User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Bamler2's talk page.
Message added 21:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 21:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Project for RfA nominators

As one of the supporters of the proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your block of 178.61.14.156

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imaginationaaaa, as it looks like this incompetent editor is wreaking havoc despite your block. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ouch.Not the absolute worst sockfarm I've ever seeen, and it looks like he made it pretty easy to find them anyway, but that is pretty bad. Looks like everyone is blocked now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Beef

Re this edit summary, I think you'll find that, at least in Europe, the beef is here. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yoink. I recall when I was a kid a grocery store chain was selling "imported beef" that turned out to be kangaroo meat. Me, I just can't help making cheap pop culture references from the 80's. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Unblocking Colton Cosmic. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, ok, thanks for informing me of a thread I just commented in.... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

I think you missed that he's IP hopping. Here are the edits: [1], [2], [3] and here is where he claims ownership of all of the different IPs. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I did miss edits by another IP, probably because the blocking admin made no effort whatsoever to explain the basis of the block so that it would be clear in the likely event of an appeal. All he said was "edit warring". I looked at all the contribs from that IP and there was no edit warring. If there were multiple IPs involved that should have been noted in the block log and in the blocking notice, which was not even used. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Guilty of IP hopping, as I am the one who pointed out to you that I am all the other IPs on the RFBA. I use mobile and live on the international border, and IP hopping is a major problem; my IP changes in the middle of posts, uploads, downloads, e-mails. Very frustrating. But, I was not blocked for the IP hopping that I myself exposed to you.

And, the edit warring was not accurate. I requested a review, which the BN says that I am allowed to do, the "Anyone," there includes IPs. My request for review is not an issue that has been resolved and reverting and blocking me for requesting review was an abuse of power which I will take up another way.

Anyway, thanks Beeblebrox for looking at my unblock request. The blocking admin did block the other IPs also, but because of the IP hopping, I only requested one unblock as a matter of course. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Now at...Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Review_request_reverted_and_user_blocked. MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Took a glance, that seems more to be about long-term issues and this user's general attitude, not this recent block. In any event I gotta go so you all can figure it out without me. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

UAA

2991media (talk · contribs) has edited again after I declined his submission on the weekend. (see my userreport at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&oldid=550362754 this revision). Regards, mabdul 17:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, there is nothing in their edits that points to an organization by that name, and a search for a company by that name comes up empty, so it is not a blatant violation. Discussing the matter with them is still an option though. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about Closing a Discussion

Hi. As someone who once closed a discussion I participated in, I have a question for you:

Someone just asked me to close a discussion. I myself participated in that discussion, though I just realized now that I forgot to sign my message from two weeks ago, and just added it in now. It's possible that the person who made this request of me did not know this, or that it doesn't matter. Is it permissible for a participant to close the discussion? I would imagine that an involved would have to be asked, but wanted to make sure. Can you tell me the criteria and procedures? Is there a policy or guideline page somewhere? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule it is not advised to close discussions you participated in as it may appear that you are super voting or pushing your desired result. However, like any WP rule there are exceptions, such as discussions where the outcome is exceedingly obvious or where prolonged attempts to get an outside closer have failed. I have not looked at the discussion in question to see if it fits either of those cases but WP:ANRFC is another route, where you should get a completely uninvolved closer but it may take a few days or even weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I was just directed to Wikipedia:Closing discussions. But thanks for pointing me to ANI: Request for closure as well. That should come in handy in the future. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential personal information posted

Beeble,

There are several revisions of the <a page> that appear to show personal contact information, names, e-mails, addresses and phone numbers. They were placed earlier today by <someone>. .There appears to be two revisions with this information. You may want to wipe these revisions from public view. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. While I never mind doing such things I should mention that the preferred way of bringing it to the attention of the oversight team is off wiki, using the email process detailed at WP:RFO. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

TP access

This user's block indicates talk page access is also blocked but they are making inappropriate edits? [4] My76Strat (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I selected it from the drop down menu but forgot to actually change the settings. Another admin has already fixed it, but thanks for letting me know. I had realized some time ago that this user was a bit... unhinged, but never saw anything like this from them before. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

How did you grow up in Ohio and not eat Trail bolonga? Its the best all Ohio food. I guess the amish dont advertize well. There selling it in all Walmarts within 50 miles of Holmes county now you should try it. Uglyduckroger (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I now live about 3,500 miles from Ohio, so I'll have to take your word for it. However our local meat processor does make a Lebanon bologna that has a nice smoky flavor. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notification

Hi. If you have the time, can you please take a look at Talk:Abuse#Problems and Template talk:Bullying#This reversion? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you! Teresaul (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Leepa Valley photos

Apologies for the lapse. I have deleted all the files I inadvertently created. I would be grateful if you could close the discussion on the articles for discussion page as they have now been listed for copyvio on the commons page.--File Éireann 21:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

These things happen. Looks like other users have already closed it up and taken other needed action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to thank you for lifting the blockade so I was able to make the amendments in time! It was much appreciated!! (Also, sorry for the confusion, as you can see I am new to this :)) - Regards Teresaul

You're welcome, and don't worry about it. I am well aware of how utterly confusing Wikipedia can be, even very experienced users can have trouble navigating all the procedures and policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 00:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

For your consideration

Disruption, revisited, involving the same subject that you previously deleted, this time in the form of a copyright violation. Reverted [5]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've revdeleted it and left them a note about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User you had blocked

Can you take a look at Demographics of atheism, he's back and I don't want to look like I'm pushing a POV because I did substantial requested work on the lede and sorted the sections but his edits got mixed with mine. Is there a way to just revert them all and block the ip permanently? Lycurgus (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Permanent blocks of IPs are exceedingly rare because almost all IPs are re-assigned periodically. However, this one appears to be fairly static since it appears to be the same user doing this all along, so I have blocked it for one year. Refusal to discuss controversial changes is not something we can tolerate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I have a question about the policy for unprotecting pages. The page for Dota 2 has just been unprotected, because apparently people on a Reddit thread said they wanted to have a shot at the page, but they weren't registered before. Is that allowed, or is it in lieu with meatpuppetry? DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an unusual situation, but so long as the idea is to improve the article it seems like a good thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DeusM

This is to let you know I've re-created the DeusM page. I think you were the closing admin in a deletion debate back in 2011. It's a more substantial article now, with national news refs, and it's no longer an orphan, partly because of its link with Design News.WebHorizon (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)WebHorizon

Hmm, my only real concern here is that I userfied the deleted article for you and it was obviously the basis of this new version, but it was recreated by cut/paste instead of using a page move, which causes problems as the efforts of the users who edited that previous version are no longer properly attributed to them. That can be fixed by a history merge, but I have only done that once before so I guess I'll have to review that procedure... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done in the future please do use the "move" feature in such situations. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I didn't know about "move."WebHorizon (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Webhorizon

Thanks for the unblock!

I got up the gumption to log in again, only, finally, to get the good news. I remain passionate about WP:PRESERVE (and I really wish more admins felt the same), but it's unlikely such a perfect storm will ever come up any time soon. Thanks again! -- Kendrick7^talk 02:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back. Although i should note that ti was the comments by the blocking admin that persuaded me to unblock.

I'll be honest, I'm surprised he/she got unblocked. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 16:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology

WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I would like to apologize for what happened and I am glad that we both seemed to have moved on. I would like you to know that you are probably the firmest administrator I've ever met, but that is such a good thing. Also, remember that I am on your team for fighting against trolls and vandals. Enjoy. Thanks. -Connor WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 13:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have developed somewhat of a reputation for being one of the tougher admins (contrary to the myth that we admins are a single hive mind and all think exactly the same).I do get the feeling this was a learning experience for you and I look forward to seeing lots more positive contributions in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a question. I really want to become an administrator, but how do you think I could prepare myself for adminship. I only have had this account for 6 weeks, but I have been editing Wikipedia since August 2010. Now, the other problem is that I have a fresh block for a stupid thing I did. How or what can I do to become an administrator. Also, I would like to do it so I can help Wikipedia, which is my primary goal. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 02:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The best piece of advice I can give you is to be patient. Seeming over-eager to become an admin is a great way to convince a lot of people you should not be one. Most admin candidates who pass a request for adminshiphave been active editors for at least a year and have established a reputation for making good decisions and being familiar with policies, as well as making good contributions to discussions. Some specifics include:

• Admins are expected to be very well versed in deletion policies espescially the criteria for speedy deletion
• New page patrol is one area that you could try as it will test your ability to differentiate articles that qualify for speedy deletion from articles that, while they may have problems, cannot be speedy deleted.
• Participation in deletion discussions is another area where you can learn how deletion and consensus work.
• Warning and reporting vandals or username violations are activities that will bring you into regular contact with active admins so you can see how they handle them.
• Participation at WP:RFA will give you a good idea of what you will have to go through and the microscope you will be under when you do decide to run.
• When you feel like you are about half way there it is a good idea to ask for an editor review to get feedback on your progress so far.

Remember to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers when doing any of these things. As you are aware Wikipedia can be a bit overwhelming with all its policies and guidelines, and sometimes the only reason a user runs afoul of them is because they just didn't know about them, not because they are malicious and trying to destroy Wikipedia, although those people are certainly out there as well. Once again, the most important thing you need to remember is to be patient, it takes time to acquire the knowledge and experience the community expects of an admin. I was here two years before my first try, and it failed pretty badly because of one single careless mistake I had made a few weeks earlier. The second one went much better because I showed that it was just a single screw up and not part of a pattern of making the same mistake. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I almost always assume good faith. I do not when I have encountered a user who operated over ten sockpuppets...and I have bitten once or twice before, which I will watch.

