User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 6

Forensic Services
Sigh... I'll go and re-write it even more then. ninety:one 17:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * what do you mean even more, much of it is word for word. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning to me
Hi, when you see an editor such as myself, who's been here quite some time and is reverting wildly. It's often wise to do some research before issuing them a warning. In reverting multiple sock puppets of a indef blocked editor I was doing nothing wrong. — Realist  2  20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do see that the editors you were reverting were socks and have now been blocked, but what is the point of going around and around in an edit war with them? Perhaps it's just a matter of having a different approach, but when I find myself in such a situation, I "let the baby have it's bottle" for a few minutes while reporting them to AIV or whatever, then go back and fix it once they've been blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We all have our ways, hey great for my edit count though! :-) — Realist  2  20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Azay Mokhnatov article.
Hi Beeblebrox. Can you help me with editing Azay Mokhnatov's article? I don't know what to do else. Thank You

Agil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agil 917 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem was that the company he is the ceo of is a redlink, and there were no sources. If you could locate a reliable source the article could be re-created. I couldn't find anything on the company, is there maybe another name for it? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes this group has another name,but it was in the past. The name is AF Holding, http://www.afholding.com. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agil 917 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Talk
Why ? I have explained article undoing. --AndrejJ (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. This was right before I went to bed last night, and I think I thought I was editing an actual article and you had added talk comments to article space. Obviously, I needed to shut off the computer and go to bed. Sorry about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. --AndrejJ (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Galien the Restituted
I noticed you made an immediate move of Galiens li Restorés to an English title. Unfortunately, in all the critical works on this text in English, "Galien the Restituted" is never used. A Google search gives NO results. The rules for "use English" apply if the work is known by an English title, but not when such a title is only an extrapolation and all the critical work used the original title. And this has been a long-standing procedure for a lot of these Medieval novels and chansons de geste (see also Manual of Style (France & French-related) for more on this). Thanks. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Korn22x
dude please stop deleting my stuff. it is a joke and i at least want my friends to see it soon. just let my 2 articles be until Saturday night 23:59 EST 9/27/08. Thank You in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korn22x (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (replied on user's talk page) Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope she made lotsa spaghetti!
This is a quote from Luigi in one of the Hotel Mario animated cut scenes. Mario also says "Okay, Luigi", which sounds a lot like "gay Luigi" with the game's bad audio. Just thought I'd fill you in there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RFA Comments
Hiya. Just to let you know, but when commenting in a bulleted list you need to add a # to indented comments or you break the numbering. Just so you know! Pedro : Chat  19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Pedro. I knew I had screwed it up, but I couldn't figure out why. There's always one more thing to learn at Wikipedia! Beeblebrox (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The never-ending Kiev issue
Hi Beeblebrox. Just letting you know that I agree with your idea of not repeating ourselves and simply waiting for other editors to have their say.

I have however posted two more comments I had intended to write before you made your petition, but which I had been postponing before. One is a boring explanation of policy, posted in the hope that it will clarify to Vvolodymyr where we're coming from. The other is in the survey, replying to Vvolodymyr's comments on my opinon, as a courtesy, so as not to give him the impression that I'm simply ignoring him.

Please, don't see these comments as me ignoring your petition. They are just something I should have added before, but postponed. I intend to remain quiet from now on :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not the Wiki cops anyway, I'm just trying to end this circular debate. Thank you for your courtesy and good faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * lol I simply felt it wrong to "technically ignore" your reasonable & desirable request without explaining myself. All the best, Ev (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions at RfA
And what exactly was that supposed to mean?   Ase ' nine ' '' 11:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)



