User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTech_Software_Solutions is deleted
Hi, I searching for GTech Software Solutions page, but found that was deleted by you. Can you create the page, that we can have the information regarding this. I found the link from there official website www.thegweb.tk that is and also go the the search result from google. I thought the url was wrong, but later found you have deleted the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.212.54 (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Foxtel Channels and List of Austar Channels
Both lists where regularly updated, and provided incredibly good reference material for those outside of Australia. I am in the US. I cannot access Foxtel or Austar services in this country but am in the pay TV/cable industry and those two pages where the only reliable reference I had as to the channel list as well as the allocation of special servieces on different channels etc etc.

Very upset it was deleted and would like it undeleted as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.11.150 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I replied to your last angry post about this and pointed you to where there is now an entire website just for hosting these type of articles. iI that's not good enough for you that's just too bad. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ... and after a half-dozen requests at WP:REFUND (some of them duplicates}, I finally dumped a warning on their talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was posting there while you were posting here. Hopefully they have got the message. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes RfC reopened
Hi. You had previously commented on the pending changes RfC that was placed on hold. Your comments have been transplanted to PC2012/RfC_3 and additional questions have been added. You may want to review your comments since some of the wording of the questions has changed slightly, and consider the new questions. Gigs (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the block addressing the disruption of pages related to Freedom of speech and Portal:Freedom of speech! Perhaps you'd be interested in joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech? :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Delayed creation proposal
Thanks for your comments at Delayed creation proposal. I was looking to explore the concept rather than have specific all or nothing criteria for which I was looking to get approved into policy. What do you think of Articles for deletion/Romney Democrat? The article was created 00:48, 4 November 2012‎, two days before the US Presidential election. By 06:53, 4 November 2012, the AfD had enough input to get an idea of where the outcome was headed. Would it have been so bad to have an admin replace the contents of the article just after 06:53, 4 November 2012 with a Template:TempDelete (similar to Template:TempUndelete used at DRV) indicating that the page was now being discussed at AfD and then remove Template:TempDelete once the US Presidential election was over on 6 November 2012? The AfD would have continued, the Romney Democrat article content history would have been available the between 4 November and 6 Novembertime. This could be done on a case-by-case basis. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you oversight so many edits on ANI?
Only Wnt (re)posted the actual statement, but the log history now has oversighted edits from lots of users, including myself, Was there some technical limitation at play? Tijfo098 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When an edit is posted it is visible on every subsequent diff until it is removed, so all intervening edits between the initial post and the removal have to be zapped as well or the edit is still easily viewable by clicking any diff in between.  Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I didn't think of that loophole... Tijfo098 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Video Games" will change to merged with a new category called "Electronics" of full commercial adverts on RetroJunk.com webpage
I think it's got to be the better way without using a "Video Games" category on RetroJunk.com webpage because video games has never ever shown in the '50s or '60s. It was introduced in 1971 with the very first time ever in history with few '70s commercials because video games category are going low ratings and it has to be change to merged with a new category called "Electronics" in the right proper to make it better good way instead, so the list of "Electronics" category on RetroJunk are:


 * Video Games
 * CD
 * TV
 * Cassette Tape
 * Records
 * Video Cassette Tape
 * VCR
 * Con Edison
 * Washing Machine
 * Radio Station
 * Computer
 * Battery
 * Remote Control
 * Cable
 * Refrigerator
 * Vacuum Cleaner
 * Camera
 * Video Camcorder
 * Satellite
 * Antenna
 * Sewing Machine
 * Power Saw
 * Microphone
 * Telephone
 * Air Condition
 * Fan
 * Stove
 * Microwave Oven
 * Boombox
 * Walkman and more...

So what do you think? AlvaJr (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Censoring Paula Broadwell's edit history was inappropriate
See her talk page.

Thank you for at least admitting here:



that you are the one who censored the edit history. Until Milowent pointed out the above discussion, it was very obscure who actually did the censorship.

The talk page describes why this edit history should be restored.