• I will familiarize myself with deletion policies and criteria for speedy deletion and the whole deletion process.
• I am following your advice and am currently watching a request for adminship of Piotrus. I thought I gave a pretty good reason in my vote there.
• I am learning to use various anti-vandalism tools, such as CVU and I currently use Twinkle and I am very active in reporting vandals, as I have reported several in the past and I have read the username policy.

I believe that I should wait 10-12 months before becoming one. In the meantime, I will continue to be active and will learn CVU via training with Nerdfighter. I will also possibly try to earn some other rights such as Reviewer and possiblt Oversighter, Checkuser, or another important member, so I can help Wikipedia. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 22:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oversight and checkuser are functionary positions appointed by the arbitration committee. Also, and I'm just guessing here, I get the feeling you are probably not quite 18 years old yet, and functionaries must identify themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation and prove they are legal adults. There are only a few dozen such users and pretty much all of them were already admins before they got appointed, so I would put that out of your mind for the moment. Rollback and reviewer, on the other hand, should be pretty easy to get once you have an established record of identifying and reverting vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, I am not 18 yet. I am yes, still in middle school, but going into high school next year. I was just throwing ideas out there. I already do rollback and I'm trying to get reviewer, so I'll hope for the best. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 23:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, beebs...you're "firm" are ya? Not sure I needed to know that. To be honest, the only "right" that WorldTraveller is apparently heading for is "blocked". As you'll see down below, your review of Toddst1's talkpage and ANI would be welcome ... as would your comments (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Tudor Rd., Anchorage

Hi, do you happen to know when Tudor Rd. in Anchorage, AK was paved? I'm sitting here in walking distance from Tudor and Lake Otis, wondering if my professor's right that Tudor wasn't paved till the '70s. This was sure interesting. Yopienso (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, in the 70's I was in Ohio going to elementary school. I was about to ask RadioKAOS to comment, he knows more about such things than anybody, but I see you have already asked them too. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. Yopienso (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just asking ..

Please would you take a look at this edit [6] and explain why "cmt" covers your deletion of my edit? Thanks. Philip Trueman (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Because that user was blocked by me already so the report was no longer needed. We don't reply to reports if the user was blocked, we just block and move on. Usually a bot gets that done rather quickly but it must have been on a break or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Aw come on

Your not one of the more active admins (per AdminStatus. Well good job anyway. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 21:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder which is the point of raising this here...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummmmm...well this was kind of a JK kind of...oh but you are so always on the ball, how can you not type of thing. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 23:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• If this is a joke I can't say I see the humor, but whatever. Stats do not accurately reflect who is and is not a currently active admin. I don't think I have ever looked at that page until just now and I doubt most of the admins listed there know or care what their "standings" are as good admins do not approach their work that way at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe you're interested in dropping some lines here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Never seen that page before but it doesn't seem very useful. The most helpful things an admin can do will never get logged there. There is no ranking for "blocks prevented by properly mediating" nor "protections avoided by discussing with parties" etc. Sometimes you have to block or protect, but the real success is when we could have used the tools, but found a way to not use them and got the job done. No way to measure that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD–closing script

I noticed that you have been closing some AfDs and you appeared to be doing it manually. Just as an FYI, this script might make closing AfDs much easier for you. Of course, you can close AfDs however you want, but I thought I'd let you know about the script just in case it might actually be helpful for you. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually using Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js which is similar but doesn't quite have all the options. I might try that one, thanks for letting me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Rosetta Code

Here are three mentions of Rosetta code from books I found this morning:

1. Speaking Code: Coding As Aesthetic and Political Expression from MIT Press.
2. Steps in Scala from Cambridge University Press.
3. Programming in Go: Creating Applications for the 21st Century from Addison-Wesley.

I would like your support in resurrecting this page. --Paddy (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Just found this:

• A reference in the peer reviewed Journal of Statistical Software in the paper A Multi-Language Computing Environment for Literate Programming and Reproducible Research, (Search for 'Rosetta Code' in the text and list of references).

--Paddy (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my only role here was determining what the consensus was at the afd debate, I don't personally have an opinion on it. If you think you can improve the article to the point where it would be retained I could WP:USERFY the deleted version for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do and I and hopefully others will work on it before trying to recreate the "standard" page. --Paddy (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, see User:Paddy3118/Rosetta Code. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla DeVille

• Would you please userfy this? Honestly, it baffles me that it was deleted ("no consensus", maybe, but...). The article seemed to be fine until the subject's husband showed up and added all the COI edits (and he was an obvious SPA because after he was told about it for the last time, he apparently left Wikipedia). In addition, all the people that !voted "delete" claimed the nominations weren't notable when they actually were (as proven by other users, not me). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, see User:Erpert/Vanilla DeVille. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Erpert, none of your comments about me or your article are factual and I've asked you several times to stop posting false accusations about me - I have taken the matter to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Beeblebrox, sorry that this issue was brought to your talk page. Stewiedv (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

One more thing...

• Given this subsequent discussion, if I were to move the article back to namespace, would you consider restoring the talk page? (I know that isn't hugely important, but...) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Anytime an article is restored to mainspace it is entirely appropriate to restore the old talk page, so yes, I would. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Why is it that we wind up doing UAA patrol around the same time so often? :-) Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I tend to do it a lot in the morning, Alaska time, it often seems to be backlogged when I get there, then the backlog shrinks really fast as we both knock 'em out... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. When I do it in the morning (Eastern time), which is often the case on weekdays, you're still in bed. Mid-afternoon here ... makes sense. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

La Catrina

Why'd u delete La catrina: El Ultimo Secreto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawerchessread (talk • contribs)

Well, if you were able to figure out that I was the one who deleted it, you should have seen in that same log entry that it was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Catrina (educational program). As that was nearly three years ago I can't say I really remember anything else about it, but from looking at the discussion the issue, as it so often is, was a lack of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The deleted versions of both this article and the article on the original series had references, but from what I can see none of them were relianble sources. Most educational videos made to be shown in classrooms (as opposed to on television) are probably not going to be sufficiently notable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello, Beeblebrox. I am the weirdo who thanked you for denying me reviewer rights. Over the past few months, I have been participating fully in the Wikipedia community, with a particular focus on AfC and NPP. I would like to, over the next few months, achieve real reviewer status and become active with the GOCE and the Typo Team. Also, one of my large overarching goals is to become an admin. As an admin, I could function so much more effectively and be able to contribute so much more to this grand collection of knowledge known as Wikipedia. My question to you is how can I focus my work here on Wikipedia to become an admin? Thanks for any advice you can give me. Please leave me TB if you reply here. Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me 01:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I got asked the same question by another user [7] not long ago and I think the answer I gave them applies here as well:

The best piece of advice I can give you is to be patient. Seeming over-eager to become an admin is a great way to convince a lot of people you should not be one. Most admin candidates who pass a request for adminship have been active editors for at least a year and have established a reputation for making good decisions and being familiar with policies, as well as making good contributions to discussions. Some specifics include:

• Admins are expected to be very well versed in deletion policies espescially the criteria for speedy deletion
• New page patrol is one area that you could try as it will test your ability to differentiate articles that qualify for speedy deletion from articles that, while they may have problems, cannot be speedy deleted.
• Participation in deletion discussions is another area where you can learn how deletion and consensus work.
• Warning and reporting vandals or username violations are activities that will bring you into regular contact with active admins so you can see how they handle them.
• Participation at WP:RFA will give you a good idea of what you will have to go through and the microscope you will be under when you do decide to run.
• When you feel like you are about half way there it is a good idea to ask for an editor review to get feedback on your progress so far.

Remember to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers when doing any of these things. As you are aware Wikipedia can be a bit overwhelming with all its policies and guidelines, and sometimes the only reason a user runs afoul of them is because they just didn't know about them, not because they are malicious and trying to destroy Wikipedia, although those people are certainly out there as well. Once again, the most important thing you need to remember is to be patient, it takes time to acquire the knowledge and experience the community expects of an admin. I was here two years before my first try, and it failed pretty badly because of one single careless mistake I had made a few weeks earlier. The second one went much better because I showed that it was just a single screw up and not part of a pattern of making the same mistake. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much. You have been nothing but pure awesome to my newbie self every time I run into you. Thanks so much. TheOneSean | Talk to me 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Enjoyed your essay

I remember a particular edit summary you once made, and it took me for ever to find it, because I thought it was awesome and shows that admins are human, too. While searching your contribs, I saw a link to your essay. Yes, there a jerks that need to be told this sometimes. So, if I become more active here, I will try to follow Wikipedia:DGAF – it seems to be a lot less stressful. :) — Confession0791 ^talk 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, the flaming downfall of the 2011 pending changes RFC. What a fun moment that was. As you can see there I became something of a boogeyman to some users and was accused of all sorts of bizarre things when all I really wanted to do was find a consensus on the big issues. Anyhoo, you may also enjoy User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal, which was partially inspired by that experience. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this place is nuts. Thanks for the heads up! — Confession0791 ^talk 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Global James Bond Day

