribution when this blindsided me.  Therefore, I believe that I should make a complete break and evaluate if and how I should continue to edit here.   NightSt✷r  (talk)  01:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the requested block User:Moonriddengirl has asked me to make additional cleanups. I'm sorry to say that in trying to clean up close phrasing I've now added added plagerism to the list of editing blunders.  Please initiate the block as this is getting worse as it drags on.  NightSt✷r  (talk)  02:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Close of Articles for deletion/Deimon Devil Bats
Hi, About your close of Articles for deletion/Deimon Devil Bats, while I think the consensus at the AFD was clearly for a merge and redirect, I don't think the way you have done the merge and redirect makes sense. I also don't think it was what was intended by the participants in the AFD, and thus doesn't represent the consensus of the discussion. The way you have left the List of Eyeshield 21 characters article, it is full of details on secondary characters while only having a tiny paragraph about the main characters. I don't see how things like the main characters' names, a breif description of their roles in the story, or which voice actors voiced them in the anime could be considered non-encyclopedic. I also don't think any of the people voting for a merge in the AFD were desiring a final article that doesn't even give (for example) the main character's last name. Would you object to me trying to merge significantly more content from the redirected article into the target article? Calathan (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually came to the same conclusion and am working on it right now. Should be fixed in a few minutes. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Calathan (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Although the article could still use some cleaning up, a lead section, and more consistent formatting between the various sections. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just glancing at it, the article looks a lot better now than it did before. Calathan (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert
Can you explain why you reverted this edit of mine? GB fan 22:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The short answer is because I am editing with an iPad and it is sometimes imprecise. I bumped the rollback button when all I meant to do was view the diff, but I thought I had stopped the edit from actually going through. Sorry about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. I have done the same thing in the past.  GB fan 22:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You might like Customizing_watchlists. I learned about it after reverting Risker from my phone.  MBisanz  talk 23:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already done that actually. I still get the inline rollback link when viewing page histories, which is what happened here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Help to get a copy of Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012
Please help get at least the latest copy of this article before it was deleted: Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 It was a lot of work. Thanks. Wikilogin123 (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a request to get a copy here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates.2C_2012
 * but admin JohnCD redirected to ask you. Thanks. Wikilogin123 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See the discussion there: as you have salted the title, I referred the userfication request to you but offered to email the article to Wikilogin123, which I have now done. JohnCD (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I got it. Wikilogin123 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk
Hello Beeblebrox. You deleted this article on 24 October 2012 (see Articles for deletion/Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk) and it is repeatedly recreated since then. I've declined the last WP:G4 nomination, as I think the creator's objection might be justified, Sandbakk seems to be a notable jazz popularizer in Norway. Would you mind if I take the article to WP:DRV? Please, let me know if you disagree. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, it's already there, see Deletion_review/Log/2012_October_28. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reform
I am pretty OK @ New page patrolling; so should I continue that? I am sorry for the mess I have created. @''' Dipankan  Upgraded!  Tag me! ''' 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's ok. I know you are acting in good faith to try and help. You just need to be a bit more cautious and probably don't do AFD closes at all, at least for a while. I notice you have had some contact with User:Kudpung, he is pretty much an expert as far the whole new page patrol thing, if he thinks you are doing a good job at it I'm sure that is the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Medal

 * Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Heartfelt sigh of the week
Hi, Beeblebrox. See excellent comment of yours featured on my page here. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

No longer desiring to rename Lilith Sternin
I have lost desire to rename this article into "Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin". Seriously, I have detested the way I have written solely about her because she has no general significance. But I guess it helps readers truly learn about her individually and her sole significance to Frasier Crane (and Diane Chambers). In fact, she appeared in Cheers and Frasier. Do not worry; I will NOT change the whole layout into fitting the failed proposed scope. --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot: May you unprotect its name now? --George Ho (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups
Beeblebrox,

Please restore the following pages: List of Bell TV channels, List of Cogeco Cable Ontario TV Channels, List of Cogeco Cable Quebec TV Channels, List of Vidéotron Illico TV channels, List of Rogers Digital Cable Channels, List of Shaw Direct channels, List of Shaw Exo TV channels,

They are EXTREMELY critical to my job.