I have referred the whole mess to the Arbitration Committee, since that's the only place to appeal this kind of administrator censorship. Gnuish (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, thanks for letting me know, have a nice day. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the discussion concerning this was terminated within hours of its commencement "to reduce drama." There's currently an instruction to "back away."  Just why is that?  Just why is any community review intolerable?  I would just like to point out that even if there is "no editorial reason to keep the revision" (I happen to think there is in this case), "potentially libelous information" was most decidedly not satisfied here because material that has been proven true cannot be potentially libelous.  See Libel.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the community does not have the power to reverse oversight actions, as has been explained several times. Please see the WP:OVERSIGHT policy. --Rschen7754 08:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything I do on Wikipedia is under my real name yet Beeblebrox can hide material that 1) has a truth defence to a libel claim 2) is of historical or journalistic interest and/or 3) could be potential forensic evidence while remaining completely anonymous and remaining above and beyond any accountability to the editing community. Because Beeblebrox has been deputized by the WMF, you say?  That would be the same WMF that took my right to edit away from me back on January 18 so the whole platform could be used for political lobbying, of course.  There was a time when this was an open source project that recognized transparency as the enabler of knowledge, knowledge being what Wikipedia was founded to advance.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously. If you have a complaint about the oversighting, WP:AUSC is thataway. Beeblebrox's actions were within the oversight policy, both here and on Meta. The community cannot overturn an oversight action. Period. You're welcome to spam all the oversighters, but they know that they're not supposed to just undo it without discussion among the other oversighters, at risk of getting their tools removed. I told people to back away because people decided that it would be an excellent idea to keep posting links to the oversighted information and repeating it after it was oversighted. It was oversighted for a reason, so repeating the information is disruptive. Now move on from here, please, because it seems like you're trying to generate heat. --Rschen7754 10:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is an oversighter supposed to be challenged when the oversighter leaves no tracks that identify him or her? Beeblebrox isn't owning up to anything here where I've sought a confirmation and I don't see any mechanism to force that at AUSC.  AUSC is so totally closed to the community it's impossible to tell the difference between whatever inquiry they do and no inquiry at all anyway.  Forgive me for thinking that the party with whom one has a dispute should be approached directly before going to some arbitrator.  In this particular case, the hiding isn't accomplishing anything in terms of salvaging someone's reputation (assuming that it is an encyclopedia's job to protect reputations in the first place) such that it's opacity for its own sake, just like your use of the e-mail system to message Beeblebrox instead of saying what you have to say here openly.  Think about where your logic takes you with respect to this particular case.  The specific oversighted material (Wikipedia edits) is already in the media.  If that media is then cited to mention the oversighting in a Wikipedia article, your "it was oversighted for a reason" would require deletion and oversight of that as well even though Wikipedia policy says that such reliably sourced, proven content should be kept in.  The whole point of the oversight tool is to prevent Wikipedia from getting out ahead of reliably sourced material.  Now that Wikipedia's behind, the fact that the tool is still being wielded shows that whoever is using it is using it more expansively than it was intended to be used.  I indeed might as well move on if instead of taking issue with my reference to specific elements of the policy and my explanation of why they were most decidedly not fulfilled, my remarks get dismissed as "spam."  You evidently believe your suppression of further discussion constitutes the suppression of "disruption" and I'm not going to be taken very seriously if I'm seen as a disruptive spamming vandal, am I?  You admins think you get harassed for just doing your job yet you wouldn't be getting challenged if you took a more minimalist view of the use of your powers, such as not taking it upon yourself to do the WP:OFFICE's job for them.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The other oversighters and the Arbitration Committee are all aware of the situation. I trust them to reverse my actions if that is an appropriate course of action and have already indicated as much to them. I have nothing further to say on this matter and would appreciate it if the posting of long walls of text to my talk page stopped. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Rschen7754 10:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I do what I can... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As often as I disagree with you (I think--you're a bit cryptic sometimes), I should really start disliking you. Let me work on that. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom
I am glad to see your candidacy, this year. There is need for people of sound sense there, and while I have not always agreed with you, you have the qualification.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking of people with sound sense... ;) Kurtis (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, Kurtis, but Wikipedia is very short on writers and reviewers. I am most valuable to the project where I am now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. Keep up the good work, and take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You too. Don't hesitate to ask me for a review now and then although please wait until after December 20 as I am going down to the sea with ship.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll be getting a vote from me too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and you've already had one from me. Pesky  (talk ) 23:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again to all of you. I really have no clue what my chances are, when I threw my hat in there were barely enough candidates to fill all the vacancies, and some of those were obvious throwaways. With the widening of the field and the "scandal" last week things are much more murky then they seemed before... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please Help
Please help me, i need the help of an administrator to settle this. Recently, i have been in an edit war with IIIraute, although he keeps accusing me of vandalizing the article Cloud Atlas. However, this user is making unreasonable and wrong edits to the article WITHOUT making a consensus gathered. Yet he keeps threatening me that i'll be blocked. I would appreciate it greatly if you'd help me.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He keeps erasing his history of my edits so it won't show his comments to me. Look at my talk page too.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The sourced content you keep deleting/edit-warring has been there for months - and already been discussed at the talk page. The country info in the lead (that corresponds with the infobox) was originally not my contribution. I told you that if you feel that you have to change sourced material - bring other sources and use the article's talk page, but do not just delete the current material - instead you did choose to revert the content again and to insult me on my talk page. I can delete from my own talk-page whatever I want - especially when being personally attacked by another editor.
 * Please also note that I certainly did not commit edit-warring - I only did restore twice (within four days) sourced material that was removed by you. I did not even revert your last edit - this was done by another user → ← who obviously also doesn't agree with your disruptive editing. --IIIraute (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been monitoring that article for months. It has just surfaced not too long ago. And it doesn't matter if it wasn't your original contribution. You still keep putting it. And that is disruptive editing because no general consensus was agreed to put that. Look at the talk page. Nobody agreed with you. And you insulted me too. Also PLEASE recognize that this is not a science fiction film. There are sci-fi parts and elements of it, but the entire genre of it can not be described as such so. Beeblebrox please forgive me, i did not mean toi bring a fight to your talk page. --Norgizfox5041 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norgizfox5041 (talk • contribs)
 * Would you please point out, where exactly I did insult you? However you did write on my talk page: "...i am virtually flipping you off". Are you actually realizing that you are constantly getting in confrontation with other editors regarding your edits - your talk-page is full of notificatins/warnings - one after the other.--IIIraute (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:BRD. I don't see a current discussion about this, so I have protected the page from editing for a few days to give you some time to resolve this. You may want to look into some form of dispute resolution if you can't work it out between yourselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Drmies. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Hey, HEINEKEN? How dare you!'' Drmies (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I considered going with "Go jump over a dike and get yourself some Amstel to drink in your windmill" Somehow it didn't have the same ring to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any dike jokes there. You know I don't drink Dutch beer at all? Grolsch is not special enough to spend 10 bucks on, and I don't care for the rest. Wait--I'm lying. I did drink some Heineken, this summer, in the pool, and it was very tasty for the occasion, but please don't tell my brother I said that. He's an even bigger snob than I am. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * About three years ago our local liqour store had an all-summer-long special on these bad boys.The whole thing was like fifteen bucks, which is rock bottom pricing around here. I think that was the last time I had Grolsch. I had no idea Heineken was such a sore spot, is it like the Dutch Budweiser? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. And you know, it's not that bad--what's irritating is if one's country is known only for one or two things, one of which is not such good beer, and the other is now legal in two US states. And that no one could point it out on a map, of course. I haven't seen those big kegs in a while--last time was during some soccer tournament, I believe. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On that point, I get you entirely. I am originally from Cincinnati. Mention that town and people will come back with either a WKRP reference or a comment about their sports teams. And now I live in Alaska. It seems nearly everyone, even people in the Yukon who live hundreds of miles further north than me, seems to think Alaska is nothing but igloos, polar bears, and travel by dogsled... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of you should raise some spare time and cash and take a trip to my beautiful neck of the woods. I could treat you to one of the bestest-ever locally-brewed real ales. Velvety soft, mellow, slips down the throat like liquid silk, slips into the bloodstream like a bit of magic ...  Pesky  (talk ) 10:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I glanced at the deletion log afterwards and found that those deletions alone filled over two pages of logs. Hopefully we have permanently seen the back end of this issue. Like everyone else I couldn't make any sense at all out of the vast majority of those pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity I just went back and counted them. Including the talk pages (which were mostly just copies of the other pages) and redirects it was 77 items in all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Dilemma
Thanks for closing that thread. If someone stands in the way of what you are trying to do on Wikipedia, then it can simply be frustration without redress. I've lost faith in the Wikipedia consensus processes. Users with entrenched positions remain entrenched, no matter how clearly rational examination highlights nonsense. Drive by editors shoot from the hip and move happily on, oblivious that they have not examined anything. Resulting outcomes would often be better decided with a roll of a dice.