Sigh. Let's all have a cup of tea. Part of the problem is that the purpose of optional questions has never been clearly defined. I have my opinion, and it's quite different to Asenine's opinion. However sarcasm should be avoided in RfA discussions. It can only lead to unnecessary conflict. Best wishes to all. Axl ¤  [Talk]  16:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, yes I threw some sarcasm around at RFA yesterday. What it was supposed to mean is that, although Axl is quite right that there is no clear consensus as to the purpose of optional questions, lately there have been several users who seem to feel they must vote at every single RFA because they have developed a question that needs to be asked of every single candidate. I always thought the optional questions were for, you know, actual questions pertaining to issues discovered while examining the candidates contributions. I don't think any of these questions that we've seen again and again lately offer some sort of "magic formula" that makes it clear if the candidate is qualified or not, and apparently you, Asenine, don't think so either because you opposed the candidate before he answered your questions. It seems so, well absurd to me that I resorted to sarcasm because I, for one, have been laughing at RFA a lot lately. But Axl is also right that this was probably not the most constructive approach, and I certainly don't want to just stir up trouble for troubles sake. If you want to see what I really think about RFA, it's all right here. Asenine, I probably should have made my remarks more general and not singled you out as the target of my sarcasm, please accept my apology. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, and I am indeed also sorry that you feel that way. I was going to write out my rational here, but then I realised it was at the RfA. Have a nice day. :)   Ase ' nine ' '' 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo!
We'll make ya an onoroary Oz tryliean yet mate! (translated - thanks for your good faith and tolerance) SatuSuro 02:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thank you for withdrawing the AfD. Actually, it has given me an interesting morning; searching for material, sorting Australian poetry categories, adding some verse to my homepage etc.

Now I am contemplating spending the afternoon (here in Aust.) writing an article on Hay and Hell and Booligal, a poem about the country in this picture. Thanks again for the push to improve the article. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem, I live in Alaska "The American Outback" so I sympathize with the cause of getting the rest of the world to know you exist and have a culture of your own. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Seaplane Service
I closed this as "keep". I read your arguments in this AFD and being that you're from Alaska you probably know more about the air service over there and all those keep voters do. Unfortunately, you were the only one making a delete argument. I don't think this could have gone any other way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating sometimes to get people to understand what it is really like up here. Yes there are lots and lots of airplanes used to access remote areas, but we also have iPhones and traffic and even high speed internet access for editing Wikipedia just like the rest of the U.S. I know I was right, but it's clear that I "lost" this time around. Well, I gotta go, there's a polar bear outside my igloo attacking my sled dogs... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
Why am I being warned for an edit I didn't make, on a test page to boot? NawlinWiki (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why indeed? I was also using the page for testing, as I've had some problems with CSDs done with Twinkle lately. I guess I assumed the user who came up with the idea would be warned, and would know to ignore it. It looks like you were the first person to use the page, so Twinkle apparently considers you the page's creator and warned you. Just ignore it, sorry or the confusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Come On
Dude the USA Natioal Grape Catching Competition exists! It's real! Stop deleting these pages... Randolph Hutchins (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not an administrator, I can suggest things be deleted, but I'm not the one doing the actual deleting. Secondly, the article on the "winners" was obviously a ball of lies, and you have provided no reliable sources to back any of your ridiculous claims. If you want to write bullshit articles, perhaps you would enjoy Uncyclopedia, which welcomes satirical articles, provided they are actually funny. If you think the remaining two articles can actually be defended, the relevant conversations are here and here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod on Mustang (Guinness)
Howdy, just thought I'd drop a note here that I've removed the prod on Mustang (Guinness), in case you feel it warrants following up with a go through the AFD process. I do, however, feel that the article establishes the subject's notability. It's directed by an Academy Award winning director, is a major, worldwide advertising campaign for one of the largest brands in the stable of THE largest beverage conglomerate in the world. (all mentioned in the article as of the time you added the prod.) If you do feel like pushing it further, I would appreciate knowing what you *would* consider a notable advertising campaign. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 01:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would consider a campaign that had at least one source related to it notable, as required by WP:N and WP:V. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY are separate policies. You quoted the latter in the prod request, so I'm addressing that. Lack of references is not in itself a deletable offence (or at least it wasn't back in the day). Apologies if I'm sounding tetchy, it's nearly 3am here, my article just hit the TFA spot, and I'm trying to fill in a few redlinks before I go to bed. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 01:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Randolph Hutchins
This person is not me, I do however know them and they simply supplied faulty information and I was correcting it. He wrote out articles about true things, he just put in some wrong information. Such as the USA National Grape Catching Competition takes place in Sammamish, Washington and not Denver. As well as the price amount he had completely mistaken at ridiculous amounts. I am an actual chairperson at this competition and oversee what goes on in it. I am working on a webpage for the competition at current and it will (hopefully) be up soon. This page will help to explain the competition, raise awareness for it, and hopefully get us some more participants. When the webpage goes up hopefully this whole matter of "hoaxes" will dissapear. Please do not delete my articles until the webpage is up and running, thank you Mr. Zabriskie (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain why he was editing your user page. Perhaps you could provide at least one source to support your claims. Perhaps you could read this. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your concern Beeblebrox but I think I'll go ahead with the RfA. I'm quite confident. Also you seem to be mistaking me with someone else. I always use edit summaries. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems the edit summary thing was some weird bug wherein they weren't visible the first time I checked your contribs, but the rest of what I said stands, as is now being evidenced at RFA. I believe your heart is in the right place, but why the rush to be an admin after one speedily closed RFA already. Give it time, there's plenty of things for non-admins to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mammoth (magazine) and Paper Sky (magazine)
Please take a look at the edits I made to Mammoth (magazine) and Paper Sky (magazine). If an article's subject is notable, it is better to edit it to remove style problems than to try to delete it. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alsek Air Service
I disagree with your allegation of "blantant canvassing" regarding Articles for deletion/Alsek Air Service. The so-called "canvassing" was actually a "friendly notice" I left on the talk pages of five users who participated in Articles for deletion/Alaska Seaplane Service (nominated after you added a speedy deletion request to the article), which resulted in six votes to keep and none to delete. If you read Canvassing, it says: "under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions ... neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion ... for example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". My message met all the criteria and was worded similarly the suggested Please see template. Finally, note while I voted to keep the article, one of the people I notified is leaning toward deleting it while another suggested merging it into a larger article about airlines in Alaska. -- Zyxw (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan airlines
I came across the discussion about what constitutes an airline in Alaska. Through this I found the List of airlines in Alaska, which I have made a few edits to, hopefully improving it a bit. Maybe you can improve Alaska Coastal Airlines or Reeve Aleutian Airways, both of which I've been involved in. Photos of individual aircraft are needed in most cases. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