Hi Beeblebrox, It looks like the merge discussion on Talk:Global James Bond Day has boiled down to two choices (being Dr. No (film)#Legacy and Eon Productions), with no-one seemingly over-worried about which of the two it turns out to be; I suspect this is partly because there are good arguments for it being on either or both. Your call on which the re-direct goes to, but if you could formally close on one side or the other and I'll ensure that there is adequate coverage about the topic on both articles, with the bulk of the information being on the page you choose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally I don't think I would be comfortable doing that, but as you say nobody seems to have a really strong opinion on the matter, so I picked the Dr. No option. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

please

TLDR version: no. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. `Please restore my user page. Allow me to see it for five minutes. I will act in good faith and do legitimate research and study and do nothing bad. Then you can destroy it.. I can notify you after I've seen it. Bamler2 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC) You can see it in revision form here on the left, but see the messages on your talk regardless. ZappaOMati 03:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Chalk that up to sloppy work on my part. since that was more than twelve hours I should think that was enough time to get a nice long look at it, I have deleted that revision as well now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC) The link is bad. I checked after writing to you and you did not respond. When I checked again it was gone. Wikipedia is not harmed with it but it is very irritating and hostile to make it so bureaucratic. Please restore it and after I have reviewed it for five or minutes, I will notify you. The deletion process was dictated by a few people who dislike me and far less than 1% of users. Thanks you for helping. Bamler2 (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Mr. Brox, you said you undid it long enough for me to see but I did not see it I then left you a message and you stayed logged into WP but ignored this request. Please don't be like that. Thanks you. Bamler2 (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC) See, you are asking me to restore it so you can "look at it for a few minutes". I don't see how that would improve Wikipedia. I don't see how it would do anything of value actually. Given that there are also WP:BLP concerns I am not inclined to just do it anyway. See WP:NOTWEBHOST. If you want to appeal the deletion further you can use WP:DRV, but again "because I want to look at it for a few minutes" is not a compelling reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Please do not make thIngar so difficult and bureaucratic. I do not seek permanent existence which what DRV is. Besides, what a horror WP would be if you made every user fight for and apply to see articles. Seeing my own page would allow me to judge a former article after not looking at it for weeks, assess references, assess why it may not be notable, etc. Please. Please do not make trouble for others. Thank you. Bamler2 (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Besides, you did let me see it but didn't tell me it was there when you removed it again. I never saw it while it was there. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio should be moved

Hi, The title "2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio" is confusing and poorly worded. A more descriptive and precise name would be "Ariel Castro case," which is consistent with other cases of the same nature. I noticed you put a protection on moves, but this page should be moved to a new page titled "Ariel Castro case." Thank you. Alligatorwine (talk) 3:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is awful. However, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about what a preferable option would be and last time I looked at it there was not yet a clear consensus on where to move it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

nothing to see here, move along. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Please note that Nataev (talk · contribs) is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins. It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which [8]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pure Vandalism

This seems to be an account just for vandalism. - Amaury (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It sure does, and I've blocked it for a month, by then school will be out for the summer there. While I never mind doing such things, you may get a faster response by reporting at WP:AIV. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the RFC

I made one incorrect edit based on the text of a lead. I made another good faith edit based on the fact people were focusing on columns by a writer, and you now want to start an RFC agaisnt me. This is uncalled for in the extreme. No one discussed either of these issues with me at my talk page, the edit on an actor was just thrown at me from left field. I have been totally abiding by the rules, and adding people to things like Category:American women journalists without removing them from relevant categories. I think that the threat of an RFC is totally uncalled for and would really appreciate it if you removed the uncaleld for link to a potential one. I even reverted my own edits on Filipacchi. I am trying to cooperate and adapt, but peopel seem to just want to punish and attack me. This is not at all a way to build a better encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that most people seem to oppsoe the ban, that many people have commented on it, and that it is unlikely to gain any traction. I really think moving it to another forum will just needlessly draw out the drama. What we may need if a CfD discussion on whether on not we should even have Category:American women journalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jon, a user RFC (a proper one based on real concerns) is not against you or anyone. It is supposed to be a discussion, an opportunity to air out perceived issues and come to some sort of compromise or other voluntary solution. By definition it cannot lead to any type of formal sanction, so it would be a step down in severity from the current effort to just kick you out, which I do not support. That being said, I think you should do yourself a favor and self-topic-ban from anything even vaguely related to Amanda Filipacchi. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry about my previous statements. I probably over reacted. I probably let this get to me too much. Sorry if I came off too strong. For what it is worth I actually was the one who reverted my most recent edits to Amanda Filipacchi.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've actually been there myself. I never thought one of my actions here would be mentioned on Fox News. [9] I hid under a rock for a while after that, so I am aware the stress this kind of scrutiny can engender. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just saw your essay

I never swear or use bad language - perhaps it's a habit that comes from being a teacher - but I fully understand where you're coming from, especially as I am privileged, unlike many others, with knowing you personally. Hope to catch up with you again for a beer or two :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I never heard my father, also a teacher, use "the f-word" until after he retired, and even then he was quoting someone else. I didn't get a scholarship this year so I'm going to miss out on Hong Kong, but there's always London next year. They have beer in London, right? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been to London for about 40 years so 2014 will change that. I've been to Wiki meetups in Oxford a couple of times, and as far as I know, the beer in nearby London will be pretty much the same :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We have beer in London. Though sadly nowadays much is chilled, pasteurised and much the same as the watery transparent stuff served in foreign parts. ϢereSpielChequers 07:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Count me among the essay's fans too. CorporateM (Talk) 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons classes

Responded on your page on Commons Dankarl (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Block request by Mathnerd 101

I have lots of homework right now, but I still haven't been able to stay off Wikipedia. Please block me until June 15 so that I can stay off Wikipedia. Also, please either accept or refuse my request without further discussion, as I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing my block request.

I'm not contacting you via email because my parents would not approve if I posted something such as an email address on a page visible to the public.

Thank you for your consideration! --Mathnerd 101 _{What I have done} ^{What have I done?} 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You appear to meet my requirements for self-requested blocks,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute on "Stripper" page

my contributions and edits, some of which are the subject of the content dispute, are part of a final project i am working on with a partner for a course on labor organization. we need to contribute substantially to this page. this will be for the most part confined to the section i have created, "Organizing in the Workplace." it also has to be done by tomorrow.

i was unaware of the custom of discussion before the removal of images, which was Beyond My Ken's problem with my edits, and i pinky promise that neither of us will do it again if you remove the protection on the page today.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbuford (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Except for the undiscussed removal of images, Tbuford's edits to the Stripper article have been interesting, informative and beneficial. Since the only issue between us was the images, I join with Tbuford in asking you to remove the protection from the article. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously I was not around yesterday, but  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No reason

Dude, why the fuck did you delete my Raiden Francisco page? GIMPmakesWikis (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A question phrased like that doesn't really deserve a reply, but I could give you a whole list of reasons why it was not an appropriate Wikipedia page.

There was no indication of the significance of the subject

The way it was written suggested it may be vandalism, usually "gimp" is considered an insult

If you are writing about yourself you should be aware that this is stongly discouraged here

You should also read this page

I hope that clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

...for approving rollback on my account. EBY (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May I respond to the remainder of the comments at my RfC in a separate section outside of the closed discussion?

May I respond to the remainder of the comments at my RfC in a separate section outside of the closed discussion? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see any point to that, the RFC is closed. It also seems likely that you are about to face an attempt to formally sanction you, I would save any defense you may have for that discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

*sighs*

Reading through my archives, I feel rather silly now regarding the "negative" messages, by which I mean the messages you and other users left regarding my problematic behavior back then. I even read through an old AN/I report regarding my behavior, which I'm not sure you saw or not. I still feel like that IP's only goal was to get everything it could revoked from me, but all the same, I feel silly reading through it now.

In regards to you, to this day I still can see me taking your responses the wrong way. I still have problems with that sometimes and even created a thread here for advice back on October 25, 2012. However, I understand why you were doing and would like to apologize for all the trouble I caused you back then.

Also, I have a question. I contacted DGG, the administrator that revoked my HUGGLE access (see above AN/I link), back in June 2012 regarding HUGGLE, but he never got back to my last reply. Perhaps you could assist? Thanks! =) - Amaury (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

When I look at the turn around you have made I see a success story and I'm happy to tell you I have restored your rollback rights. You should be able to use Huggle again, you may want to go to WP:HUGGLE to find the latest version for download. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. They mean a lot. I don't know whether my age in December 2010 (19) when I was blocked indefinitely was one of the factors or what to the problematic behavior, but I came back on May 1, 2012 when I was 20, and I am now 21 (November 8, 2012) and I feel like a much better user than ever before. I will definitely not make you regret this!

Also, I cannot access HUGGLE: "Huggle is not enabled on your account. Check user configuration page." I think DGG deleted the page and protected it from recreation when he revoked it from me. - Amaury (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I've actually never used Huggle so I don't really know much about it, but it looks like the config page would be at User:Amaury/huggle.css, which as far as I can tell is not create-protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. - Amaury (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:George Maharis

Someone voted after you closed the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Alaska changes

It appears that not only the talk page shortcuts, but the Recent changes pages for WikiProject Alaska were deleted as "routine housekeeping" within the past several weeks. I dunno if there was a legitimate reason, or someone simply has too much time on their hands. I would fix it, but something tells me that without any discussion first, they're open to being deleted out of hand once again.

