User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 36

EforW
I ordered no one to do anything; I think you had me confused with TypingInTheSky. I did err in failing to notify, I guess for some reason I incorrectly thought the messages there already did that. I apologize 331dot (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like we both made a little mistake there, sorry about that, but it seems to have turned out ok in the end. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Colorblind (Leona Lewis song)
Hi. Three years ago you deleted the article Colorblind (Leona Lewis song) through AFD. Could it be possible if you could restore its history and merge it with the article Colorblind (Counting Crows song) as Lewis's is in fact a cover version of CC's. The (new) article will satisfy WP:Gng. Thanks you for the answer. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and restored the history, so anyone is free to merge it if they like. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 05:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sicily
protection level of Sicily: Persistent disruptive editing??? Talk page "Old Norsk".--79.42.103.87 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you try using complete sentences? I have no idea what it is you are tryng to say/ask. I did read the discussion on the talk page though, it actually helped inform my decision to protect the page. Protect it from you actually. You seem tohave been edit warring on this subject for most of this year, using a variety of IPs. So yes, disruptive editing. By you. Disrupting the page, and now adding comments that make no sense to the talk page. So please stop it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Responding to PERM requests
Hey Beeblebrox! Hope you are well. I noticed here you forgot to substitute RFPR, and thought maybe you'd find this script useful: User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper (sorry if I'm "tooting my own horn"). Also assists in responding to reports at AIV, RFPP, ANEW, and UAA. Best &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  00:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry, I've seen people using it for some time ow and it does seem to make things easier, don't know why I hadn't alreay installed it, but I just did Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
 * Just used it to respond to a RFPP request. that's apretty sick little tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Hogarth
Can I have that one restored to user space please and I will find some better sources. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that it was a WP:BLP on a subject of marginal notability and a person claiming to be the subject stated they did not want an article on themselves here, I am siginificsantly less inclined than usual to grant such a request. I would suggest that you find those sources first and then ask to have it restored so you can add them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you help with recent biased edits of Cdrtools?
Hi, you recently removed a discussion on the cdrtools talk page that was caused by a removal of text that has been added in order to revert biased claims introduced by hostile editors.

The problem is: there are some people who seem to believe that everything is Linux, while Linux is just an operating system with aprox. 1% coverage. Portable software therefore cannot follow Linux where it is in a conflict with the rest of the world. The cdrtools article includes several attacks and biased claims that are based on the fact that cdrtools uses addressing concepts that are based on the vast majority of all operating systems and the fact that the Linux addressing method is non-portable. Even worse, a hint on the standard for SCSI addressing scheme (that explained that the standard for SCSI addressing is based on CAM - a method based on the triplet: SCSI-bus,SCSI-target,SCSI-lun) was removed by User:Diego Moya even though it was verified by a pointer to the related T10 standard. Can you help me with that problem and find a way to come to an unbiased Cdrtools article text? Schily (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Short answer: no.
 * longer answer: You are mistaken about what was removed, which is curious because we have been talking about it at your talk page. I have no interest in getting involved in this matter on an editorial level. There are numerous forms of dispute resolution available, I would suggest you go that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am definitely not mistaken about what was removed, as this was just neutral information about the interface definition for SCSI addressing - sorry to see that it is hard to get help for having unbiased articles. Schily (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I've just told you how to properly go about getting what you need. There are users who chose to volunteer their time specifically to help with this sort of situation, surely it makes more sense to go to them and ask fo their help than to try and badger me into doing it? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alexey Yanushevsky
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alexey Yanushevsky. 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. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor in question over there. If the article is bad enough that it can't be in mainspace then could it be restored to my userspace under the title "/cypher". Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi, I was added to the Autopatrolled list on 25 October. Still my new articles appear with the 'New unreviewed article' tag. Please advise WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 6 November 2015
 * It's because you are creating articles with unreviewed at the top. The autopatrol right automatically marks your new creations as "patrolled" in the recent changes feed and removes the "mark this page as patrolled" link at the bottom, but it doesn't do anything to a template you add yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Azov Battalion being discussed at WP:AE
See WP:AE. You recently applied four days of full protection. After this expired, the war resumed. Perhaps you want to leave a comment? I would like to take steps to ensure that an actual RfC is held (on using the 'neo-Nazi' phrase in the lead) and that the reverting people would wait for the outcome of the RfC. Maybe a logged warning could be sufficient to do this? Applying more protection would be like giving in to the warriors, if the original protection failed to stop the war. Anyway, would like to know what you think. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added a a statement at the AE page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Native Language
Hi, the only reason I added Aleut and only aleut is because that is where the name of the state of alaska comes from. "Alaska" comes from the Aleutian word, so while there are other tribes in Alaska, the name of Alaska is not of Tlingit or Yupik origin, but of Aleut origin and thats why i put it in there. i didn't give weight to Aleut for no reason, I did it because that is the name from which "Alaska" derives. It's fine for you to remove it since its covered in the etymology section but i just wanted to set things straight.Neddy1234 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Beeblebrox (talk)

Rollback request
Hi, you stated that I have made an edit of someone else's talk edit. That is false as I haven't done that. The edit came from an IP user and, while I saw it on my watch list, I have no idea why it is there. It is the second time I have been stated as vandalizing someone's edit when I haven't done so. I would appreciate if you could give me some feedback as to why that has happened and what I can do to prevent it from happening again.