CSD Tagging
Per this diff, please be aware that CSD G1 does not cover poor writing that can be improved. Its generally only for articles that contain a random string of letters such as "agjsoet". Thank you, Matty (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you don't think a passage like "achieved the rank of Cockmonger" is nonsense? Whatever you say. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Achieved the rank of Cockmonger - Someone who has achieved the rank of Cockmonger. It makes sense, its just poor writing. Please read WP:CSD and WP:PN for an in-depth explination. Matty (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gimme a break. There has never been nor will there be a "rank" of Cockmonger. It's not poor writing, it's deliberate gibberish. CSD G1 says, in part: unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. Looks like it to me. Besides, an admin would know to WP:IAR and delete an obvious junk page like this even if you are right. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there, an admin would delete it anyway and its kind of a borderline thing however on WP:PN this probably falls under "Incompetent and/or immature material" or "Vandalism" which does not fall under the category. It is important that articles are tagged correctly, either way. I'm not insulting your style, just merely giving you a reference for the future. You could try being a little nicer, I was just trying to help. Matty (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, that's just not how I roll. I check the recent changes, sometimes I hit a new page, sometimes an edit. I personally don't care for the whole "patrolling" thing, but hey, that's just me. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perkins' 14
Any further suggestions? I think I have met WP:GNG] and give Wiki a nice encyclopdic article. I can imagine as release nears, it will further pass [[WP:NF... but I'd be happy if you even slightly agree with GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's much better now, I have withdrawn the AfD nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Layzie Bone
Thank you for the rollback. I am able to vastly expand this article and provide WP:V using WP:RS per WP:NN and WP:MUSIC. I am providing a third opinion and will try to end this war with a definitive edit. Cheers! :-)  fr33k man   -s-  18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added my own warning to his talk page as well, hopefully he will get the message and not have to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully. I think that it stems from the fact that it was poorly written (in street lingo). I've vastly improved in (in edit window) and think it will stick.  fr33k man   -s-  18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, Cheerio!  fr33k man   -s-  21:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for interrupting, but I must say I'm afraid your hopes will probably not pan out. It may be worth noting the large number of warnings and pleas for civility JBsupreme has had added to his talk page in the past; he erases from his talk page anything that portrays him in a negative light, but you can still view them in the page history. Chubbles (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perkins' 14
I certainly appreciate your withdrawal, and will continue to add to the article as more becomes available.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentient beings
You wrote on B9's chittychat page:
 * This article was cut down because of the consensus reached in the discussion at articles for deletion, which you did not participate in. An edit summary like "extract salient points and footnote, don't undo my scholarly pastiche: there is a grand synthesis unfolding" makes it patently obvious that you are adding your own opinions and original research to the article. Please discontinue this behavior, promoting your religious viewpoints is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in the discussion because I was not notified nor invited and was not informed or included in its proceedings. Where is the inclusivity and transparency in that? I included the quotations at this formative stage of the article EXACTLY to pre-empt and negate the expected baseless charges made by individuals such as yourself in the abovecited. In answer, I do not have a religion and I do not have a position. You are just wrong and your attribution unfounded. . Where is your evidence? The grand synthesis I made reference to is about an encycopedic, historical, developmental and inclusive exploration of the technical term "sentient beings", you wantonly misunderstood. What is now evident on the page due to the "consensus" is a generic Western interpretation of the position of the Gelugpa hegemony.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok, there's no need for the blown gasket. Allow me to be perfectly frank and honest with you. I have no idea what the "Gelupga hegemony" is. I have no idea how it might be different fro what you wrote. I can't make any sense at all out of most of the old version of the page which you are trying to re-create. That is the the crux of this problem. You added all these long quotes and wrote all this flowery language that seems to be putting forward one particular view of this concept. Wikipedia articles should be written so that a person completely unfamiliar with the subject can make sense of them. If I misunderstood your intention in using the word "synthesis" then I apologize, but frankly, your writing is somewhat difficult to understand. For example what exactly do you mean by "Don't project your seduction by opinions and false charges of original research onto me"? I've never heard the phrase "seduction by opinions" before and I don't get what it means. This is why people (not just me as you can see from the AfD discussion) have a problem with the way this is written. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This editor has a long history of editing against consensus, flooding articles with long quotations, engaging in hyperbolic, turgid, overly-florid, opaque and incomprehensible non-encyclopedic prose, highly interpretive overlinking, masking OR with lots of questionably relevant references, and being a general nuisance. And then, going thermonuclear when anyone DARES to QUESTION his CONTRIBUTIONS with 'seduction by opinions' (WTF?). I do think B9 has a great deal of knowledge and that the encyclopedia could benefit from it if he would just exhibit a little more willingness to work _with_ other editors instead of, as you say, using WP as a platform for his own love-affair with his own cleverness.  I just don't have the energy to go through proper process to try to stem the tide, maybe you would. In any event, thanks for standing up to him on this point at least.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.11.252 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Your comments re pissing people off are concerning. Are you always civil?