This begs a larger question. There was a proposal a while back to roll WikiProject Alaska into WikiProject United States, similar to what's currently done with a number of other states. There was no consensus because there was no real discussion to speak of. I wonder if it's time to have that discussion, considering the project has been on life support for years now. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 22:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how deleting such pages is housekeeping. But like you say the project is not particularly active, it may indeed be time to have that conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Server Issues

Sorry if you're not the right person to contact, but I don't know where to go and thought I'd contact you since you're an administrator.

It looks like Wikipedia is currently having server issues. My TWINKLE options have disappeared and loading performance in general is really slow. Is this a common problem with Wikipedia or just a weird bug right now? It's been like this for about 30 minutes now, I would say. - Amaury (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Definitely appears to be server issues if pages are sometimes loading like this. The toolbar in the editor is also missing, I should mention. - Amaury (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TWINKLE tools and the editor toolbar are back, so it seems to be recovering, per se. Sorry about the message bombardment, BTW. XD - Amaury (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't kno w the first thing about how the servers work. It's not really something admins deal with. If you have problems like that in the future you are likely to get helpful, or at least less clueless advice at WP:VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction for future issues. - Amaury (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

MiszaBot II

Hello Beeblebrox. I noticed your edit summary at Wikipedia talk:Move review. But a quick look at Special:Contributions/MiszaBot II suggests that MiszaBot II is alive and well. Would you consider restoring the bot instructions for WT:MR? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is, it wasn't doing it's job anymore. I could swear when I made the edit it said User:MiszaBot, which is in fact blocked but in either event there is a thread right on the page that is well over 90 days old and not archived, and it was not creating links for new archives so everything from 2013 that had been archived was basically gone. So, I would suggest that some new bot coding is in order instead of restoring the old one that isn't working. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No hard feelings

As I tried to make abundantly clear in my request for opinions, I think you to be a fair administrator for the most part. I just felt that the abrupt closing of an unfinished discussion with a new question that was five minutes old without offering the chance for the questionee to respond was unfair. Wikipedia is not a contest to be won in my opinion, and the lack of consensus wasn't my objection to the closure, it was the brevity. I actually didn't get the opportunity to post the AN-notice as everything happened so quickly and I'm taking care of keeping my 21 month old daughter from getting hurt playing in the livingroom (she likes to pull her playcenter over on herself). I do apologize and just want to be clear that it was not intended to be a personal attack against you. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm normally the type who just accepts any apology without hesitation, but I have to tell you this sounds and looks like a cheap excuse. You had time to put down 1355 characters about my alleged abuse but no time to put {{subst:AN-notice}} on my talk page? And right after writing this you opened another thread about the close [10] in which you backed off the accusations of abuse but still call it premature, despite the fact that literally nobody else seems to see it that way? Sorry, but your "apology" rings pretty hollow. Please, just let it go already. You must realize by now that you are harming rather than helping Shadow Crow with this approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My apology above is sincere; if you chose not to accept it, that is your choice. this thread was a statement intend to simply inform that all is well with me and I've already left that stick in the barn. Due to load times on my end, the result of me saving my post that asks a question of another user was that it came up as discussion closed. I didn't even get time to read my post after saving before the discussion was closed, it's like trying to tell a story and getting slapped in the face mid-sentence. Anyways, I believe that was not your intent, and my apology stands for reacting instead of taking a deep breath and acting. I hope that you can assume good faith in me as I do in you and accept the apology for what it is and move on to build an encyclopedia with myself and the rest of the community. Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The latest thread on AN was perhaps one of the dumbest things to happen there in awhile (other than the request for TSC's topic ban to be reconsidered) - "everything is fine" is not an announcement. Even your "announcement" was qualified. I'm not sure what the heck you were thinking doing either or them, believe it or not. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) @T13: And yet, in that new (2nd/3rd?) thread you've opened you propound at length with your excuses for not notifying a user, all valid, I'm sure, while failing to consider the same sort of thing might have happened to another user - and instead announcing that he "broke the rules by posting to a closed thread". Edit conflicts don't always give warnings, you know. You also failed to notify me of that thread. Really, I despair. Don't reply to me about this, I've wasted enough time on it (sorry for borrowing your page B.) Begoon ^talk 18:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

...and I have specifically noted on AN that T13 should stop posting at AN/ANI completely for a long while ... I'm hoping this "voluntary topic ban" occurs so that it doesn't need to become formalized (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that isn't necessary. I think restrictions should be a last resort, which is why I was ever in the discussion in the first place... Begoon ^talk 03:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest issue

If it's not too much trouble, I wonder could you possibly either check out a possible conflict of interest problem that has been raised by somebody here on my Talk Page and which I'm not sure that I've handled correctly, or if you're too busy could you perhaps ask some other admin to have a look at the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The main thing in my opinion when dealing with persons with obvious COI issues is to suggest that they only suggest edits on the talk page, not make them themselves. They don't always like that idea and they don't actually have to do it, but it makes them appear more credible and willing to respect our policies. If they are slanting the article on one direction or another we have a dedicated noticeboard at WP:COIN for dealing with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Baycrest Hill

Say, is this photo of Baycrest Hill? My memories of 1989 aren't what they used to be, understandably. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 02:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon. The following photos in the set show the Spit, so I'm sure it has to be. If you can confirm, though, let me know. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 02:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There's more houses up there now and I'm pretty sure they straightened that curve a bit, but that absolutely is Baycrest Hill. They just started a repaving project this week from here clear to the other side of Anchor Point, at the same time that Enstar is tearing up everybody's yard for the new gas line. Gonna be an interesting experience trying to drive from point A to point B this summer... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had nothing but "fun" dealing with the Upload Wizard on Commons, which is why I haven't uploaded too many photos lately. Then, to top it off, my laptop was stolen two months ago along with all my ongoing photo-related work. Thankfully, I have backups. I was sweating whether these photos I found on Flickr were going to upload before the library closed, but looks like I made it with minutes to spare. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 04:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz

Hi,

You granted Reviewer rights to the above user on 9 May 2013. I am providing this update on the user's recent conduct for your information. Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel I need to be updated on what this user has been doing, unless it is your intent to suggest that the granting of the reviewer right was an error. If that's what you're getting at please just say so, otherwise I don't know why I would be interested in this information. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was a bit testy. I was attempting to be "relaxed" in my approach. But if you need me to spell it out, I will be happy to. I believe you have made a serious mistake in granting this user Reviewer rights. His/her interactions with other editors are sometimes uncivil, he has attempted to intimidate other editors (eg threatening indef blocks for removing a cleanup template from an article), shows no willingness to discuss controversial edits, engages in edit wars, and attempts to bait other editors. I discovered this all through one of his/her uncivil edit summaries I found when perusing Recent Changes: I have had no previous involvement with any of these editors.

I would have listed the diffs here, but I'm really not inclined to use up any more of my time after your response above. You're an admin: look them up. The link I already provided you to the 3rr Report is a good start. Regards Taroaldo ✉ 20:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's what is missing from this conversation: How does any of this relate to the reviewer user right? Did any of this misbehavior involve reviewing at all? If it did not, how would removing the right help anything?

Look, it's not a badge or a symbol of rank, just a tool for keeping vandalism out of articles that protected by pending changes, and it does not appear to be involved in this edit warring incident at all. I did look, you see, and I failed to see the connection. If you can show me evidence that were abusing the reviewer right, not just being obnoxious in some other context, I'd be happy to consider removing it but we don't remove user rights just to punish users for behavior unrelated to those rights. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that it is not a badge or a rank. I am also not suggesting that tools should be removed as some sort of "punishment". What is the standard for granting use of these types of tools? One general standard (highly simplified) is do you have a good basic grasp of the workings of Wikipedia and do you have reasonably good judgement? If the answer to that is 'no' then it is likely that an editor will run into trouble when it comes to using tools such as Review or Rollback, or Admin for that matter. This is certainly the rationale I've seen when I've read admins' reasons for denying requests for the Reviewer tool. In this case, the editor in question wasn't just having a bad day. There is a pattern of behaviour which should be of concern. However, it seems you do not share this opinion so I am happy to consider this matter closed. Taroaldo ✉ 21:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

unhelpful and unwelcome speculation from a third party

It could be that he/she is assuming that WP's admins have a checklist or written procedure that they follow for routine situations in order to ensure that due diligence is properly applied to all administrator actions or checks. If that was the case, a report such as this would presumably be all that is necessary to get a situation effectively checked and acted on as appropriate. So, the proper response could be, "Sorry, but you're going to have to spell out what you want me to do because I and all other administrators in WP fly by the seat of our pants and we wouldn't want it any other way." Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

RFR/R reversion

Hello, I was just curious why my non-administrator observation comment was reverted. Thanks, smileguy91^talk 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Short answer, because I am using an iPad and have big fingers, I had already re-instated it by the time you posted this though [11]. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. Cheers, smileguy91^talk 16:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Moose/Meese

A response to your concern is here. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, it was worth a shot... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hi I posted this on my talk page, not sure if you get notified.