Thanks, mezil (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Right after you requested rollback, you made this edit . You did. Not some IP user. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that it is in my contributions section. Again, I am completely unaware of why this is so. If I have done that edit, which seems to be the case, I have done that unintentionally and unknowingly(as stupid as it sounds).mezil (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Triple headers
Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18 These were not garbage redirects, three articles on the disambiguation page mention triple headers as a variation. Peter James (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * With a mess this size, including thousands of redirects, it is certainly possible that some good ones went out with the bad. Please feel free to restore one, or all three of these as you see fit. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Neelix redirects
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Neelix-created redirects, yet again. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kachemak Selo road connection (or lack thereof)
Category:Road-inaccessible communities of North America suddenly appeared, so the need to populate it followed. It's entirely unclear to me whether one can actually drive to Kachemak Selo, and therefore whether the article belongs in that category or not. Road connections are evident in the case of the other Russian villages down there. If I'm wrong about any of this, let me know. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You can drive to Kachemak Selo, but it's no picnic. You have to drive down this crazy switchback trail down to the beach below Voznasenka and then drive on the beach for about a mile. At high tides it's a no-go. So I think it's safe to say it does not have a road connection. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My fault
Please don't scold User:Swpb for removing their comment and mine from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I actually requested them to remove the accusation of "disruptive behavior", along with my request. They did remove them, and posted a nice comment about it on my talk page about it. I felt it might derail or personalize the discussion if it was left in, even struck out. I guess I was advocating WP:IAR in this case. Anyhow, I'm kind of sorry to see that you restored it, but I guess that's the rules. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I might have realized all that, but they also removed your request from their talk page. For the record, the preferred thing to do when removing any comment that has already been replied to is to strike it out, like this . Somebody mentioned that to Swbp as well, but he removed that too, hopefully that means he read it and we're all on the same page now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Spam user name
Thanks for your message. I'll respect your decision in that particular case, but I think the general trend recently has been to tighten up on paid advocacy since the Orange Moody business. I now regularly post  or similar on the accounts of SPAs clearly working for or on behalf of a company, including if they have permitted but conflicted names of the "Mike at Blogg's Widgets" variety.

To me, creating an SPA forbidden name account and using it to promote the the company or product is a clear breach of our current terms and conditions. I don't see that the old (outdated?) discussion you linked to as binding, although I will take note of its general thrust in borderline cases, especially non-profits and charities. Although I don't always get it right, the vast majority of my blocks are not overturned, and few of the blocked editors actually show any inclination to edit other than what they are being paid for.

I'm sorry if this seems negative, but I don't see it as my role to help promote companies, and in the dozen years I've been an admin this is the first time I've been challenged on the principal (as opposed to very occasional individual cases). At the very least, a more widespread new discussion is needed if the policy or its application is to be changed. Thanks anyway for getting me to at least think about my practice, and I'll try to be softer around the edges. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I used to see it very much the same way. Then I started doing more and more work with unblock requests, and came around to the opinion that while these persons absolutely are violating site policies, it's not like they are vandals. They aren't trying to do something they know they shouldn't, they just don't get it. The soft block sends a clear message that they broke the rules, but doesn't require them to file an unblock request that need sto be reviewed. They can just take another swing at it if they actually have the inclination. Most of them don' bother. The soft block makes it easier fot those that actually want to contribute something other than promotion. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Water Diviner
Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It hasn't even expired yet. OIf there is continued disruption after it does, WP:RFPP is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for advice and mediation (in the case it is needed)
Thanks. Historiador (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I read your email. I'm unsure why you felt the need to contact me off-wiki or why you chose me out of the blue to help mediate a low-level content dispute. As you seem to have already reviewed WP:DR I would suggest you go that route if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Article review
Hi Beeblebrox. I've been working on improving this article Miss Belvedere and was wondering if you could look it over and give me some suggestions. It has an original research tag on it but I think I've removed or sourced the statements that were causing concern but I don't want to remove it since I've been working on the article. Thanks! Shine runner  (talk)   00:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

About your declined speedy
Re: Irish Popstars. As a matter of fact, there is zero edits by non-sock users. The only other edit is by someone who claimed they would work on it, but never did. Nymf (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any chance you can take a look at this again? By leaving this up, we encourage the user to keep socking. Nymf (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I protected it. There's no need to ping someone on their own talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why leave it up, though? It does fit the G5 criteria. It is just an incentive for him to keep socking (page has been edited by 6 different sock accounts). Auto confirmed will make no difference, as his accounts are around for much longer than 4 days. Nymf (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Revision deletion/examples
Revision deletion/examples, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Revision deletion/examples during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Advanced permissions and inactivity arbitration clarification request closed
Hi Beeblebrox, the Advanced permissions and inactivity arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

AC
Hey Beeble -

Posting this here to avoid shattering my word limit at RFAR. I'm not sure that just talking has really been tried yet. A handful of days ago WTT indicated that he had no desire to take me to arbcom, and I woke up to an RFAR from him. I can't speak for Mike, but last night he seemed more or less content to bop me on the head about it and tell me to be less dumb in the future. I've had a couple people suggest that this likely won't be heard until the next tranche of arbs is settled in, and that makes me rather uncomfortable - since right now this involves three non-stale issues (two of which lasted twenty minutes, and two of which were at the advice of other administrators,) whereas if I continue to either use my admin toolset (has anyone ever been happy when you blocked them, even if it was necessary?,) continue to mediate disputes, or get involved in a content dispute, this is likely to get a lot messier before it's heard. I think that I'm certainly a net positive as an admin (edu program cleanup, dispute mediation, dealing with undisclosed paid editors, etc) and don't deserve to get desysopped over this, but pushing the hearing date out two months makes it seem significantly more likely that I'll either get a lot of pile-on complaints when it's finally heard, or I'll feel unable to use the toolset or even be invlved in potential content disputes (which are sometimes impossible to avoid.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like it is going to be accepted, and as it's only the ninth it certainly should be settled by the current committee. However, they have not been noted for their efficiency. I believe if you ask for a "short date" that they could do it on an accelerated timeline, but that's easier said than done. The two desysopping cases I was really involved in were both slowed down not by the committee but by the subjects of the cases lack of particpation and foot-dragging. (they both seemed to know their time was up and the hammer was coming down)


 * In any event, what they will need to see is evidence of a continued pattern of tool misuse and/or other conduct unbecoming an admin. From what I have seen so far it seems unlikely they will take the unusual step of issuing a temporary injunction, so unless and until they arrive at a decision to desysop you are still as much of admin as you ever were. Anyone who says any different can be ignored.You may get those pile-on complaints, but the arbs should see them for what they are and will discount anything spurious. Believe me, arbcom gets a lot of irrelevant evidence in nearly every case. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the overall issue, but I do know Worm isn't a malicious sort and, as a former arb, is aware that only arbcom can really deal with this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You blocked CosmicEmperor
Take final decision on this SPI, Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor. -- The   Aven gers  14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes sir, right away, sir!. Oh, wait, I forgot, I don't really have to take orders from you or anybody else. Ever hear of asking politely?