That leaves only engaging directly with a blocking opponent. And sometimes, as happened in the thread you closed, no matter how far you go that doesn't work either. Much of my energy has been tied up recently with another obstructing editor. Perhaps it is best, as you suggest, to just walk away from areas where this happens. But that means rewarding users with obstructive behaviours by letting them carry the day. That seems a cop out as well, and must eventually lead to walking away from Wikipedia itself. I feel stuck. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have found that once you have gone two or three "rounds" with a particular user it is probably time to seek previously uninvolved users. WP:3O is good for that. Although an RFC was eventually opened it came late enough in the process that it pretty much guaranteed nobody would even bother to read the extremely long conversation that preceded it, meaning you both had to clarify your positions yet again. The consensus based model seem to me to work best in the middle. Conversations with two or three participants or fifty to a hundred never seem to resolve anything, but those that involve numbers between six and thirty five or so often do come to a solid resolution. For the bigger ones, polling, distasteful as I often find it, may be a better approach. The poll can be used to find areas of  general agreement and then a smaller discussion started to work out the details, for the smaller ones it is unfortunate that there is sometimes an issue with finding users to even take an interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank Zappa project proposition
The reason I think you may be interested by the following is the fact that your user page's top quote is a Zappa quote. In September and early October wikipedians gathered here in hopes to be members of a new Zappa project, but the user who created the proposal seems to have never been finished the project page and it seems that he has not been on wikipedia for over a month. I don't know exactly how to make the project page myself or I would have. What I'm trying to ask it short is: Would you please join the project proposal and help make it an official project? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied at the proposed project's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Vacation nine 05:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

e-mail
I have sent you one. pablo 10:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Truth About Love Tour
Hello. Your closure of this Afd discussion appears to be incorrect. There was in fact a consensus that the article violates WP:CRYSTAL, and meeting a notability guideline is irrelevant when an article violates Wikipedia policy. Here is an analysis of the 'keep' !votes from someone who did not comment on the discussion at all:


 * "The sources are good and this page is very helpful to people. Sure the article might need a little improving but should not be deleted." — As one of the other users stated, pages are not kept because they are helpful, and the sources are irrelevant when discussing WP:CRYSTAL violation.
 * "The sources seem notable and independent of the sources. The article itself could use improvement, but still should be kept." — A source cannot be "notable", and as above, it's irrelevant when there's a WP:CRYSTAL violation.
 * "Oh, you still think it contains "Only first party information"? Please take an actual LOOK at the article. I've made it my duty to not use first party information. The article is an acceptable stub. Not much about it is revealed yet, as it hasn't begun yet." — The article is not an acceptable stub as it violates WP:CRYSTAL. 'Not much about it is revealed yet, as it hasn't begun yet' — yes, and that's exactly why this article should be deleted.
 * "Tours are not inherently notable, but that doesn't care here. This tour has proven to be very notable IMO. And, also, sources out there that are not on the article may help prove the notability of it. Remember that content on the article is not the only thing we have to assess when voting/nominating at AFD." — WP:ITSNOTABLE without providing any sort of rationale, thus easily discounted. They also provide sources but again this doesn't matter due to WP:CRYSTAL.
 * "The tour is by a highly notable artist and has been talked about in multiple third party sources mentioned by those above." — Notability is not inherited, just because the artist is notable does not mean the tour is. Again, sources are irrelevant in this context.
 * "It is a highly notable tour about a highly notable artist, and if this goes, then many other tours - for instance Rihanna's Diamonds World Tour will have to go too." — Again, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * "Per comments above." — Carries no weight.
 * "Yes, there is not that much information pertaining to it, but that is not our fault. P!nk has released very little information on the tour and was still in the process of planning it during the live web chat with her fans in which she confirmed it. But the article should be kept because more information will be available soon and there are articles for all her other tours. Besides, in the live web chat, she does give us some important information - she pretty much tells us "Blow Me", "How Come You're Not Here", and "Beam Me Up" will all be on the setlist for the tour, and she hinted at possible openers. I think the article should be expanded, but I don't think it should be deleted. The above comments stating why it should be kept brought up some good points, too." — This pretty much sums up why the article should be deleted, per WP:CRYSTAL.
 * "There's absolutely no reason why this article should be deleted and articles for other upcoming concert tours such as Warped Tour 2013, Ten: The Hits Tour 2013, Red Tour, One Direction 2013 World Tour, Dreamchaser World Tour, Depeche Mode tour 2013, Diamonds World Tour, and Because We Can - The Tour be kept." — Carries no weight, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * "The whole argument about not writing articles that cover future tours are just ridiculous. Like many before me have written here, look at the Diamonds World Tour. This spring the article about Madonna's MDNA Tour existed although it hadn't started yet. The Nicki Minaj Pink Friday: Reloaded Tour-article existed before the tour started and as mentioned above so does the article One Direction's upcoming tour. I could go on, but I think I've made my point." — WP:CRYSTAL is policy, and this user backs their argument up with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * "No different to Diamonds World Tour." — Carries no weight, and that article was deleted for this very reason, WP:CRYSTAL.
 * The last keep !vote provided no reason whatsoever and was written by a user who already voted in the discussion, thus discounted.