JT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.14.30 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If having lists of television channels is important to your job then you need to explain to whoever is in charge of such things that your job should not be dependent on list articles on a free website. I don't know what it is you do but that strikes me as a terribly irresponsible way to do business. Wikipedia is not a free webhost that is here to hold a directory for industry insiders. So, as you may be gather ing from my remarks, I do not intend to overturn the consensus arrived at at the deletion discussion because it is important to your job. I'm sure channel guide information is available from the companies themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And, lo and behold, Channel Listings Wiki a project just for this purpose is suddenly founded. There you go. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Flout
Not flaunt - (WP:AN/I). Rich Farmbrough, 22:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Unless they were flaunting their flouting. hehe. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting talk pages after merging
Hi Beeblebrox, I don't have any objections to your merge of the Staring contest article – in fact I don't really care, because it's only on my watchlist due to vandalism. But I don't really like it when the talk page is redirected as well, because I don't see the point of effectively losing those discussions. I may be a bit paranoid, but we could *really* lose these discussions if something like this ever happens again. Therefore, I've reverted your redirect of the talk page. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 04:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, better to merge/history merge the Talk pages, followed by judicious archiving, (and moving/merging of any Talk page archives) I'm guessing? --Lexein (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My personal preference is that article history should align with the talk page history. I'd just leave the talk page alone ... makes things much easier if anybody wants to unmerge the pages (or create an entirely new article at the merge source) in the future. Graham 87 12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Staring_contest&curid=1847570&diff=521333081&oldid=521307567 this edit summary]: why shouldn't the topic be discussed further there? I mean ... almost nobody's going to see the discussions, but what harm are they going to do? My initial reversion was in the spirit of BRD, so I won't revert back. Also, here's a situation where archiving the discussions of the merged pages caused mayhem. Graham 87 15:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, if we could all just back up a few feet, what little discussion there has been in the years of this talk page existing was in fact archived along with what little talk had been on the main staring talk page. It seems to me that if the articles are merged it only makes sense to redirect the talk page, although off the top of my head I am not aware if there is any policy based guidance on the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome, it was good to preserve the content. I'm a *little* concerned about losing the history, but on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give it an importance rating of about a 1.005. (I'll leave the page on my watchlist though, just because I'm like that). :-) FWIW I found Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 8, which seems to indicate that it can be up to WikiProject consensus. Graham 87 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:DICK
Any reason that shouldn't be a hard redirect? Just curious. --Lexein (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * *snicker* (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming this isn't a joke, I believe it is just an issue of a technical inability to redirect from WP to another website. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Though the double entendre was intended humorously, the question was in good faith. I've since read more about such redirects, and learned that their main raison d'etre is to keep them editable, since direct cross-project redirect links produce no "redirected from" message or link to permit editing.  Of course now I'm convinced the article is on meta to force the joke, which isn't funny, and seems rather WP:DICKish, which I can only hope I haven't been. --Lexein (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This was wayyyy back, but it appears it was moved to meta in the middle of this discussion. Things really were different back then. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Good move, I say. Could have been worse. Could have been DBAC. --Lexein (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm twitching with laughter about combining the subheadings of this and the next message in a variety of expostulations and imperatives. --Lexein (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cat
I'm wondering why you reverted the category.

Several have complained about the needless extra steps in the process. And besides, consensus can be determined from even partially completed questionnaires, I would presume? - jc37 18:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * had assumed you had not realized I had deliberately left it off and were just adding it as it is clearly related. That's what I get for making assumptions. I guess it does make it easier and if we get completely blank submissions they can be removed manually. I'll revert myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As you note, it isn't a clear-cut thing. But what finally leaned me in this direction was that those who don't want it "live" in the category while they're answering should be able to see the category link fairly clearly when they edit the page, and presumably know how to (temporarily) remove a category.
 * I thought about going through and adding it to all the pages started before I added it, but decided that the same logic applies (in reverse) : )
 * If we see any substantively completed pages not in the cat, we can always drop someone a helpful note on their talk page, I think. - jc37 18:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you intervene here?
is a relatively inexperienced user who has been causing trouble. He complained to EricEnfermero here regarding this edit by Eric. I have tried to explain to the editor that the content being removed was not appropriate, but they have responded with rude replies about my bald-headed brain (which they repeated after a final warning), and the remark that I am senseless and clueless. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the situation and see what needs to be done. Automatic Strikeout  19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Bagumba took care of it. Automatic  Strikeout  19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That was fast. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I wonder what a bald-headed brain is? Automatic  Strikeout  21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A note
Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime, anytime. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Greg Terhune
Thanks for rectifying my over-zealous striking - but the editor in question has since reverted you and added some more !votes. As I don't wish to appear involved, please can you intervene? Regards, GiantSnowman 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I've re-instated the striking of extra !votes and left some advice on his talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GiantSnowman 17:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman has been over-zealous and can you instruct him of the known criteria of articles. I don't know if he understands them. Sign!!! Gregoryat (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox - you might want to take a look at some potential legal threats made over at User talk:Gregoryat. GiantSnowman 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox- there was no legal threats made over at User talk:Gregoryat. Gregoryat (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am watching that discussion, there is no need to replicate it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Gregoryat (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please watch the discussion from Patken4. Gregoryat (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)