 * In any event, if you actually look at what i actually did, I reviewed an unblock request, then revoked talk page access when i felt things had gone on too long without any forward progress. That doesn't make me some sort of expert on his behavior, it was a minor incident that I barely recall. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Santa!
Another CU at UTRS? Christmas came early!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't get too excited, Christmas is probably coming late as I probably won't be using it until after I've sat in on the training sessions for the new arbs. It certainly should help though. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Some perks will be immediate. Having the checkuser tool set will allow additional information to appear in the appeals even without you having to push any buttons or actually use the checkuser tool itself. It is a huge benefit in reviewing appeals and cuts down on time spent asking questions such as "what is your IP address?" and "are you really a blocked user editing while logged out?". I'll update your permissions at UTRS once the paperwork is stamped at Meta.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like they flipped the switch a little while ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added you as a Checkuser at UTRS. You're good to go!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas A. Doughty
The rude comment that was posted on that guys page earlier was not from me. My friend took my laptop from me and started try. I tried to delete it as you could see by the misspelling of the last work but he saved it too quickly. That is why I deleted it so quickly. I know it was from my account and I don't have any way to prove what I'm saying is true, but I just wanted to let you know that the comment made wasn't me. Thank you! And I apologize for it. Nicholas A. Doughty (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope you are telling the truth and I accept your commitment to avoiding such a problem in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Mail
I sent you a mail a yesterday morning (11:25). Can you confirm you received it, thanks. -- Colin°Talk 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got it. I often don't reply to emails if I don't see a reason a discussion needs tobe had inprivate about an on-wiki matter. That, and I think Commons has fairly disfunctional community and don't like to get heavily involved in debates there. All that ever comes of it is someone trying to invalidate my opinion for the reason that I am "from" this project and trying to "force our policies onto Commons". So don't worry about it, nobody there listens to me anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI:
I actually have no problem with you having access to those tools. Just the precedent it sets for ignoring the process of community involvement. The problem with Phillipe was even worse - he only had access because as part of his employment with the WMF. Not sanctioned by the community at all. Bypassing the community involvement in his case effectively neutered the process as written. The fact he was employed by the WMF is no indicator he was suitable to have them (at all, or just from the community perspective). They dont exactly have a sterling record when it comes to employees. There should have been some sort of consultation on the community side before handing them back once he was no longer employed by the WMF. But thats an old argument. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

New Definition of Paper
Hi Beeblebrox,

You recently deleted my article: New Definition of Paper under the following criteria: Speedy deletion criteria A10, A11, Article: Paper

As I am new here, can you please help me understand where I went wrong? I tried to write this article as a "New section" in the "Paper" article. However as that article is a semi-protected page, I was unable to edit it and hence i created a new article with the hopes of putting in a re-direct to my page from the existing "Paper" article.

Thanks and regards Prabhakargosavi (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the first and most important thing you need to understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. While it is true that it is unlike other encyclopedias and covers far more topics than any other encyclopedia, that is still its purpose. That means that it is a place to report on subjects that are notable and have already been reported on by reliable sources. What it does not mean is that it is a place to publish your own thoughts, theories, or other original research. This appears to be what you were doing here.


 * It seems pretty clear that it did meet the criteria mentioned, in that much of it is material already covered in the article on paper and the rest of  it seems pretty clearly to have been made up by you. So, even if you had added this new definition to the article on paper, it would have been removed as original research/made up. Everything here has to be verifiable by independent reliable sources, or the project would be overrun by people posting whatever they felt like, whatever thy imagined or dreamed, and that would defeat the purpose of trying to construct reliable, referenced encyclopedia articles.


 * For those reasons I would not suggest you do this, but for your information the way for unconfirmed users to submit material to be published in semi-protected articles is outlined at Edit requests. Again, I would expect any such request to be rejected due to it being unverified original research.


 * I hope this clarifies matters for you but feel free to ask me if you still have questions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox,

Thank you very much for explaining that for me. However, the article I have published has been published in two different sources before: (1) A publication released by an annual international exhibition/conference; and (2) a regional Journal released in Maharashtra, India called "Mudranprakash". The references can be found below:


 * 1) P. G. Gosavi (2015). "Paper New Definition". Paperex 2015: The World of Paper. International conference held in New Delhi, India, 1-4 November 2015 (pp. 38-41). Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India.
 * 2) P. G. Gosavi (2015). Mudranprakash: October-November 2015 (pp. 15-18).

Given this information, is it possible for me to re-publish my "New Definition of Paper" article with these references?

Thanks & regards, Prabhakargosavi (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hardblock vs Softblock
I read your comments about soft blocking promotional users, and they make a lot of sense. I really hadn't thought about it too much, just thinking that spammers trying to use Wikipedia for advertising need to be stomped on. But you're right - the "social media, probably never even opened an encyclopedia" mindset is so different from mine (and I was thinking of that the other day as I carried my 1987 Britannica up two flights of stairs). The vast majority blocked never come back anyway, and those who do always seem to be innocents who genuinely didn't understand - so why make more work than necessary for them to come back? From now on, when I come across an account with a company name that has done no more than create a promotional company profile, I'm going to use a soft block - and reserve hard blocks for repeat offenders and obviously real spammers. Thanks for the insight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What is a soft block (or a hard block for that matter)? And where are the comments or essay? I've never heard these terms before so I'm curious .... Softlavender (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found WP:SOFTBLOCK and WP:HARDBLOCK. Can an IP range be softblocked? was complaining on ANI a while back that an IP rangeblock was preventing them from editing and also from creating an account. Seems like a softblock on the IP range would solve that. Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * among other places. I've been thinking about putting together an essay on the subject. The short version, as Boing mentioned, is that most people who violate WP:ORGNAME and create a "profile" page for their company are just ignorant, not malicious. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Can an IP range be soft-blocked rather than hard-blocked? Softlavender (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can allow account creation and allow logged-in users to use otherwise blocked IPs. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (PS: Spelling tip - bureaucrats, like everyone else, are mainly water in the middle ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

Re email
I have passed your email onto the stewards for their resolution, and I am hoping that they will reply directly to you. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Re Ronnie Apteker
Hi Beeblebrox. I see you were involved in a discussion about the above biog, though it was in 2010 so I hope you can remember. It seems the discussion ended with the conclusion that the subject was worthy of inclusion. Since that time the page seems to have disappeared and been made into a Redirect for the Internet Solutions page - on which Ronnie Apteker isn't even mentioned, despite founding that company. However I have since written a new Ronnie Apteker page complete with many more solid citations than before. However other people have said that the subject is not worthy of inclusion and taken the page down. Now who is right here? The subject had already been approved, so surely that decision should stand, especially when significant improvements have been made. I would appreciate your advice on this since you appear to have more editorial seniority and were somehow involved in the earlier discussion. Thanking you in anticipation Picknick99 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well first off, just to clarify, my previous involvement here was in a purely administrsative capacity. All I did was close the previous deletion discussion, I did not particpate in it or even form my own opinion on the subject, my job was to determine what consensus was reached in that discussion.