Therefore the analysis of the 'keep' arguments shows that most of them carried absolutely no weight to the discussion in question, as Wikipedia policy was not cited but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSNOTABLE and other weightless arguments were used. The delete !votes specifically commented on the article's violation of Wikipedia policy—WP:CRYSTAL—and therefore this article should have been deleted instead of closed as 'no consensus'. And while sources were brought forward, this did not address the issue of the article failing this policy. Till 07:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be asserting that CRYSTAL automatically trumps arguments based on notability and sourcing. I am not aware of any precedent to that effect and can see no logical reason why that would be so, hence the result of no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is policy (must be followed), whereas WP:N is a guideline. This is an encyclopaedia, and as such should not feature articles about events that have not occurred yet, per WP:NOT. See Articles for deletion/Diamonds World Tour for a similar situation. Till 21:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have a misunderstanding of what policies are for. There are almost no policies that must be followed in all cases. Content policies are there to reflect what is generally done, not to dictate what we "must" do. CRYSTAL explicitly says that if there is verifiable information upon which to base an article then it does not apply. The keep side argued that there was such information and that position was not to my mind refuted by the delete camp. That is about all I have got to say on this issue, if you wish to contest the close further you may do so at WP:DRV. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for your time, Till 05:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for making me aware of the RFC I opened and the questions I wrote. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon my error in not ascertaining that relevant fact. Considering what I now know, this comment is more appropriate . May I ask if you have any intentions of answering the questions and joining the category? Cheers, My 76  Strat  (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, its nice to know a few people appreciate it anyway. I was deliberately waiting as I didn't want to be seen as trying to dictate what I thought appropriate responses would be. But I guess it is about time to go ahead and add my own answers. I am also hoping to recruit a team to take this through the next phase, which would be the analysis of those results and an attempt to use them as a basis for a concrete proposal. As I am currently a candidate for ArbCom I am somewhat unsure of whether or not I will have the time or even if I should participate in that portion of the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just completed mine, and when I went to check the category saw that we are up to 76 responses! For a minute there I was worried we wouldn't even get enough to bother going forward but that is encouraging. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was actually looking at yours just before coming here. Naturally I come into a situation, get interested in what I see, develop ideas, and attempt to share my thoughts. It is in that sharing that my communication is said to be a failure. For that, I have been called many things, and characterized many ways; most often to associate me with some form of bad faith. Sadly, it has never been true that bad faith motivated me; ever! So here again, I've taken an interest in this questionnaire. While I was reading your responses, I had some ideas. And I'd want to present them in most cases; knowing full well that my prose was destined to fail, almost certainly; because I was writing it. I would be glad to be wrong, but I honestly feel like you are in the top 5 of editors who literally loathe the idea of interacting with me. I've earned that somehow. So I ask you to give me a handicap. Consider me, out of my "Southern Comfort Zone". I am Southern by the Grace of God; and I seriously identify with Brad Paisley's lyrics where he sings: "I know what it's like to talk and have nobody understand"! Ironically, that song is a recent country single, to be included on an album to be released in 2013; so it is very recent. When I first heard it myself, some weeks ago; I was like "I'm definitely with you on that one Brad! Normally, none of anything I've said so far would even be necessary to present the idea; but remember, I have the handicap, Hopefully.  My 76  Strat  (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should encourage people to comment on any users CERFC, using the talk page, which are all red. As I was reading your questionnaire, I wanted to comment on several things you said, and the way should be clear; and I'd be grateful if someone helped refine mine; with comments to me. I think you should state that option on the main creation page. I hope that you will. My 76 Strat  (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The straight idea
 * I understand that you are very busy right now. If you agree that we should open the talk pages to allow interested participants to comment on our responses, I'd be willing copy-edit the instructions into the process, and begin commenting for that matter. If it's not a good idea, just let me know. Thank you, My 76  Strat  (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unsure how many users will bother reading all those relies but O don't see any harm in it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. My 76  Strat  (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Foxtel Channels
Why? People relied on these types of pages. Why the power trip? They are useful. This site is about people coming together to share information. All the information on this page was accurate adn kept up to date. And you just deleted it with a bunc of other pages because you could and felt you had to. Without considering the needs of the users out there who have relied on articles like this. I am pissed off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.11.150 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The tone and completely unfounded accusations in your comment don't really deserve a reply, but for your information the deletions were done after a consensus was arrived at by the community in a proper deletion discussion. I merely did what was asked. There is now an entire project at the channel listings wiki that is hosting these type of articles so you can go there and see all the channel listing articles you want. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about WP:PC
Hello Beeblebrox. I'm a reviewer and have a question about PC protection. You protected Peyton List (actress born 1998) with PC protection - does "[Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission]" mean that autoconfirmed users can accept revisions, or that autoconfirmed and above can make edits that don't need to be approved? The wording is a bit confusing and it should be the second one according to discussions. Just wanted to get clarification. Thanks! Vacation nine 01:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Autocomfirmed users can edit through PC (level one), only unconfirmed users need their edits reviewed before they go live. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. My question was does [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] mean that autoconfirmed users can accept revisions or that they can edit with their changes going live right away. Vacation nine 02:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewers are needed for examine each pending edit. If a non-reviewer makes an edit while there are previous edits still pending their edit will be held as well. There is a chart at Pending changes level 1 table that outlines how it all works. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying! I knew that, I just thought something might have gone wrong when it said it required autoconfirmed permission to accept. Vacation nine 18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RFPP Discussion
Hello Beeblebrox! Do you think you could give your input at the discussion about PC protection going on here? If you can, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Vacation nine 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionnaire
Hi Beeblebrox, is there a deadline for the civility questionnaire? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It was going to end right about now, but since it came up at the ArbCom election there has been a spike in activity and the possibility of leaving it open a while longer is being discussed on the RFC talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Would you consider deciding on a deadline and posting it to the main page? I've been getting round to answering mine, but keep putting it off (because of length and because some of the questions are quite hard to answer), so it would be good to know exactly how much time is left. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been trying without much success to get some other users involved in that discussion, what little input I have had so far suggest another week or so. Thanks for participating, every submission we get increases the chance that we might actually accomplish at least a little something out of this process. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I would suggest picking a deadline and adding it, because I think that will spur on the stragglers. Maybe another 10 days? Anyway, whatever you decide, thanks for organizing it. It must have been a lot of work for you. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems the most appropriate place to do this! Wow, you picked a hard task there (and, under the circumstances, have so far done well with it!)  My apologies if anything I said at any point about the questionnaire irritated, upset, annoyed, frustrated you (or just pissed you off a bit) - I wouldn't ever mean to be hurtful in any way.  I've just read through your own answers, and found myself thinking: "Hey, this guy can actually really think sensibly!"  So here's my own version of all the various comestibles generally offered as WikiLove for you  ;P  Pesky  (talk ) 23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That is one heck of a menu. Actually it is really making me want a piece of fried fish. May have to go down to my freezer and get out some halibut... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe! Alternatively, you could try the piece of cod which passeth all understanding ;P Pesky  (talk ) 07:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hallo, hallo, what's going on here then? Is that an halibut I see there? Do you have a Fish Licence? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to herring from you, best fishes ... Pesky  (talk ) 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