You sound like an ideal candidate for WP:ER. Have you had one? --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do my best to be civil, although once in a while I can be a bit sarcastic. Part of it is just that I do a work in a lot of deletion-related areas, and some users are a little over-sensitive. The other part is that I'm just no good at pretending to believe things I don't actually believe, and if I think someone is full of it I let them know, but  I also have no problem admitting when I've made a mistake or misinterpreted a guideline or policy. I've written a few ERs, but no I've never had one myself. Aw what the heck, I'll give that a try first, see what my fellow users have to say, I admit I'm curious what they might find to like and dislike about my editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Sipes
THanks for the assessment. I didn't have the chance to look up the project's guidelines for importance and tasks. TravellingCari 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem, my new obsession is keeping the "unassesed Alaska articles" page clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to auto generate a page like that? The museum project is far from clear, but I'd partially like to know how I could keep a top of what I ought to be doing. TravellingCari  02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that. I just go to the WP Alaska page, and they have a link in the infobox to a page listing all unknown importance articles, so there must be some fancy code that does it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, gives me an idea of where to look. Thanks again TravellingCari  03:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pedestrian (band)
Hi Beeblebrox. I just wanted to let you know I added more sources to the article, which might address your concerns at this AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming
Thank you for welcoming me. Though you made a mistake or two, the gesture is much appreciated. Keep up the good work: new users need all the tips they can get! Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, there was a weird bug where it looked like the template hadn't posted the first time, so I posted it again and of course they both showed up. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse through User Page
While surfing through Wikipedia I noticed this on This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oranges_are_not_red_in_colour Userpage,

(content removed) It seems directed to someone and it is very hateful and I found it disturbing to read, I think this is beyond a joke and it seems cruel.