 * And that is the basic way Wikipedia works, consensus is the primary decision-making process on Wikipedia. However, there is also the principle that consensus can change, so a discussion five years ago is not permanently binding. Regarding seniority, although some people display "rankings" on their user pages that system is informal and just for fun, there really is no such thing as a "senior" editor. Everyone's opinion's count here. So, how to move this forward?


 * Firstly, I see that you have come here to ask for advice instead of choosing to WP:EDITWAR over it. That's absolutely the right move, so well done there. A lot of inexperienced users make the mistake of just trying to push their preferred version through by repeatedly adding it, so its great that you have not resorted to that. There is a page called WP:BRD that has more information on how to proceed in these situations, but basically it is time to discuss the matter with other users. I see you have attempted this on the talk page, but so far recieved no reply. Some options on how to encourage discussion follow:
 * You could try pinging the other users involved using the ping template. For example, If I was to ping you I would type  and you would get a notification that I did it. In fact, I'll go ahead and do that now so you can see how it works
 * You could make the discussion a request for somment which would invite the broader community to join the discussion.
 * As it is currently a redirect you could also nominate it at redirects for discussion and make your argument there for converting it back to a full article.
 * There are also various forms of dispute resolution available to you.
 * Well, now I may have presented too many options, but I wanted to let you know about all of them. My personal advice would be to try pinging the users who reverted you to join the discussion on the talk page. If that doesn't result in a clear consensus on the subject, take it to redirects for discussion. But any of the avenues I mentioned are valid courses of action in a situation like this one. Hope that helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies...
No idea how that happened. Sensitive touchpad! Leaky Caldron  21:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No big deal, I've done it myself before. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry stuff.


Poepkop (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Poepkop (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Amaury (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Denali
Happy Holidays, Beeblebrox,

This is not a complaint but rather an effort to understand your reasoning. The recent edits against the talk page consensus have come only from two IP addresses. Instead of full protection, wouldn't semi-protection have worked just as well? That would allow established accounts to improve the article. And does the article really need that banner at the top? I am trying to learn about how administrators make such decisions. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the named user did not direct the IP user to the substantial previous discussion on the talk page, they just reverted them and left warnings on their talk page. So, the IP user could have genuinely been unaware of the established consensus. That makes this a content dispute that manifested itself through edit warring, as opposed to just disruptive editing. If they had been made aware of the previous consnesus it would be different. If I used semi-protection, that implies an endorsement of the named users' edit warring, justifying and encouraging it in the future. That left either blocking all edit warriors involved or fully protecting the page.


 * As to the large tag, when I am protecting a page to stop an edit war, I tend to use the big one. The iconified version is just a very small picture of a lock. This is fine when protecting a page from vandalism, but in the case of a content dispute I prefer the big one as it shows what is going on and what needs to happen to get the page unprotected. I'm not really sure how many other admins feel this way, it's just my personal preference in these situations. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the very clear explanation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)



Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

IP 101.182.144.48
Has violated WP:3RR at least once on each of the Amy Action and Steve Rackman articles. They've removed both warnings I gave them from their talk page and have told me and User talk:Mega Z090 (whom I've having a separate issue with) to shove off. They are blatantly violating 3RR claiming they are reverting our "vandalism".  Crash Under  ride  00:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to truly apologize for all of that. The IP user is well, nuts. If you feel I should be punished, go for it. However, as you can see by the IP's actions, my reverts were warranted.  Crash Under  ride  01:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, the IP continued to remove the shared IP notice on their talk page yesterday, which is of course a violation of the rules. It was useless for us to keep reverting them, so Crash asked Monty if he could do anything. As the blocking administrator, though, he didn't want to revoke talk page access and remove the IP's option of appealing the block which was already extended once due to their promise to resume disruption. However, he has no qualms about us contacting another administrator who might feel different. Regards. Amaury (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like i missed all the fun... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You sure did. :) So what should we do about them removing that shared IP notice? It's something that has to be there, but there's no use in re-adding it if they're just going to keep removing it. Amaury (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but geolocate does back up their assertion that they are in Victoria, looks like just south of Melbourne. In any event, I would see this as a case of "let the baby have its bottle" and not bother with it since they are trying to make a childish game out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, Beebs. And it looks like took care of it, anyway. :) Amaury (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. Funny thing is, the whois inquiry showed exactly what I put there before. I just made it even more specific (which I usually try not to do). ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, I have a request. This IP user added a post to my user talk page and I removed it and well, it went back and forth for hours. Do you think you could blank all those additions so they can't re-add them later?  Crash Under  ride  21:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sig has an error in it in the second link. That link goes to User talk:Underride, instead of User talk:Crash Underride. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Those edits don't qualify for revdel, unfortunately. If it happens again, we can just block for a longer duration. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on my sig, I hadn't noticed.  Crash Under  ride  21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Maybe create a legit sock account and redirect it to your regular talk page since you have your sigs scattered all over with the wrong link in them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, done.  Crash Under  ride  05:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Beeblebrox!


Happy New Year! Beeblebrox, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages. .

Happy New Year, Beeblebrox!