TV channel articles
Do I recall seeing that you had found a specialised channel wiki somewhere to refer people to who complain about the deletions? JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) for that wikia. --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Flyoffacliff redux
He's back: User talk:-Flyoffacliff-. Favonian (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How ridiculous. I want to vanish. I want to come back. I want to vanish and come back at the same time.... some people just don't know what they want.  Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's for sure. is a textbook case of "not getting it".  By the way, I blocked his IP,, for three months. It got auto-blocked when I zapped the sock, so we have positive ID. Favonian (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Lovebird (song)
Hi Beeblebrox, Erm I was the one who requested the protection for Lovebird at the RfP page for semi protection. There was actually already a discussion at User_talk:108.69.24.180 where a number of experienced editors asked the IP to refrain from adding iTunes as a reference for release history due to specific date and factual inaccuracies with the articles in question. A discussion also took place at Talk:Two Eleven and Talk:Trouble (Leona Lewis song). A number of editors not just myself but I am most disappointed that the IP has not be remanded considering the number of times the IP has gone ahead and made edits without responding to the concerns raised by other editors. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the reasons for  that is that none of this information was presented in the protection request. I did the due diligence of checking the edit history, logs and talk page before making a decision. If there was a more complicated issue involving multiple pages then asking for protection of just one of them and assuming the reviewing admin will find all this other stuff and do something about the IP probably is not the right approach. I suggest some form of WP:DR would be better able to handle this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

CSD
Out of curiosity I tagged Chicken Kiev speech for being a recreation, I understand it may have more of a significance then I originally thought, not contesting that but is there a threshold I should use to use that criteria in the future or is it a judgement call? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that the criterion is meant to apply only when the main subject of the article is the same. Chicken Kiev is about food, and only mentions the speech in a tangential way. So, this was more in the realm of splitting off a topic we only mentioned briefly in an essentially unrelated article than it was a case of recreating an article we already had. Good to see you, by the way, haven't seen your name pop up in a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a wiki break for a while lol, was too busy in real life (Full time with Att and a Union Steward so in effect two jobs) and was getting sucked into the Speed of Light junk too much so needed the break, but now I'm temp unemployed and will be very active until I move to Hong Kong this month. I'm going to be back for a while and hope it will work out, good luck on your arb bid btw. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * if you can get the time you should really go to Wikimanai then. I was lucky enough to get a scholarship to go this year and it was a really great experience. not only can you learn a lot but it is really something to actually meet so many people you only know as words on a screen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Way cool! I will definitely make time to check it out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Binky (polar bear)
I've left a third party comment on Talk:Binky (polar bear). I understand your frustration at Third Opinion, but a rose by any other name, right? ;') -- xanchester  (t)  08:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility questionnaire
Hello, Beeblebrox. Rumor has it you're the lead coordinator of this effort. The instructions say, "When you are done, save your changes and add your subpage to Category:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions". I took that to mean that one needs to place the subpage in the category in the usual way—not that it would be categorized automatically upon being saved. Surprise, surprise: I saved my partially completed draft yesterday and was a bit taken aback to find it listed in the category today. No big deal—I've blanked my subpage and will complete it offline, then re-add it—but I thought it was a little odd. It's a long survey, and presumably some editors will save and come back to finish it later, and I'm guessing they'd prefer not to publicize what they wrote until they are quite finished. I know that's my preference. Rivertorch (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Rivertorch, I noticed your question and wanted to add a comment that may help a bit. Beeblebrox had removed that statement on 11/05 with "Eliminated this step" for an edit summary. He didn't return to edit that page until 11/30 presumably being preoccupied with the 2012 Arbitration election. SlimVirgin reverted that edit three days later,  and I don't think Beeblebrox even knew, again for being preoccupied. I don't think SV had any bad faith in their motives either, even though they effectively restored that element of confusion you commented about. I hope you will end up posting your opinions in the questionnaire, when you are satisfied to do it. Best regards. -- My 76  Strat  (talk)  10:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, My76Strat, and I have posted my response now. I don't suppose it matters much who is responsible for the current wording of the instructions, but I do think it's misleading and should be corrected. I followed a few links from the category page and saw other partially completed questionnaires, and there's no way to tell whether they are only partially completed because the respondents didn't want to answer some of the questions or because they're not done yet. Rivertorch (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right, I corrected the statement just now. I should have done it when I first noticed it. Best regards. -- My 76 Strat  (talk)  16:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * from what I recall I just didn't feel like edit warring over it, but I completely understand your point and thank 76Strat for their attention to this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss this question on your ArbCom election page?
Here. Not sure if you missed this, or were merely taking your time to think your answer through. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it is kind of late in the election for me to think answering still more questions is going to make any real difference after the immense pile of them I have already replied to, and the question is about some edits I made over threee years ago, but I have given an answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate you answering. I am surprised at your answer, though. I thought you would have changed your view since then. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, the only view I expressed was the view that we should only reflect what is in the sources. Like I said I barely remember this, but if a source is in fact found to be unreliable we should obviously not use it all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTech_Software_Solutions is deleted
Hi, I searching for GTech Software Solutions page, but found that was deleted by you. Can you create the page, that we can have the information regarding this. I found the link from there official website and also go the the search result from google. I thought the url was wrong, but later found you have deleted the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.212.54 (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's pretty darn obvious that you are User:Gopesh Saha.  A thorough explanation of what was wrong with the article was already given. Evading a block to pretend you are just  a random person curious abut the article is not going to get you what you want. If you want to discuss this please log in and appeal your block using the proces described in the block notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Expanding my point re indef blocks
I haven't found the right analogy to make my point, but I think of the social structure of prisons, where guards have the power to make inmates grovel, frat and sorority initiations, and totalitarian police states. While I don't think an indef is literally in the same league, it share some characteristics—an imbalance of power, where you want something, I have the power to deny it, and I can insist that you meet my conditions, or I won't grant it. Adding a time certain changes the imbalance a bit, it means that unreasonable demands can be ignored, as there is always an alternative. I do understand and appreciate that when someone does something block-worthy, it makes sense to ask them to acknowledge what they did wrong, but that is an absolute power, and absolute power is always abused. We have mitigated this to a large degree, because if one admin insists on something unreasonable, another can accept a more sensible response, but the reluctance of admins to contradict their own makes this only a partial mitigation.