I was hoping as an admin you would have more authority than me and would be able to do something

Thanks What-a-helpful-chap-pete-is! (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your game is, but you are well on your way to being blocked for disruptive editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry that was my own user page, forgot to login; the message was directed at the person who led you to this link; not the owner of the user page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranges are not red in colour (talk • contribs) 18:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Chip Conley article
Hello - not sure why the article is going to get "speedily deleted." It was marked as such before I was even close to done with it, and if it is not advertising at all, as Conley is a major author in addition to hotelier. Ndantzig (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The nomination was not based on notability, but on the tone of the article. It was written in such a way that it seemed to be promoting this individual, as opposed to simply reporting the facts in a neutral way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

iOffice
Well than tell him to stop lying on a subject he knows nothing about, beeble boy. }:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.224.176 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentient beings (Buddhism)
Hey there Mr. Zaphod. I'm sorry for not being more stubborn before; I just wanted to give B9 hummingbird the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to point a little more clearly toward his grand synthesis, but since nothing has improved, I say we go for it. Let me know what you think of the stub (assuming it's still there)—it now incorporates everything relevant that I could tease out of B9's scholarly pastiche, plus a little of Peter's comments from the talk page. /Ninly (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's certainly an improvement, I can at least make basic sense out of it now. And don't apologize, sometimes a softer approach works better, although in this case I don't think there's much hope. B9 seems like he's knows what he's talking about, but his writing is so dense and verbose I just can't follow it all... Anyway, good work! Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

fag
you fucking suck. people need to know the true meaning of thumbing
 * Go back under your bridge, I don't have any billy goats for you to eat. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

you are gay
boo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.83.23 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lives of the Prophets
I've read you wrote: One of my favorite things is when I come across a newly created article made by a new user or someone for whom English is obviously their second language.. I dare to ask you, if you have time, to have a look and possibly copyedit Article Lives of the Prophets I expanded from a stub. Thanks. A ntv (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up the grammar and re-rated the article as start class due to your improvements. Keep up the good work! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank a lot ! A ntv (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome
It seems some of my edits are being blanked in the Amiga article but I am citing the Amiga Guru Book and Web Sites as references. It is factual information but I was accused of it not being factual but like a facepalm. It was not a facepalm, it was a NPOV that didn't praise or criticize the Amiga, unlike the other people editing the article. I've used Amiga computers since 1985 and still own an Amiga 500 that replaced my original Amiga 1000 I bought in 1985. I would rather that if my words are found to be a POV that someone rewrites them so they are NPOV instead of just blanking them as they contain factual information with proper references and cites. Orion Blastar (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your edits, and re-written one of them. The exact way you had worded the sentence could be construed as representing a specific point of view, I think I have fixed that problem. If you could provide an ISBN number for the book that would be helpful. Information on that is here. The best way to solve any kind of content dispute is to try to talk to other editors on the article's talk page, remembering to keep it civil. You will find this easier if you avoid using phrases like "Amiga hater". Myself, I had a TRS-80 when I was a kid, and later a CoCo 3. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no ISBN number for it as it was self-published. Originally it was in German and then English and it is a rare book to find. Amiga is a good start at an article, I'll be civil in the future and try not to write a point of view. Orion Blastar (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the tags
I'm still learning some of the ropes. I also added an article on Joan's on Third that's been tagged for possible deletion. I would really appreciate it if you could have a look. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is somewhat different, as the sources you provided are all either press releases or restaurant reviews. Press releases are not considered reliable sources, as there is an obvious conflict of interest, and restaurant reviews are not generally considered to qualify as "non-trivial coverage". The sources for the LaBrea article mentioned multiple locations and had substantial coverage about them taking the unusual step of publicly offering stock in such a small operation, whereas Joan's is a single location and not noted for anything other than food. Individual eating establishments are generally not considered automatically notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concerns. I stubbified it, hopefully correctly.  Joan's also has a major catering business.  They are a major LA institution.  I will find more and better references if necessary.  I'm not trying to hype random restaurants.  But please see Dean & DeLuca and Zabar's for comparison.  It's a major restaurant, a gourmet food store, and a caterer.  And it really is an LA institution.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  I need to go to sleep so I hope I'll have an opportunity to address your concerns tomorrow.  I chose Joan's for the same reason I chose LaBrea, it's a big deal in LA.  ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit of history
Hi there. I don't know if you've come across before, but he has a long history here. I won't go into it, but suffice to say that he is under an indefinite sanction from the Arbitration Committee for tendentious and agenda-driven editing on medical articles, often focusing on vaccines and autism (see the ArbCom case for details). I mention this only so you're aware of the history; if this particular editor is the only one objecting to a course of action, and he's using non-policy-based rationales like this, then I would suggest considering his history. If there's a bigger issue with him disrupting a particular article, then let me know or send it to arbitration enforcement, as he's specifically prohibited from doing so by the ArbCom ruling. MastCell Talk 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem to me that he is the only one who objects to the merger, and none of his arguments are based on policy but rather seem to be based on his personal feelings toward this organization. He has undone the redirect 3 separate times (not all in the same day however) so I thought an RFC would be the best way to settle the matter. In light of the ArbCom sanction though, he is probably in violation of it here, as he seems to want to simply undo the redirect because he feels it's "historical significance should not be deprecated via redirect". I haven't seen any evidence of this "historical significance" in any reliable source. I appreciate you restoring the redirect, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he undoes it yet again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If he provides a more rational reason, or even gives an indication that he wants to discuss the issue and recognize other opinions, then we can go from there. If he's just going to edit-war and spout the usual stuff about conspiracies and cover-ups, then I don't think we need to waste too much time. I'll go ahead and watchlist it. MastCell Talk 22:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
...for posting an review on my editor review. I think you are correct, as I do more reverting than anything else. I'd say a good 90% of my edits are reverts. I have done some AFD discussions and new page watching, but I do respect your point that I maintain more than I add or expand. I filled out this editor review knowing that I haven't expanded a lot of pages, so your review was exactly what I was expecting from someone. I have plans to join a project and will do so when I have more time at the end of the college term. Again, thank you.  ~Beano~  (talk) (contribs)  02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