Happy New Year! Beeblebrox, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Beeblebrox!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Beeblebrox, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:gold; background-color:white; font color:gray; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Amaury (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Amaury (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Beeblebrox
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:gold; background-color:lightblue; font color:gray; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Peppy Paneer (talk) — is wishing you a  Happy New Year ! Welcome the <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:green 0em 0em 0.8em,red -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,blue 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> 2016 . Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2016 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2016 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

good faith chaos at Chinese stock market crash (2015–present)
Hey, I don't really pay attention to adminly things, and don't know where to complain, but you seem to have interacted with User:EggyEggPercent, no wait, I mean User:George Ho. If you could add some order to the chaos he.they is/are causing at Chinese stock market crash (2015–present), it would generate good karma for you in your next username. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Lingzhi mistakens me with EggyEggPercent. EggyEggPercent used "financial quake" or something, while I... I'm too tired to deal with slander. --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Slander? At worst, a simple case of mistaken identity. But the FIRST thing is to stop moving things on your own without WP:CONSENSUS. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock request. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I was supposed to give you notice. Sorry, no offense intended.  Since you were the blocking admin it makes sense that you should review it.  I hope you will.  Thanks. BlueBonnet  21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

UnbiasedVictory sock
Yet another sock of this blocked user has popped up: Detectionist (talk) came into existence hours after No fear here (talk) was blocked, and is repeating, word for word, the former user's edits to the Battle of New Orleans. HLGallon (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, blocked and tagged, page protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help earlier. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen
I wanted to request the rollback permission. I have been a reviewer (appointed by you) for several months now, and I have used that tool to counter vandalism and many other types of disruptive editing dozens, if not hundreds of times. Also, I have acquainted myself with Twinkle's rollback features so as to prepare myself for the "real thing." If you find my recent contributions lack what is necessary to be appointed a rollbacker, I would appreciate any advice you can spare. I hope you consider my recent contributions to be worthy of a second permission, and I thank you for your time, once again. Lord Laitinen (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your oversight block
I suspect this is exactly the kind of thing you had suppressed, and had told her not to reiterate. I've revdel'd it, to be going on with, and removed talkpage access. Please undo these actions if I'm barking up the wrong tree.Bishonen &#124; talk 23:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC).

Dunning–Kruger effect
Some good; some bad. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

New admin project
''Is there any admins interested in policing article content rather than claim OR is a content dispute? We can start a new project for specialty admins to enforce the rules.''

I mentioned the above on the talk page for the new essay. I would like to create a new project for admins to help enforce the rules such as OR. What do you think? QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Admins are responsible for stopping disruption, when we start taking sides in editorial disputes, we become involved and cannot take administrative action. On the other hand, if it is clearly established that a specific editor is consistently adding OR to articles, admins can and will block them. I've done it many times. So, I'm afraid I don't really agree with the premise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Specialty admins could solve the issue with OR but I do not know how this could be done. How can an admin decide what is OR? I provided evidence on the chiropractic talk page but it was ignored. I am not interesting in getting another editor blocked for adding OR twice. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Detectionist - Some confusion, wanting your input, please
Hello! So, I stuck my foot into something of a puzzle you could perhaps help me with. I saw you had blocked (and also reviewed and declined an unblock of) User:Detectionist as a sockpuppet of User:UnbiasedVictory. However, looking over User:UnbiasedVictory, they aren't blocked for sockpuppetry at the moment at all - it looks like User:HJ_Mitchell cleared them of any wrongdoing on that front. User:C-3PO, HCR was created and posted an unblock request, admitting to being User:Detectionist and saying they wanted to be unblocked and cleared for normal Wikipedia use. So, initially, since they were apparently requesting from an alternate account to a blocked account, I blocked them. However, I rescinded the block on noticing that the supposed sockmaster, UnbiasedVictory, was not actually blocked. I hope you can grasp why I'm a little confused here, and I'm trying to figure out if I've screwed up or not. The relationship between these three accounts now is pretty confusing to me at this point. I've reached out to C-3PO, HCR for clarification on their talk page, but as the blocking admin for the account they explicitly linked themselves to, I thought maybe you could clarify, and also that I owed you some contact to make sure I'm not inadvertently going over your head on a valid block placed by you. - Vianello (Talk) 07:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously not Beeblebrox, but as I do watch the War of 1812 page I did want to point out that User:UnbiasedVictory has been globally blocked since 22:02, 25 March 2015, three months after that last unblock. UnbiasedVictory's block was by steward Vituzzu. --Noren (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And User:Noren pointed out the same on my talk page. I understand the situation now. Much obliged, and sorry to bother you, Beeblebrox! - Vianello (Talk) 08:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No bother at all, I'm always willing to explaina block, even easier if someone else does it for me! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

About WP:FLOW
I lodged a protest on the result of Village pump (proposals)'s "Talk about Flow again" section because I am satisfied with the result (the result is "This feature has been strongly rejected by the community, and the WMF isn't even trying to fix it anymore."). I think the WMF should allow all language versions' Wikipedia users to enable Flow feature which skipped the community's consensus, and the current policy on Flow is irrational. So I would like to call WMF change the policy on Flow in your talk page, thank you.-- Shwangtianyuan  Happy Chinese New Year to everyone  00:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comment is kind of hard to parse, but if you want to have a conversation with the WMF about this, you are not only on the wrong page, you are on the wrong website. To start a discussion about global or WMF policy, as opposed to just the english Wikipedia, you'll need to go to the Meta-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have sent you an email.
Hello Beeblebrox. Just letting you know that I have sent you an email. I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience. Regards, --Ches (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Self-requested block: WikiBreak Enforcer doesn't work
I would like to be blocked till March 9th. (I have read your requirements). The WikiBreak Enforcer does not work, probably because I'm using Internet Explorer. Peter Sam Fan &#124;  talk  20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * . With only five article edits you fail the first one of my conditions for considering such a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

rfc & essay
Your essay is quite good. Unfortunately I was not aware of it prior :) Although I had a specific proposal in mind, I was intentionally vague, to allow the plurality of ideas to come out. I was either planning on a magic consensus to form, or a consensus for "something" which would be followed by a multiple choice rfc to actually make an implementation choice. As you rightly point out in your essay tho, the multiple choices often fail to achieve consensus. In any case, I have reformulated to what I actually think we should do. I suppose if that doesn't gain consensus, others could propose other ideas. Thanks for the feedback. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Lukaslt13
I see that Lukaslt13 has been indeffed, for poor competence with English. I find this sad. Yes, his English is poor, and sometimes incomprehensible. But poor English, where it matters in an article, can be corrected. His intentions were good. He has created at least one article which still exists: Navikai. He is 13 years old, and no doubt his English will improve. I have made what I believe were constructive edits to Wikipedias in languages I cannot read, without being blocked from them. Maproom (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * |I have winter with a level of people to communicate, but if anything, Lukaslt13 ever will. But stop imagine, that I you help. Never. In this way, you? Well, I thought so. We are honest people enter into some sort of Wikipedia, let's make changes 100000000, Pooh, and we have to block because you do not want to compete with others. I know what you doing.