Comparing to a police state may seem over the top, but I have seen unblock requests denied because the request wasn't sufficiently contrite, and that is the image that pops to mind. I can easily imagine a net positive contributor, who did cross a line, but is unwilling to write a statement that to that person, seems like ass-kissing. Those editors will be lost forever under the indef rules, but may eventually return, if there is always a time certain limit.

Someone can respond that serial sockpuppeteers will never reform, so indef is the way to go. Perhaps, but if we had to reblock once every five years, is that too high a price to pay for possibly getting a couple decent editors back?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I kind of see your point but There are a lot of reasons to block somebody and there are some users whose return is not desirable, ever. Certainly not saying that applies to Okip, he seems to have just had a monumental lapse in judgement and I would be very surprised if he became a serial sockpuppeteer, but there are users, such as anyone listed at WP:LTA who have crossed the line to such a degree that there is virtually no chance they would or should ever be allowed to edit here again.


 * However, I am troubled by the way some admins will make a blocked user squirm until they have met their specific conditions, seemingly loosing sight of the fact that what it is important is that they understand why they were blocked, not how they phrase their unblock request. Forced apologies are the most worthless kind.


 * A few examples come to mind of users who are need blocked now only after timed blocks failed to curb problems with their behavior. I can think of at least two off the top of my head that were indef blocked only after about thirty timed blocks. I think a person who has gotten thirty second chances has shown that they are not interested in dealing with whatever issue is causing them to have such a hard time getting along here.  I  think that the whole concept of "net positive -vs- net negative" is very often in the eye of the beholder. The user who has worked with the, on content can have an entirely different perspective than the admin who has dealt with them at AN3 or ANI five or six times. How to "do the math" with such users is probably one of the greatest challenges facing this community. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
Hi Zaphod [i assume that's your first name...], I am looking at starting a WP:DRV for Articles for deletion/Name of Azerbaijan. I haven't seen the page for a while but I remember thinking that it was very interesting and had good potential when I first read it, and so i think its deletion is a loss to the project. It has a few precedents on Wikipedia - see Category:Etymologies of geographic names. I think your summary of the deletion discussion could be overturned as the dismissal of the "keep" votes as "just votes" applies equally to the "delete" votes when you read them again. And keep outnumbered delete by a ratio of 2:1. Any chance you could reconsider? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just gone over it again. The arguments to keep were almost totally based on the idea that the stand-alone article was longer than the equivalent section in the main article. The delete camp rightly pointed out that it was only the introduction of numerous very long quotes that made it so and that there was no real information present that was not already on the main article. So, since it is not a vote but a discussion I still find that the delete camp made the more compelling case. It is possible that a new article that introduces information not present on the entomology section of the main article could be created, but at this time I do not see any compelling reason to restore the deleted article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Both sides of the debate were equally simplistic in their arguments - there was nothing sophisticated about either side's views, and there was no real "discussion" to speak of. If I understand you correctly, it seems that you happened to agree with the delete camp. I thought that your role as an admin is not to make the casting vote, but to determine consensus. Since there was no real discussion, some weight has to be attributed to the 2:1 vote for keep. Particularly as a number of the keep votes appear to be from impartial wikipedians - the "weak keep" votes seemed compelling to me. Are you sure you won't reconsider?. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Name of Azerbaijan
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Name of Azerbaijan. 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. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

AWB edits
Would it be more helpful if I were to be more specific with my edit summary? i.e. "removing doubled date from reference template"? That way it would be the same as any other edit. Apologies if the edit summary made it look like I'd done a full copy edit using AWB or something.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be more helpful if you didn't make useless edits with AWB at all. I posted the relevant rule to your talk page, if you don't understand it you should stop using AWB altogether. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I agree that the 2 examples you linked to on his page didn't need to be done but I do not agree that the edits done to this page qualified as a violation of the AWB rules of use. On a separate note, your comment is rather bitey and it would be nice if you were a little nicer. People say I am a jerk so you wouldn't want to be lumped in the same category as me would you? :-)Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody would be making such edits if they had to actually do it themselves but this is hardly the first time someone has used AWB to make piles of edits that do not improve the project in any way. I don't think WP:BITE applies to someone who has been editing for nearly two years and is using a tool you have to apply for access to. AWB users are expected to know and abide by the rules governing its use, but comments here seem to indicate this user doesn't even see how they apply to their edits. It's pretty simple: if your edit doesn't actually change the article, don't make it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see several problems with your statements. First I think the assumption that WP:BITE doesn't apply to editors who have been around for a while is flat wrong. Second I don't think the tone of AWB dislike is necessary and I don't think that most AWB users are a problem. What I personally find more of a problem is editors finding a problem with every edit that doesn't add content, a reference or something they personally do not perceive as an improvement. Even worse the attitude that AWB is the users who use it are a menace to the project because they choose to do things enmasse rather than pick away at one individual article weeks until they get it to FA. In this example 1 article is improved rather than thousands. Which one is more of an asset to the project? There are a lot of improvements done to articles that don't add noticeable changes like adding or removing categories, fixing formatting, etc. and they are just as important and in some cases more so than adding an external link or a parameter to an infobox. I would also note that someone with your level of rights your attitude is not striking me as one who meets the "demeanor" criteria often thrown in users faces at RFA! Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't dislike AWB. I agree that such cases are the exception to the rule, there are something like 1500 users who have access to it. But when a user is making edits that meet the definition in the AWB rules of insignificant or inconsequential edits and doe not seem to understand that, they need to stop using AWB until they can grasp the meaning of the rule. The edits I pointed out did not improve the articles they were made to. They didn't change them in any way at all. I could revert them all (not that I would) and it would make no difference. Fixing formatting and adding categories are fine things to be doing and I  would never discourage someone from making any kind of actual helpful edit. That is not what these were, although Delusion has made many edits with AB that did help, they need to recognize that some of those edits are not helpful and have no effect whatsoever except to boost their edit count. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how it may appear to some most of us AWB users really don't care about edit count. At least I don't. Of course I cannot speak of this particular user but I think its a bad assumption to make. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I disagreed on the one point, but agreed with the other examples. I also reiterated that on the users talk page and gave a suggestion of a better edit summary. Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Zappa Project
Thanks so much for starting this up. Like I've said, I don't currently feel I have the time needed to contribute to such a project on a regular basis, so it's great that you came in. Friginator (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Email
SQGibbon (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:RM WP:MR
Hi Beeblebox. You read some archives. Did you read my observation, that when your close of the Ivory Coast RM, which upset half of some people, was reviewed at WP:MR to be found consistent with WP:RMCI, and then the same close was heavily criticised at RfB (alongside you having too much personality for the job), that the obvious implication is a major problem with RMCI? Just wondering what your thoughts are? Did you read and follow RCMI for that close? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think I was even aware of it at the time. The thing about criticisms of that close at RFB that bothers me is I find it rather unlikely that the users who were not participants in it actually read every word of the incredibly long requested move discussion, I suspect they looked at the numbers and the wording of the close, which was regrettable, and thought they saw an admin substituting their own judgement for consensus. And the move review was largely just a continuation of the the discussion it was supped to be reviewing and was completely out of control. In a situation like that, with so much long-winded arguing leading up to it, is by it's very nature going to upset some people. I knew that going in but I think where I really screwed up was in my choice of words in the closing statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Kristina Torbergsen
Could you tag it with ?


 * I'd rather not edit through the current full protection for something so minor. If it is important for some reason that it be tagged with that it can be added easily enough when the full protection expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just asked because I may forget to when it does expire.— cyber power Offline Merry Christmas 22:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA. Kevlar (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur with block
I concur with your block of User:Big8edits, due to their repeated deeply POV deletions of RS sourced content and articles about women. --Lexein (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. anyone who so very obviously has the intention of editing "against" a particular group should not be editing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Man way  05:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Think you should know
Hi Beeblebrox, you know these cowardly trolls from Wikipediocracy? They use their site to attack Wikipedians, but are afraid to repeat these attacks on Wikipedia. One of them User:Bali ultimate had this to say about you: "Hey "Beeblebrox" you ignorant buffoon. Intelligent professionals who express disagreement aren't "ranting." I've been interacting with Edward for some time now, and I've never seen anything remotely approaching a "rant." I know the difference since I am prone to the occasional rant myself.You probably know the difference and are just a shameless liar, getting your extra little dig in on Edward's latest scarlet letter, a dropping left behind for other hall monitors that "this 'un is a ranter, execute with extreme prejudice." Shitheel." 31.193.138.225 (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Autobiography stuff
Okay, I will not make pages about myself anymore. But taking down the page for my movie is FisherQueen's big mistake. She thinks she's so smart. The page for Alien Adventures is not an autobiography, Beeblebrox, so it can not be taken down just because the movie is a fictional account of me and my friends. As that is said, you can not take it down. Also, there has been talk about the sources on the page not being reliable, although the blog is very reliable as it is created by the director of the film. Plus, if this film is not seen as notable, then that is stupid because Alien Adventures is the first feature-length film from Cody Kear. If it is taken down because of FisherQueen's reasons, then there will be trouble because of the fact that my sources are more reliable than almost all of the sources that there are on Wikipedia because they are by the maker of the film. I will not make a page about myself again unless that is about a fictional version of my life like the movie or if it is a true story film featuring me, because you never know when that could happen. Alien Adventures, coming soon to theaters. Goodbye, Beeblebrox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloonsman16 (talk • contribs)


 * Coming soon to theaters? You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that do you? I am quite certain it is not coming to theaters and that no distribution company would even discuss the matter with what is obviously a group of kids making a homemade film. That sounds like fun and I hope you all enjoy making it, but you can't just make something up one day and expect us to treat it like it  is a real feature film from a real studio with a real production company behind it. If you want to actually understand what is going on here I suggest you review Wikipedia's definitions of notability and reliable sources. And please don't bad mouth FisherQueen, she is one of the smartest, most patient administrators on this site and is frankly a lot nicer than I am. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus
If you really wanted to resolve the situation, you would have done something about it when Malleus made his first personal attack. I have yet to get an answer as to why he is allowed to consistently flout the rules. That's a perfectly valid question which deserves an explanation, not a rude put-down. Automatic Strikeout ( T  •  C) 20:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And besides, he didn't listen to you. Are you going to do anything about it or not? Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 20:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Malleus Fatuorum making personal attacks. Thank you. Automatic Strikeout ( T  •  C) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

yawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What did you want me to do? You directed me to the drama boards, that's the only reason I opened the thread. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 22:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in the initial discussion shutting up about it was an option that was and still is open to you. Please feel free to exercise that option now, at least as far as my talk page goes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Taking it to ANI was a waste, as it wasn't worth any actual immediate action. What has now happened is someone just looks dumb. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rei016
Hey there. Rei016 somehow continues to make legal threats even after you apparently blocked him/her. Dunno how that works, he doesn't seem to be sockpuppeting. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * At this time he is not blocked from editing his own talk page. I was in the middle of writing a reply to him when you posted this. His lawsuit is laughably hopeless, there is no right to free speech on a private website. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Election results
Thanks for putting yourself in the line of fire for the sake of the project. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure you would have made a good arbitrator. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. At the end of the day I am reasonably satisfied with the results. When I threw my hat in there were barely enough candidates to fill the open spots, so I thought somebody had better step up as there were one or two who obviously were not suitable. The group that made it in looks pretty good and I hope in the coming year they can undo some of the damage done in recent months to the already not-so-great public image of ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was in a similar boat : )
 * Maybe if I consider attempting this again, I'll wait til closer to the end of the nomination period, as apparently so many others did.
 * Oh, and my consolations as well. we have no way to know for certain, but I'm guessing the negativity that surprisingly appeared in relation to the civility second phase may have been a part of it. - jc37 23:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a dispute with you above, but let me be clear on one thing: I strongly support your civility survey. Automatic Strikeout ( T  •  C) 23:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Off all the new candidates I backed, I really hoped you would make it the most. Our recent interaction only re-affirmed that. It's never too early to announce you're running in 2013.  Hot Stop     (Talk)   03:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. Really, the little disagreement with Strikeout above is a perfect example of why we need to do something about the uneven application of civility standards. Will the current RFC accomplish that? Dunno. Probably not actually, but nobody was even trying, so I tried. I was hoping it might inspire others to try their own ideas, but so far it hasn't quite done that. Maybe now that we are in the "quiet phase" of this process something new reflecting a fresh approach will come along. I do not believe there is any such thing as a problem that simply can't be solved. This is certainly a tough one, and will not be easily or quickly resolved, but something's got to give. I don't know if I will run next year or not though, we'll see how things are going then. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Add me to the list who have past disagreements; and to the list as well, who support your efforts. Make a new list if I am the only one, but I have misunderstood you as well; a significant bone of my contention. I do like where we're at; the "quiet phase", as you called it. Even the latest sub-header is perfect; "Moving forward". I hope to see you all that way. Cheers, -- My 76  Strat  (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BEEEEBLEBROX!!! at least you had more lovers than h8ers. Thanks for sticking your neck out, man. FWIW, me and my socks voted for you. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I would have liked to see you get through, as well. I think you'd have made a darned good Arb. Do run next year, please!  Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cody
Beeblebrox, I was planning to apologize to all of you, but never mind. You guys are all jerks. We'll see who wins. Cody Kear75.161.88.89 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This doesn't even deserve a reply, and I was about to just remove it, but maybe there is still hope for you of you can come to understand that this is not about "winning" at all. We are not in a contest and I am not against you and don't have anything against your film project. It is just that it obviously is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and you were lashing out angrily at everyone who tried to explain that to you. That's not ok. If you think you understand that and would like to be able to edit again, please log in to your account and request to be unblocked. Wikipedians are generally big believers in second chances.  Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've contemplated an essay on "dealing with the young" or something along those lines, having encountered this sort of event all too often. I may rough out something when I have time, as this is a textbook case of a kid's limited worldview coming into sudden contact with a global encyclopedia, with a more-or-less inevitable result for the kid who hasn't yet mastered this kind of text-based interaction with strangers. It won't help the blockee, but it might let editors new to these encounters understand that it's predictable and a result of normal child and adolescent development, and not because the editors who try to help out are really big meanies.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ArkRe's unblock request
I just wanted to let you know that I have procedurally declined ArkRe's unblock request that has been on hold for two months. If the user files another unblock request, then we can deal with it anew, otherwise we can just leave it. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, oops. I had forgotten all about it. Thanks for cleaning up. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I would like to sincerely apologize for my stupidity in the last week. I just got angry because I was blocked. If FisherQueen had sent me a message instead of just blocking me, I would not have gotten so angry. When my movie is a little bit more publicized, I would like to make the page again. This time I will have correct sources, get Wizard or some other magazine to write an article, and get everything together. I would really like to be forgiven and once again I am sorry for my idiotics.

Cody Kear


 * I'm afraid I cannot accept your apology because the stupidity you refer to is reflected by this very post as you are again evading your block. If you are blocked it means to u, the person behind the account, are not supposed to be editing here until you can convince and administrator that you should be unblocked. I told you when revoking your talk page that you need to contact WP:BASC at this point in order to that, yet you have again chosen to ignore what has been explained to you and just do what you think is best. Please stop evading your block, you are only making things worse by doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Gulp. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination)
I would like to discuss your closing of the DGU article. At worst, I think the discussion should have been closed as no consensus. There were 15 keep !votes, and 14 delete !votes. I realize we are not doing a majority vote, but additionally the majority of the delete votes were not well founded in policy. The NPOV votes are completely irrational. The subject itself may have a PO v, but having an article about a controversial topic is certainly well within policy. The bulk of the rest are WP:CLEANUP votes. As your own close statement said the reasons used would normally not be valid delete excuses - they shouldn't be here either. There are zero policies or guidelines indicating what % of a topic a list should include. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as you mention we don't close discussions just by counting heads. Everyone always seems to agree with that in principle, yet when doing closes of difficult AFDs it is very common for users to bring it up anyway. Many of the keep arguments show little to no understanding of WP content policies and were discounted, so the math is a little less clear cut than you make it out to be anyway.


 * The point of the delete arguments was not that we should not have an article on this topic. Indeed, several commenters on both sides of the issue expressed surprise that we did not already have a proper textual article on this subject. The point was that this article was not the article we should have. This is not simply a matter of "AFD is not cleanup". As I mentioned in my close, firearms have been part of the human experience for about 800 years now and there have been hundreds of thousands of such incidents. Trying to list them all would be like creating List of traffic accidents. Making up our own rules for which incidents reflect legitimate self defense and which do not would inevitably cause issues with original research and point of view. I strongly encourage you to focus your efforts on constructing a real article on this subject that examines the history and culture of the defensive use of firearms by civilians. If this list would be useful in that effort I would be more than happy to userfy it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We are not making up the rules. There have been several studies that were used as a basis for the criteria, as well as the criteria used by the self defense laws. While I understand your concern, nobody has yet been able to quote a single policy or guideline to that effect. I We have many long lists, including many policies specifically dealing with long lists and how to split them, which would be a perfect solution for the items - List of defensive gun uses in 2012 etc.  We have music/movies/sports for every modern year, but not for every "old" year, even though those years certainly did have music movies and sports, and the gap there is apparently not an issue. In any event, please do userfy the article for me, but I will also inform you that I plan on taking this to DRV. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are kind of mutually exclusive options, the article would usually be temporarily restored during a DRV, not possible if it has already been restored and moved to be userfied. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that does make sense. Well, I guess I'll see you in the DRV. It may have to sit a bit during the Holidays, as I don't want to open up a can of worms on everyone where we have better things to do, so have a Happy Holidays in the meantime. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned that Defensive gun use already exists (since December 18). BusterD (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Defensive gun use article is one that was created during the AfD as a placeholder it seems, and one I expanded and cited. It still needs a lot of expansion and work, but I hope it will answer many of the AfD concerns. Shadowjams (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Victoria Leigh Soto
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Victoria Leigh Soto. 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. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)