self-published sources
I didn't know that. I'll look for some other places that have the information. --icorey (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future! Also, what do you think of the proposal to merge do-attempt into orphan?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I notice that you tagged the page Aron Rosza for speedy deletion with the reason "article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the article states that he was a prizewinner at the 15th Vienna International Music Competition 2007, which is an assertion of importance. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that "prizewinner" was deliberately vague. If it had said "first place" or "Grand Champion" or something like that, I wouldn't have gone for the speedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your request on RFPP
When these same IPs pop up again, just immediately request reblocking at WP:AIV, noting the history in the request, or drop a note on my talk page and I'll do it. Also, different IPs making the exact same edits, same thing. لenna vecia  04:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Review
Hey there Beeblebrox, I just did a quick review of you and your chances at an RfA. I'll be honest with you, right now I don't think you would do well at an RfA. There are a few things that would kill you: If you want to run you need to: 1) work on articles, 2) contribute to other areas showing policy knowledge, 3) demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively with others in areas other than your own talk page.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 06:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) You don't really have much article building experience.
 * 2) You don't have much in the way of communication off of your talk page.  Your talk page shows a person who is thoughtful and capable of communicating.  I've looked at a few of the articles where you have the most edits, but there isn't much there.  Besides your talk page, most of the user talk page edits appear to be via tools.
 * 3) You have virtually no wikispace or wikispace talk experience outside of a few areas frequented solely visited by vandal fighters.  This means that with the exception of vandal fighting, you have no experience is policy areas.
 * 4) Your CSD tagging is pretty solid.
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to check me out. I was really curious as to what might be viewed as strengths and weaknesses in my work, so your remarks are very helpful. Is AfD not considered "wikispace"? The reason I ask is that I have participated in lots of AfD debates in the past, but I have lessened my activity there of late. You are right though, I have only participated in a few discussions that go beyond AfD or vandalism-related areas. I work on-call a lot, so I often do what you have seen, making little improvements to new or neglected articles, the kind of work you can dip in and out of if called away. Anyway, thanks again for your time and effort! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD is considered wikispace, but it is one that slips through the cracks on this tool... which I should have noted. AFD is very helpful (or can hurt if your !votes are per nom or lack reasons.)  While some expect AfD experience, there is a growing desire to have wikispace edits in other areas as well.  (Pure vandal fighters have to really show excellence to pass RfA's... they are probably the ones with the biggest need for the tools, but they are also the ones most likely to make mistakes with the tools.)  If your article work is copy editing, you might want to start a section on your talk page about articles where you've made significant copy edits... when your your article count maxes at 31 and article talk maxes at 18, it doesn't look like you've spent much time investing in "building" the project.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, thanks for the clarification. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ref help
You added an extra pipe. The link should be: Article on problem bears in Alaska :) - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I've been doing this a while, I haven't added all that many refs. I'm trying to add Article on problem bears in Alaska to the article Bear danger, but every time I click on it I get a "not found" error page. What am I doing wrong? Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a pipe cahracter at the end of the link. Try removing that. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you gentlemen, always a pleasure... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

America's Suiteheart
Number 1 are you an admin Number 2 I am putting legitimate info and un-redirecting the America's Suiteheart page and I have refrences and is very important why can't I edit it?--XxFallOutFan13xx (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not an admin, but any user is free to notice and warn persons engaged in edit warring. A blog is not considered a reliable reference, so that's part of the problem. You are free to pursue dispute resolution if you feel strongly that this article should be created. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also on i-tunes and everyone is undoing the edit, it is just as important as the other singles rite, and thanxz for the warning.XxFallOutFan13xx (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being on ITunes does not automatically confer notability. Click here for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being an itunes only release actually makes it less likely to gain notability in the future as it makes it very unlikely that it will recieve reviews or chart. --neon white talk 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok i just need to find a liable source ez enoughXxFallOutFan13xx (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Neighborhoods in Baghdad
hey im doing this on purpose, both spellings are correct and im trying to remove the load of many Neighbourhod names on the category of baghdad by putting them under a new category —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glasszone33 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I get what you're trying to do now, but are you sure it's working? Also, please sign your posts by adding four tildes, like this: ~ . Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

IP sock at AfD
Thanks for marking that IP address. I reported him at Kikbguy's sock report earlier (here) but forgot to note it at the AfD. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a shame. The guy seemed reasonable enough early in the debate, but he kinda freaked out there when things didn't go his way... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove content and label your edit "typo"
If you want to remove encyclopedic content, that's considered vandalism and you will be blocked. That you label your removal in your edit summary as "typo" to disguise your actions just aggravates the situation. Consider this a warning. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is you are referring to, could you provide a link please. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm fairly sure you are talking about this. I honestly don't know what I thought the problem was there or what was going through my mind when I made this edit three days ago, but you could at least try to assume good faith that a long term contributor with 11,000 edits isn't going to suddenly go on a vandalism spree. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further examination, it seems the template I removed did not exist at the time I removed it, making it appear to be a mistake. You created both the article and the template, so you should have been able to put this together yourself. In light of this, I would appreciate you striking out your unfounded remarks above. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have assumed good faith, you have not. The remarks are wholly founded. You pounced on an article within moments of its creation, removed content, and claimed it was a typo. I have created thousands of these and no one else had the gumption to remove content and engage in edit summary deception. Your comment at the article's talk page demonstrates further less than good faith on your part: (1) if you noticed my editing, you'd note that redirects are made soon after articles with atypical characters; (2) if you hadn't noticed my editing, you could have made the redirect yourself rather than carp about it - that would be helping out. When you jump on articles within moments of their creation, you need to get it right and not be deceptive. Particularly when dealing with an experienced editor - to which you allude - and as for giving you benefit for your 11,000 edits, I'll do that when you give me the benefit of my 100,000 edits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, you kind of missed the point there. My editing was not deceptive in any way. I removed a non-existent template from a stub article. How is that vandalism? I have in fact noticed you creating stacks and piles of location stubs and redirect pages, but that doesn't change the fact that you came to me with an accusation of vandalism for an edit I have clearly demonstrated was made in good faith to remove what was, at that time, a link to a template that did not exist. My mind reading abilities must have been off that day, I didn't know you were going to create the template a few minutes later. I would think a person with your vast experience would know better than to put up articles with such obvious errors in them, and an administrator certainly ought to know to at least start off being nice and not making baseless accusations of vandalism. A message like "I'm not sure what you were doing with this edit, but I have reverted it because it removed a template." would have been a lot better than your, now repeated,  bullshit accusation of vandalism. I didn't make thew redirect myself because I am unfamiliar with the language and thought maybe the person who created the article would be more likely to get it right, as I'm sure you were able to do. My remark on the talk page was not an accusation, it was a