 * And that was after the block, when he had to know he needed to show some degree of competence in the English language to be unblocked. Look, nobody enjoys doing blocks like this, but sometimes they have to be done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That quotation is from a talk page, where it is harmless (though totally incomprehensible). He could sometimes communicate constructively, e.g. here. Overall, he seemed preferable to the users I come across who routinely ignore attempts to communicate with them – and I have never heard of one of those being indeffed for it. Maproom (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say I think you are missing the point there. It does not matter that that comment is not in an article, what matters is that it shows that the guy simply can not speak English! And that example you gave was only barely comprehensible and contains such gems as "P.s kind of want to, and the use of such a design. It is important that the copy of the others" - he's using machine translation for anything more than just a few words, for sure. We are developing an English language encyclopedia here, and people who can not speak English tend to be a net negative to the project - even if some of their work actually sticks, they cost more in other people's efforts than they contribute. As Beeblebrox says, we don't like blocking such people, but I really do agree that it is sometimes necessary and that this is one of those cases. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, his article Navikai might well be a copyright violation. The same text appears in a number of places on a Google search, eg http://www.topentity.com/navikai/ - I don't know how many might be Wikipedia mirrors, but the article was certainly not written in his own words as the English is far too good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess my point is that I doubt difficulty in communicating in English is grounds for an indef. I have edited cs:Wikipedia, and admitted there that I know no Czech, without them blocking me. Editors who refuse to communicate in any language don't get indeffed for it. As for the Navikai article: the English was initially comprehensible, but not good. I helped to improve it. The topentity page includes my improvements. Maproom (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But how long does it take for someone so young to learn sufficient English? A year? 2 years? Indef doesn't mean for ever, and all he needs to do is make an unblock request when he has improved his English sufficiently, and then he can be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * My thoughts on the subject are as follows:
 * The block was not for "difficulty communicating in English" it was for gross incompetence and apparent use of machine translation in an attempt to substitute for an utter lack of any knowledge of English at all
 * I have in fact blocked several users over the years for not communicating at all, and I'm not the only one. Communication is essential on a collaborative project.
 * That this is apparently not how they do things on the Czech Wikipedia is irrelevant.
 * Lukaslt13 is free to try and craft an appeal via WP:UTRS at anytime. If you are in communication with him you might want to advise him not to compare a block from a website with bieing raped next time, that certainly didn't help his case.
 * I do not believe further discussion here will change the situation, block requests from third parties are generally not considered valid.

I hope that sufficiently clarifies matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bios
I see you recently followed up an edit of mine from 2011, there were a bunch of other biographies that I felt had UNDUE concerns, your recent edit makes me feel as if I didn't go far enough. See. Hope all is well, –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 11:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If he had been convicted of murder or something, or it was a big media thing like when Winona Ryder got charged with shoplifting, I could see it, but a speeding ticket seems like a pretty ridiculous thing to mention even if he was initially arrested for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I ever got to the bottom of it, but it seemed as if there was some ongoing effort to highlight these little run-ins on celebrity bios, with big paragraphs and separate headings. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why dont' we forget that I was late....
...and celebrate that I got there at all?

I'm just finally seeing your very kind comment. Please pardon my tardiness in thanking you for it, and telling you how touched I was to see it tonight.

-Philippe (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Better late than never. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI
<sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  20:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The towers in Alaska
See these edits. It might be worth looking at their other contribs. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

RevDel request
Dhtwiki (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Page Request
Please remove protected block on Ken Sibanda and create page. There are several sources that seem to validate work and negate the need for continued protection. Subject meets the rule for one neutral source at a minimum since there are several places where he is validated including as a blogger for the Jerusalem Post. Subject meets wikipedia's guidelines for notability because he is one of a few (Africans) in science fiction and Hollywood, as well as his work as a Constitutional attorney. He is notable as an African born Constitutional attorney and movie director in Hollywood: (South Africa) and work's appreciation.

As for the work itself,he has several books, see here. But one seems to have gobe beyond the mere published book stage and is well known, The Return to Gibraltar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindymathers (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * . I appreciate that you have tried to present evidence of notability here, but I'm afraid that what you have put forward could not be used in a Wikipedia article. The reason is that we have guidelines about what is and is not a relaible source and IMDB, Amazon listings, and YouTube videos are all the sorts of things that are not considered reliable sources. The one item you did present that might qualify as a reliable source sis a book review, it barely says a word about the author, who would be the subject of the article, so that's nto particularly helpful either.


 * What I would encourage you to so is to read and ubderstand the reliable sources policy, and then see if you can find some better sources to support an article. If you can create a draft article that meets the most basic stanfards for a Wikipedia entry, the protection could be removed and the draft article moved into article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible block evasion
Hi Beeblebrox.

I saw that you have previously posted on 's user talk so perhaps you can help with this. User:MMAGuy8 was indefinitely blocked by Only for vandalism. It seems that Special:Contributions/Mr. Bellator might be being used for block evasion or be a DUCK. The account was created around the same time MMAGuy8 was indefed, and is being used to edit the same genre of articles. It's also being used to edit various sandboxes of MMAGuy8, which seems to be a bit unusual unless there's a connection between the two. I asked Only about this directly at User talk:Only, but was advised to seek out another admin since they are unable to act on it at the moment. If there's a better place to post this, then please advise. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing it. only (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Only and Beeblebrox for your assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I just told that guy to thank you for your clean up in that page and pay attention for next time. Don't worry: next time if I have enough time to point something nice but not enough time to translate it, I won't just write it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. I tried using Google translate, but it didn't do a very good job with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably because the second part of the message was a personal description of what happened to me in the past with people who weren't s as nice as you, with some sarcastic undertones.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Lake Atna
Knowing how much effort you've put into things Alaska, especially your excellent photography, you may be interested to know there is now an article for Lake Atna, the ancient proglacial lake that inhabited the Copper River Basin. Do you by any chance have photos of Tahneta Pass, or any of the remnant lakes of Lake Atna, such as Tazlina Lake, Klutina Lake, or Tonsina Lake? Or, perhaps, any of the large dunes indicated in the article that are northeast of Wasilla in the Matanuska Valley? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is interesting, thanks for letting me know, I imagine a number of my talk page watchers will be interested as well. Unfortunately I don't think I have pictures of any of those places. I've passed through the area a few times but not spent much time there. We tend to visit the more accessible lakes that can be safely navigated by a scanoe with a very small motor on it, so these places are kind of out of my league I'm afraid. I used to be the backwoods, pack in only what you can carry type by marriage and age have changed all that, we camp in a van and carry our boat on the roof now, and it's heavy enough that we won't hand carry it more than fifty feet.