I apologise, my intention was never to suggest a legal threat and I thought removing the comment and writing to you personally would be the best move in case others viewed it in the same way but it was reposted! (another rule I didn't know!!) I have no intention of editing or creating other posts. I simply made a huge error of judgment in trying to help a friend by setting up a company page with no regard to the rules and as it has been deleted citing "unambiguous advertising or promotion"-- I really messed up and desperately wanted to remove all traces of the article. I did not react well to being told there is no possible way of removing the article I created and I apologise if you saw any legal threat in what I said. I really was grasping at straws trying to get myself out of it! Sorry again - JulieSmith123 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulieSmith123 (talk • contribs)

No problem,, like I was saying on your talk page the rules aren't always obvious around here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes

How would a regular user nominate pages for Pending Changes? I have a couple articles in mind. — Confession0791 ^talk 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

By posting at WP:RFPP. The easisest way is to go to the page you want protected and use Twinkle to do it, it's under "PP" in the dropdown menu. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My edit at Arbcom

That statement of Pompous ass should not be there. Whether it was left by the individual or someone else it is utterly inappropriate. Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and you opinion does not give you the right to refactor other people's posts. If it is so wildly inappropriate the ArbCom clerks would have removed it before now. It can be inferred that both they and the arbitrators were aware of it and chose to let it stand. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not my opinion its policy and it should have been removed that's why I made the statement I did. If that would have been left by a non admin they would have been blocked and or scolded for leaving it. I am growing tired of admins being allowed to violate policy and then having others justify it on the grounds that they are admins. Referring to a user as a pompous ass is inappropriate and if its coming from the user its at least being WP:Pointy. You can be mad at me if you want, you can even block me if you feel like abusing the admin tools for a non admin enforcing civility policy, but that pompous ass comment should not be there. Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who initiated the discussion on why PumpkinSky shouldn't be blocked for calling someone else a "pompous ass", I disagree that this is being handled differently for an admin than a non-admin. If the Arb clerk wants to modify the header, it is upon them, but in this instance it seems appropriate since Drmies is being used as an example of an admin that has called someone a pompous ass before. It isn't what we say or the bits assigned to who says it, it is the context in which it is said that matters most. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

But that doesn't even apply. That header refers to Drmies as a pompous ass, not that he said someone else was a pompous ass. I didn't remove the term from DRmies writeup because that is wholly appropriate and within his right to do. Putting it in the header of the string is not. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And it was Drmies that added that header [12], not someone else. Removing it smacks of censoring Drmies. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko totally-not-a-clean-start, I've reverted you again. So, balls on your court. I can see you love stirring up useless drama, so go ahead and revert me again so someone can block you and you can cry and wail about abusive admins until your talk page gets revoked too. This is taking way to long, get on with it already. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My point was that discussing it was better than anyone reverting. While WP:BRD is mainly about articles, it is still pretty good at preventing drama in meta space as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, Well since you brought it up I tried creating a new username and was accused of socking, I tried editing as an IP, which I would have been happily still doing still but guess what, I was accused of socking. So because some of your peers had a stick in their ass, I had no choice but to use a variation of my old username and since the clean start policy is complete garbage anyway, why not pole some fun at it. Back to the matter at hand, I am helpless, its a complete violation of policy but since you are an admin and I am not, there isn't much I can do but let you continue to perpetuate a violation of policy. Its insulting to the process but that's the way it is. I am sure it doesn't matter to you but I am extremely disappointed at your attitude towards this. I am also appalled at your accusation that I like stirring up trouble. What I like doing is helping this project, but there are a lot of admins with big ego's that would rather perpetuate the us and them mentality and keep us lowly editors in our place than to allow a longterm contributor with the intentions of the project to be able to help. And I will continue to "cry and wail" until the policy is evenly distributed to editors and admins. Which it is not currently. Until admins are no longer above reproach and held accountable when they screw up, then I will be there like Jiminy Cricket the conscience.

@@Dennis, I know that's who did it. He knows better and its not censorship. Would you both like me to provide some links to examples of where editors where blocked for doing the same kind of thing? Nevermind, I would just be accused of being pointy and nothing would come of it anyway. Because I am just an editor, so what the hell do I know of policy and how dare I debate policy with too..[cough, cough] admins.Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you feel I am treating admin differently than non-admin? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No. That was not directed at you Dennis. It was mostly a statement of how the system itself works. It always favors the admins. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I know Dennis, it's no secret you're way nicer than I am. Probably smarter too. This is just so petty and silly, and of course before simply removing those words no attempt was made to simply ask Drmies if he would consider doing so himself, instead simply charging forth in the name of the "civility policy". e thinks this has far more to do with Kumioko's well known, oft displayed dislike of all admins and his apparent belief that admins only act out malice or corruption. Right, because it is soooo rewarding, what with all the bribes, fast cars, free liquor in the admin lounge, access to Jimbo's private stash of pre-embargo Cuban cigars and high-end Chinese watches, and so on. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Slightly less sarcastic, perhaps, but I don't know about the rest. My point to Kumioko being that when admin comes in, such as myself, and provides a rationale for why it should be left intact, then I am dismissed because I am an admin, then you are guilty of exactly the same thing you are accusing others of: treating admin and non-admin differently. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @Beeblebrox, Its not like that at all. I do have a well known contempt for the us and them mentality but its not due to my hate for admins. Its my hate for how admins are treated differently. Also, there was no need to talk to Drmies about it because its an obvious policy violation. I would have removed it on day one but thought someone else would so I left it. When they didn't, I did. If that hurts your feelings, well, frankly, then that's just tough. Plenty of others, including you had the opportunity to remove that pointy and inappropriate "pompous ass" verbiage and should have. To be honest I think the thing that bothers you is that I did it, not that it was removed. As I said above, if that had been left by an editor and not by an admin it would have been removed immediately as has been done many times in the past. Since Drmies was an admin, it was left. Not surprising, but further evidence that what I have been saying about how admins are treated differently has some truth to it.
  • @Dennis, you have a good point and you are right I am doing that to a certain degree, but its no more dismissive than the admins are treating me, so I do not feel particularly bad about it. No offense to you intended but I have been around just as long and know policy just as well as any admin but am dismissed because of my public dislike for the current us and them mentality and the way that admins are favored. Not because what I am saying is wrong, just that I am an editor treading into Admin areas. That's where my problems lie. If editors in the past were allowed to do what Drmies did, then it would n't bother me. But since I know of several that were modifed as I did because it was inappropriate, the same should be done to the admins when they do it. Not look the other way because they are admins. With all that said, I am going to log off and play Xbox with my son because I am not dumb enough to think that admins, including you, are going to change the system that gives them such a substantial leg up on the rest of us. I know its not going to happen. Its human nature, once a person has the power, they will fight hard to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Then you are choosing to be the thing you hate, and holding me responsible for the "sins of the father" which sounds like hypocrisy. I am not responsible for actions before my time, only for what I do and what I allow to happen by my inaction. If you want to be taken seriously and point to a better way, you have to lead by example. If you bother to read my thoughts on the sometimes appropriate use of the term "pompous ass" in the case that led us here, then you would find utterly complete and total parity. If that isn't good enough, then you need to reexamine your objectives, or at least your objectivity. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for closing the RfC/U on Xenophrenic. I saw your comments and must agree with you. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Advise

Hello, because you deleted my failure for RFC/U because a user did not want to certify, may I ask you for advice on what to do next? I have had several users agree and I just want to show the user that what they have done is against policy it seems, they just don't understand it. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that nobody else was willing to endorse your concerns I would suggest that the wisest course of action at this point would be to let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Users agreed but don't want to get involved too much work, thank you MarioNovi (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for shutting down that unproductive thread on Talk:Main Page. A good response. LFaraone 20:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It amazes me how many utterly ridiculous complaints show up there. Thanks for the cookie. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Yo yo Chadwick0000 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, what? Kind of hard to understand why this is here when it is your first ever edit and I don't remember having any real-life interactions with my fellow Wikipedians recently... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Swimming at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships – Men's 4 x 100 metre freestyle relay

Dear Beeblebrox - I have added some text indicating some notability for this event and added a couple of supporing refs. I hope this addresses some of your worries and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC))

Hey Beeblebrox

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Something weird?

This IP appears to have never vandalized, yet is claiming to be a block evader, specifically addressing you. Thought you'd like to know. Brambleclawx 01:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

When one has dealt with trolls and WP:LTA headcases enough this sort of thing stops being surprising, although it is still puzzling. I will never understand people who set out to get blocked, as this IP clearly is. It sometimes seems they far overestimate their own importance, assuming I know who it is that is "taunting" me in this manner when it could be any one of dozens of nutjobs I've dealt with over the years. As they are doing nothing but playing a pointless game on their own talk page I'm frankly inclined to just let them do it rather than giving them the attention they are so obviously desperate for. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"Indifference" is like kryptonite for trolls. Use liberally. ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks ...

... for taking care of that HotCat thing. Someone pointed me to it, and I just wasn't in the mood for being an admin. at the moment. — Ched :  ?  22:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. It has actually led fairly rapidly to this RFC on the underlying issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

ygm

— Ched :  ?  04:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The ITN RfC

Hello,

I just wanted to inform you that the first comment after the RfC tag (Which the bot identifies as everything before the first signature following the RfC tag) is used as a summary for a central listings of RfCs. So unless you want to add your support as part of that summary which will be displayed, I think you could add another timestamp between your vote and the RfC rationale

Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, right, I'll fix that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We were too late anyways. I fixed the rationale manually. Since the arguments were pretty vital to the introduction to this discussion IMO, I left them there. :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"zap"

I was perplexed by your revdel of a note I left on a user talk page about a discussion that referenced them. I've discussed this further at the VPP page where I first saw the article. [13] Wnt (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I assume you have seen my remarks there and now understand what the problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see an old comment you made on a different discussion at the Signpost, but that doesn't really address the issue. I mean, I've cited an article in New York magazine which specifically identifies that username in its title as Lanza. You may be right that there is no actual evidence it is true - nowadays it isn't unheard of for many news outlets to run with a bogus story - but it's waaay past the point of trying to prevent "outing" with secrecy. And the point was, if we have two different discussions talking about this user, citing press releases that name him by username, he ought to have the right to know about it with a talk page note, so that if he is about to log in in three years from now and upload photos of his trip to the gun show he realizes there are a bunch of people out there who think his account belongs to a killer. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

At the time I zapped your remark there had not yet been any direct connection made by a reliable source that I was aware of. Technically, it is still outing if you ever attempt to publicly identify a users real identity without their permission, but obviously in a case like this that's an impossible rule to enforce. I've been keeping an eye on this situation in between dealing with stuff at work and it seems to have developed a little further every time I check back. At this point those edits might as well be put back as these (irresponsible, in my opinion) journalists have gone ahead and made the connection public now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You done it now, eh?