request, and a lot more polite than any of your remarks to me here, as anyone could see. You are an administrator sir, and as such, you are supposed to set an example of civility and good faith. As for my "gumption" in daring to edit an article created by you, actually, I'm not even going to reply to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for missing the point your remarks are perfect. Removal of redlinks is not considered cleanup. Cleaning up is creating them. At WP, there are plenty of gripers and plenty of doers. If you were concerned that a redlink template was inserted, you could have notified the author (constructive) or just delete (destructive). Similarly, if you thought that a redirect was in order, you could have created it with no drama (constructive) and less effort that putting a comment on the talk page of the article you thought too difficult to find in question. (not constructive) I have been civil, it is you and many of the self-appoint police types who at WP are basically empowered to shoot first and deal with consequences later; new editors get pissed off by that swagger and some leave, the rest of us just point it out and try to correct behavior before it gets you into bigger trouble. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok whatever, Mr. bullshit artist. You still haven't explained how it was vandalism that would get me blocked. Remember, you warned me that I was a vandal and would be blocked? At the top of this section? You know, in kind of a swaggering, shoot first kind of a way, you warned me about being blocked for removing, not a redlink as in to an article, but to a template. I'm still waiting to hear how that was a blockable vandalistic action. As for my brief request on the talk page, that's all that was. You seem to be the one starting drama here, threatening to block someone for nothing because they dared to make a change you didn't care for to one of "your" articles. Unless you can explain your earlier threat of blocking me as a vandal in a way that makes some logical sense, please feel free to leave me alone. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I was just passing by and wanted to help both of you outstanding and good faith editors to make peace.
 * Please, both of you shoot me rather than one another.
 * I think you are both right, and both wrong.
 * Firstly, Carlos appears to be a very hardworking contributor, who is probably frustrated with the way starting articles is made hard at Wiki, because people who don't know anything about a new article presume that anything they don't know isn't worth knowing and try to delete things before further information can be added. I know this absolutely aggravating experience personally, and Carlos has 110% of my sympathy.
 * But likewise, Beeblebrox has one of the coolest names at Wiki, ;) and seems to have honestly simply tried to clean up half-finished untidiness he saw. He also seems to have a very reasonable dislike of being painted as a monster when, at the most, he was guilty only of not investigating a little more deeply or talking to the person whose work he was interacting with.
 * Secondly, as implied by the comments above where I point out how both of you seem right (but only in my ignorant opinion), you do also both seem to be wrong about minor things that shouldn't be leading to this world war III here.
 * Carlos, please have mercy on Beeblebrox, he's not one of those idiots who prods new articles simply because they think they know everything that is worth knowing. He is not your enemy, but there are others who do need to learn to be more humble about patroling new pages. Carlos, please keep starting new articles, Wiki needs you to do this. If ever you want support, drop a note at my page and I'll come in to help you.
 * Beeblebrox, please have mercy on Carlos, this is far less personal than you think. I could be wrong, but I think I hear a hard worker shooting first before asking questions, only because that's the way other people keep treating him (including your removal really).
 * Beeblebrox could possibly have done better by going the tedious extra step of alerting the person whose work he was reverting.
 * Carlos could possibly have done better by simply ignoring the whole thing, restoring his work, and letting Beeblebrox work things out for himself.
 * Please guys, sleep on it and shake hands. No damage has been done, except to egos. And, imo, ego is not a dirty word. It is a good thing for us to take pride in our work, means we are happy to be accountable. BUT, let's take more pride in our ability to get over our differences.
 * Man, you two are seriously skilled in flaming one another! I'd love to have you guys on my side in a fight. Only, here at Wiki, we gotta get away from personal flaming and fights, and back to calm analysis of sources.
 * But, a bit of healthy emotional release is no problem, so long as you can get over it and shake hands afterwards.
 * I'm finished. Please feel free to flame me and tell me to mind my own business. However, I'd be honoured to see the two of you show the outstanding gentleman scholars and Wiki contributors that you are by shaking hands. Please let me know if you can forget the past and move on. Also, I mean what I say. If ever either of you need a friend, gimme a call. I'll see if I can help. Cheerio. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note Beeblebrox, I stand by my promise of helping you out if ever you need it. Keep editing and staying cool! Whatever you do, don't stop ... both things! Cheers. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)