 * I've been to and photographed a number of places on the borders of this area such as the Tangle Lakes, eskers and kettle lakes on the Denali Highway, and Gulkana Glacier if that's any help. I didn't know about the dunes either, that sounds like something I'd like to check out in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you've gotten photography elsewhere in the basin than places I mentioned. This photo comes to mind. The problem is that I can't, with cites, prove that any of the lakes other than the ones I listed are remnants of Lake Atna. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Lake Louise is a remnant lake, but I can't prove it with available refs. Gulkana Glacier certainly had a role in the lake's history, but it's barely mentioned in refs. I don't want to presume. Same goes for the Matanuska Glacier. If you happen to go through Tahneta Pass again please, if you would, grab a shot...preferably a panoramic one if you can manage it. Most people wouldn't photograph it; what photographs there are of the pass show it to be, by Alaska standards, pretty non-descript. Yet, it was a glacial dam failure in that pass that caused one of the largest megafloods in history. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the area around the Eureka Roadhouse, which appears to be in that pass, is quite spectacular. I suppose I've never taken any pictures there because I'm always just driving through on my way to or from somewhere else, although I've stopped at the roadhouse for gas a number of times. There's a possibility I will be out that way in late summer/early fall, when I often go on an extended camping trip, if so I'll keep this in mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where I've seen the glacial dam indicated is ~5-6 miles west of Eureka Roadhouse. Let me know if you photograph the pass in that area! Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.
That was going on for far too long. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Question
I know that you probably really don't want to deal with this, but I do have a question regarding the ANI thread you recently closed on that page. Thank you for the closing, and for your attention to the request. Unfortunately, as I already indicated on that page, if you are allowing the possibility of a request for arbitration, I probably won't be able to file it myself until Monday, as I kind of indicated there, given the lateness of the day here already today. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can recall from previous conversations, filing an arbcom request i usually considered a valid exemption to an iban. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded at my talk page, more or less indicating that I saw the link as per accidentally hitting the wrong link. Also, I suppose, if someone were to make a case of it, might it be considered reasonable to review edits by a person one is taking to arbcom for possible case use, and, if one saw edits in violation of sanctions that way, would be not be permitted to mention them? Granted, that isn't what happened; like I said, in the multiple edits I made to the ARB request I accidentally hit something I wasn't intending to and saw this.
 * And, while hitting "watchlist" I saw this comment from a supposedly retired editor who is already subject to a joint i-ban with as per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision. Please advise. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would advise that you take the talk page of a user you are ibanned from off your watchlist. You are either being disingenuous or really do not understand the purpose of an interaction ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It really only went back on my watchlist after the thirty-day block and apparent "retirement" two years ago. Considering he had earlier changed his name from Ovadyah to that already, it struck me as reasonable to keep it on the watchlist so that I would know if he changed his name again, so I would know to avoid him under whatever name he might take then. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a lot of convenient excuses. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, maybe, a willingness to make an effort to avoid trouble if possible? John Carter (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as they have been under a self-imposed block for almost two years now that isn't very compelling.

I think you may now finally be getting the impression that whatever you may feel about your actions, the community does not see it your way. There is a limit to the amount of time the community is willing to invest in a user who needs so many special rules just for them, especially when they break those rules. I would suggest that you are right at the razor's edge right now. The best thing you can do, for yourself and for Wikipedia, is to completely ignore anyone you are banned from interacting with. That's the lesson an iban is meant to teach you, but you have obviously failed to grasp it so far, and now it looks likely you are going to be blocked for a while as a result. I wouldn't expect to be let off so lightly if you violate it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

CENT
Hi Beeblebrox, do you mind if I restore this? It has BLP implications, which I why I posted it at CENT. I'd have made that clear, but I knew it would be changed if I did that, so it isn't clear what the issue is. SarahSV (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I somehow totally missed this comment until just now. I am very concerned about the precedent this would set as we don't normally list any sort of xfd discussion on CENT, and it seems to have grown to enormous lengths anyway so it looks like plenty of people are in fact aware of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I take your point about XfD, and I see people are discussing it. SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:VPR
It's been closed so i can't reply there but ... yes, a long ride. Good to see you're still active in these things. - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you block John Carter?


Less than a week after the IBAN was put in place, John Carter kept following my edits, and opened a bogus AE request against me despite the fact that ArbCom had already clarified that edits like the one he reported were not covered under my TBAN.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look a few sections up, you can see where he asked me about this and I indicated that filing such a request is usually considered an exemption from a iban, although I must admit I thought we were talking about a WP:RFAR request for a full case. I would suggest you just tell arbcom that you believe the request is flawed and leave it at that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking a little closer this isn't really ok, and I've said so at AE and his talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The expectation was that a significant block would be forthcoming if either party abused the interaction ban. This is as blatant as you get and the AE request clearly shows they are stalking Hijiri, since it doesnt look like you or the admins at AE are going to take action on it, I have raised it at ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was commenting there as you were writing this. It is often the case in these circumstances that we give the user exactly one warning that they re violating the ban and not to do it again, which is the approach I chose. I don't think an ANI thread on top of three or four concurrent discussions is helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont think John Carter blatantly harrassing Hijiri in defiance of a community imposed ban is helpful. But thats his problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is not helpful. It is petty and childish, and I've said as much to him. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now if only someone would say the same to OID. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even American and I'm worried about you guys.
But any names that get mentioned are likely to get their entries here carpet-bombed, so... Half Shadow  03:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

UAA
Hi, I've noticed recently you've been declined reports of possibly promotional usernames with no edits. I just added a new parameter to UAA for this sort of case, so that you don't have to type what you want to say manually. You can use,  ,   or. Hope it helps. Linguist talk&#124; contribs 21:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this is basically a good idea, but in its present form I don't think it quite sends the right message. When I decline these specific types of reports, I'm declining them, as in no action needed, do not transfer to holding to be reviewed again in a week. If it was modified to better reflect that I think it would be very useful. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. So, how about I change it to "Not a blatant violation of the username policy. For a username to be blatantly promotional, there must be a link between the username and the user's edits. Consider re-reporting if the user edits promotionally."? Linguist talk&#124; contribs  11:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . Linguist talk&#124; contribs  16:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wykipedia
Thanks to you and User:Bbb23 for replying to my query at ANI re Wykipedia.