I almost hope it goes to a full case so this can be thrashed out once and for all, this is going to be popcorn-worthy. I'm of two minds over much of this, as I still contribute here, but there are lots of discussions over there that really dig into some serious problems that get swept under the rug here. But on the other other hand, the d-baggery is off the charts at times, Peter Damian bragging about his explosive tell-all book is like listening to talk of Don Quixote's filming wrapping up someday. Ah well, thanks for getting the ball rolling. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I know, it's going to be ugly but as an oversighter I feel like we are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I personally feel that if they focussed on constructive criticism, as they sometimes have, instead of being assholes and outing people they could serve a valuable function. But with so many users who would rather destroy Wikipedia than help it and pretty much no accountability by anyone for anything that happens there I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback request

Hi Beeb. As a former contributor to this, you may wish to take a look at this. If you do, please read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Comments on its talk page. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the only one who tries solve the unsolvable problems around here. I'm going to be out in the wilderness enjoying the 19 hours of daylight we have right now for most of the next week, but I'll take a look when I get back. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

BEEBLEBROX IS AWAY

I am venturing off into the wilderness and will be completely unavailable until around the 12th of July. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Knowing where you live, be careful of the wildlife. At least nothing there will be as threatening as the ones on Wikipedia ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been a bad year for mosquitos, they gave us some trouble but it was worth it for some time away from civilization. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2

Hey, I saw your recent interactions with Bamler2. I chimed in on his talk page, but he deleted my comments. I'm reposting them here, in case they are of any use to you. His deletion of my comments without any constructive response seems fairly typical of someone who's only here to fight and to suppress criticism of his poor behavior.
My original post.
Bamler's corruption of my post.
Reddogsix's reversion of the corrupted post.
Bamler's reversion to the corrupted post.
Bamler's deletion of my post where he accuses Reddogsix of "improper action", though Bamler was in the wrong for changing my text.
My text:

• Unsolicited response from non-admin editor. My contributions s Andre draining time from other editors than collaborating. From the difficulty Bamler has responding in proper talk Incidents&oldid=546187788#sock_alert._block_or_change_policy_to_allow_socks sockpuppetry] without evidence, to sniping admins, to making unconstructive edits such as this one.

Bamler, cooperation is crucial to collaboration, as is the ability to yield to the better idea, or even to acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong. How did you get yourself into a situation where everybody is wrong but you? And how do you expect your experience to improve if you continue to engage in the types of behavior that keep getting you blocked?

Unsolicited advice: create your articles offline and get them up to snuff (establish notability, use encyclopedic tone, harvest citations, etc.,) before posting them. Or go through the WP:AFC process. Why continue the upsetting cycle of creating barebones articles live, having them speedily deleted, and getting mad at admins and the Wikipedia process? It all seems so avoidable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There ya go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is in WP:BASC's perview now, I expect they have probably seen this by now.. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Amaury

Amaury is abusing Huggle again. I know that your away, but I don't know where else to put this. 71.255.81.232 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) The links you added were not appropriate wiki material. Additionally, if you had a problem with my revert, why did you not come to my talk page like the message on your talk page said and ask about it? And no, the comment you inserted in a random place does not count. - Amaury (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not my edits were good is besides the point. The point is that my edits were not spam. I went to your talk page and saw that someone else was also complaining about you making false accusations. You said that this edit edit by 96.246.214.161 appeared to "to constitute vandalism". The user was simply reorganizing the article in a way that made sense, possibly because incognito mode is a feature that has nothing to do with privacy from external sources, which is what privacy usually refers to regarding browsers, and Google has been criticized for user tracking. Regardless of whether you agree with the change, it was wrong to accuse the user of vandalism. I looked at your history and searched your many usernames in the administrators' noticeboard and saw that you have made false accusations many times and have been informed and told to stop many times. Examples [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54][55][56] [57][58] [59][60] [61][62] [63][64] [65][66] [67][68] [69][70] [71][72] [73][74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] 71.251.46.57 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I transferred this discussion to the administrators notice board.[84] 71.251.46.57 (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Beebs! Just letting you know this has been resolved. It was in regards to false positive stuff. Also, I hope you're enjoying your vacation! - Amaury (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved? The discussion on the noticeboard has not been closed yet. It has been on the discussion board for less than one day. You have to give people time to have a chance to write stuff. Attempts to prematurely close discussions is another issue with your behavior. 71.251.47.138 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Pretty much resolved. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, it seems the immediate situation was resolved, surprisingly, from the other end anyway by the creation of a new page that can be linked to without fear that it will ever contain outing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

mfd

I do not agree with your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille which I think a classic supervote. There were 4 opinions: the nom's opinion to delete as a stale draft, another editor's opinion to delete because of questionable notability and a stale draft , my opinion to redirect to the apparent subject of the article, and a keep opinion that the subject was notable and that the user thought it could be worked on further, and had a source available.

You decided to delete, admitting that "this may not look like the right result", based on your view that 1/"it was extremely unlikely that a redirect would help find the associated article" -- perhaps, but it would help the user find at least some information on the named person 2/"the incubator was a bad idea, 3/there was a user willing to work on it you would undelete -- but there wasa user willing to work on it.

As you didn't delete it, someone placed a speedy on it, which is reasonable of them, but I boldly reversed it while I ask you to reconsider. (If you hold by your decision & want to revert me, I will not consider it wheel-warring in this circumstance) Your reasons, 1/ is misconceived--the pt of the redirect is to find some info on the named subject, which is present in the article redirected to--it at least identifies the person 2/your personal opinion that an accepted feature of WP should be closed down, and 3/ the distinction you drew between someone who might work on it and someone who could.

Since you said, "if there is a user willing to work on it you would be happy to move it, please either relist for further discussion, move it to my user space or that of FactS[pace.-- or redirect as I suggested.

And there would be some merit in an argument that a person opposed in principle to the article incubator should not close mfds involving it. If I opposed articles on unpopulated extinct villages in general, should I close such AfDs in conformity to my opinion ? DGG ( talk ) 13:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters I apologize for the sloppy admin work and thank you for going ahead and cleaning that up for the moment.

On to the actual issue: Thing is, the incubator is dead. It is likely it will be closed permanently and marked as historical in the near future. I don't dislike the idea of the incubator at all, it was a wonderful idea, it just didn't work and the community stopped using it. In point of fact there was a previous discussion about closing it that already established a consensus to do so, but interest was so low nobody ever even took that action.

Not to put to fine a point on it, the idea of retaining a page in the incubator as a redirect is nonsense. What user would type in "Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille" as a search? Frankly I assumed when I read your remarks that you had forgotten that we were talking about a page that was not in mainspace at all as I could't see any way your argument made any sense otherwise. I've gone ahead and created a mainspace redirect to the target article identified.

So that leaves keeping or userfying as the two remaining options. WP:STALEDRAFT and the previous consensus not to have this article in mainspace would seem to make it pretty open-and-shut as far as just keeping it. While there is no deadline this was not edited a single time in the nearly two years it was "incubating." Why I didn't automatically usefy it is I suppose a matter fo personal style. Users often comment about how an article could be helped but are not actually willing to do it themselves. So, I invite them to just say "please userfy this" and I will do so. I don't think that's much of a barrier. I'm looking at the draft right now and my personal feeling is that it is so poor it would be better to just start over, but since you explicitly asked I've gone ahead and moved it to your userspace at User:DGG/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Computer mouse

I looked over the Douglas Engelbart article, in which he is presented as the exclusive inventor of the mouse.

In no place in Wikipedia does there seem to be acknowledgement of the fact that, in the United States, Andy Hertzfeld was considered to be the inventor of the mouse, and that this error went on for 30 years.

I recall having seen the claim in various magazines over the years.

It should appear under abnormal psychology, if nowhere else!

Larry Dunn of Bakersfield (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources that verify what you say (it's not a subject I know anything at all about or have much interest in) please go right ahead and add a mention of it to whatever article is appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

consensus building

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Building consensus with you is difficult.  At the AfD for Taquan Air, I added 21,000 bytes of references to the article.  You never could bring yourself to say, wow, I was wrong in my AfD nomination statement when I said, "Fails notability guideline for businesses as there do not seem to be any independent reliable sources that discuss the subject"...that airline is vital to the regional economy of Southeast Alaska, it is covered in numerous books, has been recognized by the White House for its contributions to society, has drawn national attention for one of its crashes, and is regularly covered by the regional newspaper in Juneau.  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talkeetna Air Taxi (2nd nomination) you refused to say that a three-page article in Sports Illustrated was something other than a "trivial mention", even though we gave you the text from the guidelines about the meaning of a "trivial mention".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ironic that you would accuse me of such when it is so incredibly obvious that the incubator is a failed project and consensus is in favor of closing it. You keep trying to make this personal, and I keep trying to tell you it's not about me or you, although you do seem to be the very last active particpant in the incubation process. And I modified my propsal earlier today to try and accomodate some of the concerns mentioned in that discussion, so, again, ironic. You can add a greenhouse, a portal, a magic sky castle staffed by monkey butlers and magic unicorns, whatever, it won't change the fact that the incubator just didn't work out and has failed. Neither will bitching about old AFDs. I'm sorry your edits did not force me into making statements in compliance with your point of view, I'm not necessarily one of those users who feels they must respond endlessly in the same conversation when they have already said their piece more than once.

That would be another area where you and I differ. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Given your recent behavior I must ask that you not post here again, dealing with you is exasperating and I don't feel it accomplishes anything for anyone. Thanks for respecting my wishes in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

re: Template:Deleted

Good afternoon, Beeblebrox. I am closing out some old RfD debates. There is unanimous consent to make your proposed change to Template:Deleted so even though I participated in that debate, I feel comfortable closing it out. I do not, however, feel comfortable making the change to the template. I just don't have enough experience with that kind of wiki-code. I'm going to take off the RfD header but otherwise leave the redirect along. Could you please repurpose the page in accordance with the RfD at your earliest convenience? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. I just stole the code from {{Not done}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Silly thread at Talk:Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight

Thank you for hatting the entire discussion. I did it myself, because as well as being quite wrong, the first post was definitely not a contribution towards improving the article, but User:Theoldsparkle reverted me. He apparently didn't like me pointing out the ugly truth.

I'm glad it's hidden completely now. It was never any real use, and just endorsed bad behaviour.

So, thank you again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for deleted page

Hi Beeblebrox, I recently wrote the page International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education about the journal, which is notable (now has an impact factor, etc. I was going to make IJSME a redirect page as this is informally used as an abbreviation for the journal but I discovered a pgae by that name was deleted and the AfD makes it seem likely it was about the journal. Would you please either provide me with a copy of the page or let me know if I should just create the page as a redirect? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a one-line stub on the International Journal of Science, Management & Engineering, which was apparently just established earlier this year. I think you can go ahead and just do the redirect, if the other journal should become more notable in the future it can be converted to a dab page. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and the information, I'll make the redirect as you suggest. EdChem (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Lower Assam

Sorry, I inserted two == instead of three === and the "Discussion" went into a different thread. I shall let it stand just as it is now. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to reopen RfC

I'd like to reopen and add my endorsements to WP:Requests_for_comment/Xenophrenic and see it get archived properly. My experience has been that the user's disruptive behavior spans multiple articles and I didn't get a chance to weigh in due to an absence. I also feel a more thorough review be performed but I have no experience in this area and therefore cannot proceed except to request the RFC gets more exposure from a greater variety of editors. Additionally I feel it may have been closed too early because the user who created the RfC and requested it closed was distraught. At a minimum I want to at least contribute my endorsements and comments to ensure everything is better documented and can be referenced later by anyone - should it be warranted. Thanks, $\sim$  ℗ papajohnin   ^(talk)(?)  03:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• The RFC ran for a full month, it had not been edited in nine days when I closed it, and it has been closed for a full month. There was nothing premature about the close and I can't see any benefit to re-opnening it now. If you want to be involved in dispute resolution related to the issues raised there, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Beeblebrox. Please see this comment. Worm^TT(talk) 07:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the link for Heliskiing

Dear Beeblebrox!

I was adding a link (www.heliski-russia.com) for a page Heliskiing, but you delete it as a promoting page... I'm sorry, but then there are at least 3 more links which are commercial links: ^ How heli-skiing works ^ Heli-skiing in the Alps ^ When Is The Best Time To Go Heli-Skiing?

so, why you keep them and delete the one which I add? I can proof taht we knows all about heliskiing, much better than anybody else with more than 10 years of experience. Our page contents a current photos and information about heliskiing, isnt it a best information for the people who wants to know what is heliskiing and how it looks?

Thank you in advance for the reply.

Kind reards, Maria Gaiani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Gaiani (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have got your facts wrong. I did in fact remove them all as you can see from this edit: [85]. You must have known this because the next thing you did was to recreate the section with just your preferred link:[86]. they are all equally inappropriate links. The notices I left on your talk page contain numerous links pointing to the relevant policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just took another look at this. The links I removed were in the "external links" section. The other links you are referring to are in the "references" section, and you do have a point. Several of them do not appear to be reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Frankly, that article is in a pretty sorry state and has been for some time. I've tagged it for this issue and will try and find some time to rectify the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious

"move along"
Thank you, vandal fighter in open resistance, for welcoming and deleting, for clear language and reflection, for collapsing and closing, quote: "clarified, move along", - you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 April 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome ;) - Regarding part of this comment: I am fond of Eric Corbett (not to extremes, though). He was always gentle to me, look for "Malleus" on my talk where the name change was discussed, - his "rudeness" seems to come in responses, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Userification request

Hi Beeblebrox :) I've been looking through some archives at deleted articles, and I believe Adam Spence, which you deleted after an AfD discussion, is now notable enough for an article. As a result, could you restore the article into my user area? That way, we keep together the page history, and I (possibly) have to spend less time redoing the article. Thanks in advance :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done see User:Lukeno94/Adam Spence. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perfect, thanks. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dandeline Taraxacum officinale, blow ball flowers

This is what 18 hours of daylight does to a dandelion

Hi I am a student from India.

Can you tell where can I find these white Dandeline Taraxacum officinale flowers, in this month of year? I need to study these flowers for a project.

Thanks Sachin Jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.140.116.135 (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're studying the common dandelion for a project? Almost anyone in Canada and the Western US has these darned things blooming from May until September, as much as we try and remove them. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, in North America they are everywhere. They are considered an invasive plant where I live in Alaska, the seeds come up on traveler's cars and recreational vehicles, and they grow to enormous sizes, as you can see from this picture which I took in my own yard. So basically, if it's summer and you are in an area where they grow, all you need do is find an lawn, roadside or field that has now been mown recently and you should see them. However, from your IP it appears you are in India. I don't know if they grow there or not, but it is probably the wrong time of year right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't realise you had cosed this discussion and didn't get an EC when I added a comment at the bottom. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we can just move your comments inside the archive tag and leave it at that. (incidently I agree with your remarks, but I'm hoping the peaceful settlement with B will grant some modicum of clue about the right and the wrong way to resolve issues...) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

SA's block

Actually, his current block is in response to evasion of an Arbcom block. I really don't know: does that make it still an Arbcom block even if the Arbcom block would have expired by now?—Kww(talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking at this and... what a mess. It's not the absolute worsst I've ever seen but it's in the top five.. Hard to say, but I'm inclined to think if the final block was for block evasion, and was not noted in the log as arbitration enforcement then it is a "normal" block. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I would fight hard against either interpretation. I can't look forward to the idea of having another set of problems like this come back, though, so I hope wherever it lands the answer remains "no".—Kww(talk) 16:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Article that is deleted

I was wondering if you could get me the info on Helderberg Escarpment, it was deleted for copyvio problems and then remade as a stub, I cant seem to see the discussion or anything that led to it being deleted. I created the original article and worked with several people on it, so I don't know how it got deleted for copyvio problems as its wording would have been messed with by several different people over time. The thing I think might have been a problem is that there's only so many ways you can word that certain species live in an area and those sections may have gotten some in an uproar. If you could bring the article into userspace and I given some time to fix the problems I think it would be the quickest and best way to bring back an important well-fleshed out article that I don't think could be made as well a second time.Camelbinky (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this, I don't see any evidence there was any discussion, and given the history there should have been. I'm thinking I might just restore all the deleted edits so they are available in the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done you can now see all old revisions in the history. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I think that this unilateral restoration of G12'd content was irresponsible. Special:WhatLinksHere/Helderberg Escarpment returns only 50–100 pages, so you should have found the WP:Copyright problems log at a minimum. User:Fram might not remember a deletion from 2010, but it would have been courteous to ask.

1. User:SandyGeorgia tagged and blanked Malta Test Station.
2. Camelbinky reported SandyGeorgia at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page) and notified her (archived to User talk:SandyGeorgia/archtemp#AN/I).
3. User:Laser brain tagged and blanked Hamilton Hill, Schenectady, New York and Helderberg Escarpment and listed them at WP:Copyright problems/2010 October 28. SandyGeorgia listed Malta Test Station there.
4. User:Fram speedy deleted Hamilton Hill, Schenectady, New York and Helderberg Escarpment as G12. User:Theresa knott rewrote Malta Test Station, and User:Moonriddengirl finished its cleanup with admin tools.
   • User:Rmhermen questioned Fram's deletion (archived to User talk:Fram/Archive 22#Helderberg Escarpment).

Please consider reversing your restoration with WP:Revision deletion (RD1) or WP:Selective deletion (deprecated, but more of an undo). Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I echo this request. Copyvio text is deleted rather than blanked to remove violations from our article histories. This is done unilaterally via G12 or via investigation at WP:CP. There is no "discussion" needed. Fram would have checked the article text against the source text and deleted the article if it was found to be predominantly plagiarized. If Camelbinky is interested in looking at the original text to attempt a rewrite, maybe it could be emailed instead. --Laser brain (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh my. (Notification bar worked this time.) Echo all above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This all started because Sandy was upset at me about some policy discussion where I pissed him/her off and then others just started labeling me a plagiarizer. Perhaps I'm not the best editor but not everything I do should be thrown out without help to fix the problem because someone is pissed at me. The articles were not "predominantly plagiarized" in the least. And as was mentioned about Hamilton Hill, Schenectady, New York by more than one person- there is only so many ways to mention that the population and demographics of some place are xyxxz and it's not plagiarism if that's the issue (and on that article it was. I'm sorry if some think this is an acceptable way to bully and harass me.Camelbinky (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)m

If the articles were deleted in error, then they can be restored without further ado. However, I reviewed one of the sources from Helderberg Escarpment against the old article text this morning and the article text did indeed plagiarize the source (via close paraphrasing). Thus, at least in that instance, Fram's action was correct and the article history should not have been restored. The old article text could be emailed to you if you want to rewrite it, but it shouldn't have been restored. I hope Beeblebrox corrects this situation soon, as we now have copyvio in the article history again. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

RE:

This all started because Sandy was upset at me about some policy discussion where I pissed him/her off and then others just started labeling me a plagiarizer. ... I'm sorry if some think this is an acceptable way to bully and harass me.Camelbinky (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Her. And that's just baloney. It all started because you plagiarized and then took it to ANI, where the whole bloomin' world saw same. It's a bit concerning that you don't acknowledge that still. An additional concern is that you left Wikipedia rather than helping in the cleanup, which brings us to the current situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And now catching up at ANI and at Camelbinky's talk page, I see there are still quite a few concerns of many different types, raised by (among others) Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs). I'm sorry to see all of this, which isn't a good sign. I'm not so sure I appreciate this new notification system as I could have remained blissfully unaware of the ongoing saga. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, everyone please calm down. I was (obviously) unaware of the background here. I took a quick look at the sources, and the argument that an article that had been worked on by several different users was unlikely to be a direct copyvio, and I thought it added up. Maybe it didn't, and maybe the restoration was in fact an error. There was nothing in the edit history or the deletion log linking to that copyright problems discussion. Please give me a moment to evaluate all this new information, and please do not fight on my talk page while I'm doing that. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

After reading some more of the sources and comparing them to old versions of the article I believe I identified which particular edit began the introduction of close paraphrasing and I have revdeleted everything between that edit and the speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and unwatching now (only came in via ping from new notification system). I'm not sure if I've ever met Flatscan before, but they sure did their job here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, Beeblebrox. Some issues remain in the last visible revision on October 15, but additional revdel may not be necessary. The sentence about John Boyd Thacher State Park is the most problematic: the Duplication Detector report shows a few significant similarities. The sentence immediately before also has similarities with that Open Space Institute source. The Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy PDF is similar to the sentence that it supports, but there are limited ways to word it. There is a 59-word verbatim copy, but the source is from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and in the public domain (Copyright status of work by the U.S. government), so it is plagiarism and not copyvio. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your revert on Caesar salad

I'm wondering if you noticed that your revert on said page wasn't automatically accepted by pending changes, which I thought would happen seeing as you're an admin. Brambleclawx 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I had not noticed, I was operating under the same assumption. Weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your assistance please

Helderberg Escarpment is on my watchlist, because I edited it. There was a change that showed up on my watchlist, so I went to see how it had changed. The revision history shows dozens of entries were made unavailable -- including mine -- due to a copyright violation. My edit summary says I added a new reference -- so clearly not a copyright violation. I'd like to make sure that reference is included in the article. Geo Swan (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The background of what has been going on there is detailed in the section above titled "Article that is deleted." Revision deletion was used to remove all revisions of the page from when it had copyvios on it, so it doesn't mean that your edit was actually a problem. The ref used added is not currently used in the new version of the article, it was this. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Tv schedules

Programming schedules are posted on articles for news channels. Should we rewrite or remove those schedules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KinHikhari (talk • contribs) 12:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I should think so. WP:NOTDIRECTORY would seem to apply. We're here to report the broader facts about subjects, not to advertise their programming schedule. Such information is readily available elsewhere and generally should not be in an encyclopedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Retirement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Re: this. It served its purpose: it let someone write down "Kww is driving editors away" one more time.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had it with that useless project. It was started, like so many projects here, with good intentions, but it isn't doing a damn thing to retain anyone. Keifer announced his "retirement" on something like six different pages, and then when straight back to posting all over the project, a classic WP:DIVA move. I'm just going to unwatch that page, the project is a disaster and discussions there are some of the most unproductive crybaby crap on a website that has more than enough of that already. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well do you have more convincing arguments than just saying that the views expressed there are "crybaby crap". Specifically, do you consider the views I expressed there are crybaby crap? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care anymore. I consider it a failed project and I don't plan to go back and examine your contributions specifically to see if they were whiny or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It can get very frustrating, all round, at times. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Failure is a perception that can be viewed in many ways and with many individuals, but if anyone is beginning to whine....well, let's leave it at that. I note that you have some issues with working with others Beeblebrox. In a recent discussion you seemed more than willing to ignore nearly all my concerns at Talk:Homosexual to continue the argument of a disruptive editor who was socking to keep up the argument. While I addressed several issues you brought up...you didn't hear a thing a said. Using your own analogy, then you are a failed editor. But this is just stupid. You just seem to be very angry. Frankly, I don't give a crap about that. Calm down and discuss in a rational manner and there is always room one way or the other. But, determine you are in the right and everyone else in the wrong, and you are working on your own. There are threads I would love to close as being against the spirit of the project, but we don't work that way on Wikipedia or at WER.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Beeb, I know you won't go there to see it so as an FYI, have a look at this and have an 'admin cabal'/personal acquaintance beer on me when you've read it :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Admin are people to. Talk page discussions at WER recently have veered towards the discussion of form verses function editors as well as other comparisons of admin and other contributors. It isn't what I would like, but what I would like are editors that really want to help each other and not just point out their faults, failures or lack of empathy. AN, AN/I and other boards don't have the nickname of "drama boards" for nothing, so it would seem even the established venues are failures as well. Then again...maybe it isn't actually accurate all around and reaction is not the way to tell if something is succeeding or not. Just say'en.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh Mark, I think you have me confused with someone else. Talk:Homosexual is a redirect talk page that has not been editied since 2007, so I assume you are talking about Talk:Homosexuality, but I don't recall being in any sort of argument with you there.

As for WER, it seems to me to be becoming an increasingly "us-vs-them" environment, with "them" being all admins and "us" being people who like to complain about admins. That is not a framework that is going to result in retaining users, and neither is reverting those who try to stop yet another diva announcement from turning into a series of personal attacks on the users who supposedly drove them away. Keifer spammed something like six different pages with his retirement announcement, then kept right on editing. He has about 75 edits in the last 24 hours alone. He's not retired, he never was, and that discussion was not helpful, not related to editor retention, not a good thing in any way. If you can't see that then the project, which you seem to have somehow "assumed command " of is never going to make any real progress toward retaining editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Some users who occasionally appear to demonstrate an antipathy for all things adminship, may have damaged WER beyond repair, just as they have made a mess of the RfA process. As soon as people stop tarring all admins with the same brush, perhaps we can start painting a better image of the backroom management of Wikipedia all round. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to look in a mirror, Kudpung. From what I've seen, *you* are the guiltiest of any user of "broad-brushing" other users. (If an editor makes a valid criticism of a specific admin, you come along and accuse the editor of being part of a "brigade" and having an "antipathy against all admins".) Seriously Kudpung, do you think anyone respects the overgeneralized, black-and-white, accusatory, divisive shit you continually shovel?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if people like you didn't have an "antipathy against all admins", these problems wouldn't arise so often. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please define "people like [me]", and "these problems" so your statement can make any kind of sense whatsoever. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you'd like for me to go into any further detail. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• ok, I think we're done here. It is clear that Mark/Madscientist undid my revision not because it was wrong or needed a pre-existing consensus, but because it was me who did it. As objectionable as that is on its face, he was wrong about who I was to begin with and vented his frustration at the wrong person. (looks like he confused me with User:Bbb23. I realize we both have more than one "B" in our name, but come on.) And since I don't intend to host the sort of discussion that made me give up on WER, I don't see anything good froming from this. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apologize for mistaking you for Bb23. Yes, I got mixed up on that. But I didn't reopen that thinking your were someone else. I just re-opened it and then you complained . That is whem I got you confused as I have been going over other pages where the two of your are active, one being the WikiProject Conflict resolution. I was working on little sleep so, again I am sorry for the mix up. On the brighter side I did get 12 hours last night.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Man...I must have been more tired than I though if I didn't even finish spelling out the word "Homosexuality".--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you watchlist this page?

Can you watchlist [[87]]. I've left a good faith warning to a third party user who keeps restoring the other users comments after they have blanked the page. I have linked the policies invovled but another set of eyes can help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It seems from their edit history they have a bit of a grudge against that user. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this a good place to talk about planning to become a WIkipedia Reviewer?

I'm planning on becoming a reviewer soon. From looking at the Request for Reviewer Rights page you seem to be the guy that accepts and assigns permissions. When you assign permissions, what do you look for when before you assign or decline permissions for becoming a reviewer. Do you have any good tips or info about becoming one. EuroCarGT 03:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While I have replied to many of the recetn requests, any administrator can review requests for userrights. WP:REVIEWER outlines what the reviewer right is, how it works, and what is looked for from those asking for the user right. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35