I'd like to be kept posted on progress, if possible.

Also, for future reference, what's the correct forum for such queries?

It may be quite innocent, but if not, their holy grail is probably an admin password (or better). In view of this, would a message to Administrators/Message list be appropriate?

Or do you think all admins should be canny enough not to fall for it anyway? It does look quite slick and dangerous to me, and I've had several friends whom I would have thought were very savvy fall for Nigerian or ransomware etc scams over the years. Andrewa (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi,, both Beeblebrox and I are functionaries, but Beeblebrox is more "politically connected" than I am. Nonetheless, in different ways we both made the Foundation aware of the website, and as you can see at ANI post-closure, they are. I'm sure opinions would differ, but I wouldn't send a mass message to all admins. Most aren't even active anyway. The Foundation knows how to notify editors if they think it's appropriate. You got the ball rolling, and thanks for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, User:Bbb23. (Perhaps we should shift to your own talk page or mine if it continues but I'll reply here for the moment.)


 * I did notice that you both have had higher roles. But is there as better way of contacting "back office" over such matters? It's going to happen again. It's a jungle out here! I thought this was urgent enough to abuse ANI, and it worked well. But I had a good look at en:Wikipedia and the Meta first and the correct channel was not obvious. I'm not a great user of chat or facebook, the Wiki and email are my main Internet activities. But happy to develop other skills if needed. (But I'd rather be improving the article space more directly, either by using the mop or by actually working on articles. Our earthly lives are a finite resource.)


 * I admit that I'm now long retired, but my professional career was mainly in computer security in some way or other, and this did concern me as fairly urgent. Even if most of the admins are inactive (and that's also a concern, and perhaps explains why the last bevavioural issue I raised at ANI was auto-archived with no evidence that any other admin had even looked at it - but there does appear to be a bit more activity there now) their passwords are still valuable. Completely inactive users won't have their passwords captured obviously, the ones I'd be most looking for were I the ungodly would be ones that logged on occasionally and then disappeared again for a week or more.


 * Anyway, not the end of the world or of Wikipedia, and now in the right hands I'm sure, and thanks again to you both. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We can use Beeblebrox's Talk page. It'll make him feel needed. There's a general wikimedia e-mail you can use, but I don't know how quickly that box is reviewed. The other thing you can do is look at the list of editors at Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff, pick one who looks important (heh), and leave a message on their Talk page, although e-mailing them might be faster, depends on how frequently they're on-wiki. There are also e-mail lists, and I don't know all of them. For example, even though you aren't a functionary, you can e-mail the functionaries e-mail list anyway. It'll just take a bit longer because it has to be moderated before it's released to the list members. I still think contacting the entire admins corps to be overkill, but that's just my opinion. I'm the guy who doesn't buy burglar alarm systems for my house, either. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my experience, email is almost always the fastest way tot get the attention of the foundation. They have replied that this is definenently not hosted by them and they are looking into it further. Given that it was pretending to actually be Wikipedia, that probably means the legal team is going after them. I've never seen anything quite like that before, after looking at it for a few minutes, it actually did seem to log me in using WP:SUL, without me actually entering either my username or password, but if I actually tried to do anything it redirected me back to Wikipedia. Not sure what their game is, but I have WP:2FA on my account so it's pretty secure. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK... and I have now emailed some off-wiki comments to User:Bbb23 who is of course free to pass them on to "back office" and/or to yourself.
 * email is ideal, but I didn't find an obvious link to use for this... where should I have looked?
 * I could still be wrong, but this has all the look and feel of fraudulent sites that financial and online sales websites deal with regularly, and having been involved with the security of such institutions in my former career, I still think it's serious and that part of the solution is a warning to those who are targeted. That is standard industry practice. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the time, the office ends up contacted exactly in this way, someone posts something here, administrators see it, and contacts the relevant person. Who to contact is usually situation-specifc and contacts are identified at specific pages, for example WP:OFFICE lists the two people I've been in contact with about this, (although office actions are another issue entirely, they are the community liaisons) whereas WP:EMERGENCY lists the emergency contact account that (so I'm told) will immediately alert someone from the head office, day or night, to immediately address the problem. But again, most of the time it goes just like this did, where a user reports it, and an admin or functionary sees it and thinks "this is above ny pay grade" and refers it to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is finding it (WP:OFFICE). If you don't know it exists, it ain't easy. You'd think there'd at least be a link to it from the Main Page Contact Us page, but there isn't. BTW, Andrew, the reason I didn't respond to your e-mail was because I really don't have anything more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those. Responding to threats of harm doesn't seem relevant to this situation and is of strange status... originally an essay (top importance but still an essay) the essay notice has been removed but it's still in an essay category.
 * Office actions probably should be a little more prominent... I hadn't read it for a while, and had forgotten that there were links there that I could have used. That was the page I wanted in fact.
 * I do review the Administrators' reading list from time to time but have found Advice for new administrators is often more up to date and/or helpful. There is a lot that admins need to be up on... for example I am most active on RM (having seen over the years that this was typically the biggest admin backlog), but the advice at wp:emergency is to contact any admin, so all admins need to be up to speed on it. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments on editing restriction
Hi, Beeblebrox. I like your multi-level triangle.

I'm trying to respond to the case of possibly ending my indefinite editing restriction.

I had long been wanting to appeal the restrictions, but wasn't sure how to do it or whether I had any chance of succeeding. In any case, I think I may finally have learned how to "go with the flow" and "not insist on my own way" when disagreeing with others about how NPOV should be applied.

Now that 10 years have passed - has it really been that long? - I'd like to be able to edit articles touching on intelligent design and the Unification Church again. I promise to be gentle and yielding, okay?

Is there some part of the arbcom page that I'm supposed to (or allowed to) post the above comment? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion is at WP:ARCA, and it's basically a done deal at this point. A few of the arbs have commented that they wanted to hear from you directly, but once you made basically this same post on your talk page they were pretty much on board with it, but it is still open if you have anything to add. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comment at VP on hyphens
I get it: you just don't like the micro approach to style. But might I suggest that you'd be the first to complain if watching a film that was not edited smoothly according to well-established rules. Micro matters. Tony  (talk)
 * If the only rule they were ignoring was which small horizontally line to use, I probably wouldn't notice, so no, I don't think it matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ed Poor 2
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard