User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 10

Beeblebrox, my bad; thanks for the advice. No, Bob gave no edit summary whatsoever for removing the content I entered; that was the issue.

I had this in mind, from the Fermi's Paradox article: "Religious and philosophical speculation about extraterrestrial intelligent life long predates the modern scientific inquiry into the subject."

The improvements I see might be: (1) to place the content under the section labeled, "Human beings were created alone", but the content disagrees with the label. And (2), to quote the original documents myself, from The Ante-Nicene Christian Library in 23 vols, Eerdman's, 1951, for Origen, and the Mandaean book The Ginza (Arabic). Very old documents.

References #38 & #39 already refer to religious texts.

Under the heading, "They choose not to interact with us", the content was intended to address or to respond to the conjectures in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, as follows:

"Earth may have been set as an explicit experiment that contact would ruin" The documents say, "Yes".

"...all it takes is a single...civilization to decide to act contrary..." The documents say, No, it won't happen. Because:

"all civilizations follow the lead of some particularly distinguished civilization" Yes, this takes place. God's, so to speak. It's a matter of trustworthiness. He trusts them to do what He would do.

The quotes do respond to the conjectures made.

In a fast read, most likely missed by Bob.

If, rather than quotes from ancient writings, a current denomination's religious belief is expressed, 26 of 1,248,168 words - rather a detail in the LDS scriptural canon - lay to rest the underlying question of Fermi's Paradox: "Are we alone in the universe?"

D&C 76:24 "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."

Occam's Razor in operation? Include if you wish.

Anyway, I don't know that we should deny these old writings appropriate expression.

Regards, Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.123.198 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for that help!

As per your advice I posted at wp:ani, but please see the result that there was no admin input there. And opening an Rfc is a very big step I'd not like to take at this point.

One user replied on wp:ani "I'm not an admin, but I don't think the advice to come here was correct. I have certainly seen people blocked at WQA in spite of refusing to participate in the process. Here at ANI this issue seems to be falling under the radar. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)" Do you think there is reason to reopen the discussion at wp:wqa? Do you perhaps have any other suggestions? Debresser (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid my only suggestion at this point is to let it go, try to avoid further conflict with Mr. Simpson, and re-report at ani if there are further insults, providing diffs of your previous attempts to resolve this. Since he ignored both processes, there is little to no chance that wqa can help. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

thx for reverting the vandalism to my talk page - that was SO quick! :-) Flatterworld (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

 

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this user to calm down, so that discussions could be fruitful. Linguistixuck has falsely characterized my edits. Linguistixuck themself admits my only edit to Mary Gilbert [1] and my only edit to Lost Nation, Iowa [2] were "understandable". Which means Linguistixuck's complaint rests sole on my only edit to Tim Buckley. The actual difference [3] clearly shows that my edit summary of "rv to remove random allcaps word" is not a false edit summary. Linguistixuck's version has the line "WORK with Guibert suffering from his infidelity and difficulties arising from the pressures of his music career." which I reverted to the previous version which made sense and lacked the Allcaps work.

In response, Linguistixuck has accused me of going on a "revert rampage” [4], then added an uncivil title bar [5], called my edit of Lost Nation “crap” [6], threatened me demanding an immediate response [7] [8]. Twelve minutes later, Linguistixuck accused me on the Incidents noticeboard [9] and then later reported me here. [10]. Linguistixuck appeared to have calmed down in this edit [11] and said that they “consider things settled” yet only six minutes later, he accuses me of “BS edit summaries” [12] , among other things. Edward321 (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I think the edit summary of reverting my reversion was inadequate, because you identified it as vandalism. How was it vandalism? Impala2009 | Talk 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I more or less explained this on your talk page. Your edit added vandalism that had just been removed back into the article. So, although your intent may have been to revert a vandal, in your haste you actually ended up adding some very nasty content back into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The chorus to the song uses the phrase "skeet skeet, motherfucker!", which popularized the term as a catchphrase. It may have existed prior to the song, but it's this song (a #2 hit) that introduced it into the vernacular. Chubbles (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• thanks for clarifying that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a significantly developed aircraft - see the difference in performance as listed in the CFA article. I am therefore re-creating the article. If you interfere, I will mark it as Vandalism. RuthAS (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• There were only ten ever built, and the parent article is a only a stub so it would make more sense to expand it instead of splitting it, and I don't appreciate being threatened by you as nothing I have done here was vandalism and I left a polite explanation on your talk page of my actions. You don't own the article, any user is free to "interfere." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt mwatter how many were built. Many other articles cover single examples of aircraft. The CFA D.7 was designed and built by an independent company, its airframe was modified, it had a more powerful engine, its weights and performance differed. RuthAS (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Onetwothreeabc (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(posting here instead of the article talk page, since it's not really about the article, just a thought I had)

Re political suicide: they'd be surprised what someone can get away with when the American public has such selective hearing. Her interview with Katie Couric in 2008 should have been political death, but somehow she survived that one and still had a career. Now and then on the Internets I see non-joke comments like "Sarah Palin/Carrie Prejean 2012!!" that just make me embarrassed to be a United Statesian... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I need to solict your advice and feedback. What is the proper way/process to engage someone to to resolve a dispute? How do I engage them without it turning into a battle? I am new to Wikipedia and need advice on this matter. Thanks --Dranster (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• There are several processes. For a dispute between two users, a third opinion can be very helpful. For more involved disputes a request for comment is a good way to gather consensus. You are wise to try and not turn it into a battle, a lot of new users don't get that and end up getting in awful, pointless fights with other users. Generally, if a conversation has gone two or three rounds without anyone changing their position, it is time to seek outside opinion. I'll continue watching the page and will help out if I can. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of advice. Your right: I don't want to end up in a pointless fight. I fact, I am waiting a couple of days before responding. Thanks again --Dranster (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 

Thank you for uploading File:Drydevilsclub.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed I clicked on the cc-sa license when I uploaded it, but for some reason it didn't show up. Fixed now, it's also labeled as being self-created, and the metadata from my camera matches other files I have created. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You either mistook my statements as a complaint against uncivil articles, or just wanted to censor my complaint. I only used it to draw a comparison that there is a double standard with names and "offensive" should not be valid criteria. I was hoping for a meaningful discussion on the "discussion" board on the same policy. Thanks for erasing my words so that they essentially mean nothing. Thanks!!!! 68.108.17.61 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I merely closed the discussion, for the reasons I specified both on that page and on your talk page. Everything you wrote is still there, I didn't "censor" anything. As I said, you seemed more upset with "objectionable" articles than the actual username policy, and you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, because bringing up a disussion is "disrupting wikipedia to make a point". I said

"Usernames that are offensive should be allowed because wikipedia is not censored"
guy1: "Yes but we are civil." (justifying restriction of name content)
Me: "So civility applies to usernames and not articles?"

I really don't care that "Oral sex" has pictures I don't agree with. It's like you calling me a bad name. It might offend me, but I respect that right you have to say those things, whether they offend me or not. I just wonder why articles are given carte blanch (which is fine, read what I said again if this isn't perfectly clear), and usernames are given the shaft if they look like they might offend someone.

It's disheartening that I'm having this discussion here, and not with the community under the username policy, I was hoping to see other editor's thoughts on this. But that's ok, if you felt the need to close my discussion, I respect your right to disrespect me and my ideas (that don't mean a dang thing apparently). 68.108.17.61 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you really disagree that strongly, re-open the discussion, I have already made myself clear and see no need to discuss this any further with you. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this conversation still going on? I recall seeing somewhere recently that some guy was complaining about an image of 2 guys having oral sex in Oral sex ... which is strange, since none of the 3 images show 2 men. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent call on this one. Some would have taken it to AfD for the neologism, but it seemed to me (and to you I guess) that the WP:NEO was only a WP:Coatrack to promote a website. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly, the article barely mentioned the supposed subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, notifying editors when you post about them on ANI is not optional - it's now required so you should've notified the Talk:Centrifugal force editors you were referring to at the start. Exxolon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious why you decided the way to go was to ask for administrative action when you have not chosen to actually engage in any conversation on the article talk page. It appears you have adopted the role of a disciplinarian (self-appointed) rather than having any real difficulties in changing or adding content at Centrifugal force. Brews ohare (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Because you and David have been jamming up the talk page for over a year with your never ending arguments. There's no article content dispute that could legitimately require this much conversation. And I don't wish to discuss it here as conversation is already ongoing at ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Brews ohare (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you cannot blame it on myself and Brews. Have a look at what FyzixFighter has been doing. Why not try to pin FyzixFighter down on the convective term in equation 3-12 in Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics'. That's what it's all about. There's no point in window dressing excercises like getting a topic ban on myself and Brews. You need to get to the root of the problem and then you'll see why it has continued for so long. You cannot ban selected editors until you comprehend what the dispute is about. David Tombe (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• All I have done is point out the perceived problem and asked for community input on it. Whatever consensus for action or lack thereof that forms out out of that is fine with me. And the discussion of this will not be on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly happened with Talk:University of Milan? I didn't realize that it was a talk page when I requested the speedy delete, but I didn't think unregistered users were able to create pages. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unregistered users can't create articles, but they can create talk pages. It's kind of funny to me that there had never been any discussion on the article in five years of it being on wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of Shanta Creek fire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC) {{helpme}} I've expanded the article and added section breaks, but there are some formatting errors with the "edit" tabs in the article and I have no clue how to fix them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re. Shanta Creek fire

Hiya. The problem is due to the 2 images and the infobox being squashed up; it's called "bunching". I've done a quick-fix by collapsing the navbox and shuffling things around a little; there are lots of options, depending on what you want to achieve - see WP:BUNCH.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Give it a go, but if you do still have problems, let me know how you want it to look, on my talk page, and I'll help sort it out.  Chzz  ►  18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything you don't know how to do? Thanks for your help (again) it looks way better. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was beginning to appreciate all the attention. LOL AreaControl (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot's already reported him to AiV. HalfShadow 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• So I see, good riddance. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll keep that in mind :)

Onevalefan^talk 22:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Darrenhusted has removed your close note on the poll at Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK). He is also attempting to argue that the fact that the section didn't change for about 3 weeks was "consensus by silence". He also continues to harrass everyone who votes Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK). I wouldn't mind, but I don't even watch the damn programme. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I tried to end the madness... --Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. Guess it'll just have to run its course.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please review User:RoyDickson's additions to History of aviation in Alaska? He's adding tons of names to the list, and I don't know enough about this to judge whether they're worth including or not. You also may want to review some of his new articles:

• Barnhill & McGee Airways
• Linious "Mac" McGee

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look I guess, but frankly it's become tiresome banging my ahead against the brick wall of lack of understanding of how common and not particularly notable tiny airlines are in Alaska... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• The user doesn't really seem to get the picture; I've had to point him to notability guidelines several times, and I don't think he's read them. Anyway, if you want you can take these to AfD, and if they are deleted that way there will be stronger ways (with consensus) to keep the user from adding more of this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted at UAA, use of the name to promote is clearly a violation, but if we start actioning fans we'd have to block all those people with Mac, Sony, Nike, and an immense list of other names people are fans of. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• But since they created an article about an artist on that label, persons editing that article will probably perceive a conflict of interest. If it was "Bridgerecordsfan" I never would have reported, but the name itself implies they represent the label. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting to be a questionable way to go about things actually. Are we going to block users' editing Microsoft related, or Honda related articles with usernames that have the company name in it as it's implied they're affiliated? Note I'm not looking for you to answer necessarily, it's a problem with the current wording of the policy that I have, which I am seeking to address. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shanta Creek fire, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Over 3,000 hits! My little article is all grown up.... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my gratitude for your welcoming message.--Spiritual Collector Of The Moonlight (talk)

You're welcome! --Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  Resolved

Sorry, I didn't think Mizabot would mind that pagename. But since it was wrong, feel free to delete.   Thank you Prapsnot (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hey no problem, I might have made the same mistake... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, BROX, VASCO here,

I am that anon editor - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.129.64.117) - sometimes i forgot to log in, and i also happen to have a standard IP. Regarding your reprimand, i'll only say the following: maybe it was an exaggerated summary on my part, but i did not insult that user, in no way. Also, i have been having a bad day, having discovered, after three years of fighting vandalism on WP and improving articles (esp. soccer) with my heart and soul, my user page has been for the first time, vandalized.

Please be careful with your accusations in the future, am only trying to help, sorry for any incovenience,

Have a good week, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"you don't know how to make a good structured sentence in English, fine, but don't correct those who can!!!" is a personal attack so I'm afraid I won't be taking your advice to "be more careful" as that is the exact advice I was trying to give you. As far as your user page being vandalized goes, that has happened to me probably seven or eight times now, it's no reason to be rude to your fellow Wikipedians. In fact, many vandal fighters, myself included, take it as a "badge of honor" and an indication that you are doing something right. So, keep fighting the good fight with the vandals, but try to not to let it ruffle your feathers so much when they respond like that. They are mostly bored teenagers with limited imaginations who don't like it when their childish behavior gets reverted. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message. Regards, Leggette (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Notification of templates, which was sparked by your post at WT:CSD. Cheers!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The user RoyDickson who was causing trouble with Alaska pilots articles has left a message (a full week after the discussion ended) at Talk:History_of_aviation_in_Alaska#Long_list_of_pilots. If you could comment there it would be helpful. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm aware of the CSD requirements, and the article appeared to meet those requirements when it was first created. IMO, it looked pretty much like a band member creating a page to promote his or her band. Furthermore, there were no assertions of notability that have any references to support them. Netalarmtalk 23:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a direct quote from WP:CSD#Articles:" The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. " The article clearly indicated that members of this band were previously in other notable bands[15]. So, your tagging was incorrect, as was your assertion that you were familiar with the particulars of how to apply csd tags. All that is needed is a credible assertion of notability. WP:AFD is a more proper forum for any deletion that is likely to be contested. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree that is article now meets the notability guidelines, if you take a look at the original draft, the assertions were minor and who would know the references were notable bands? "indicated that members of this band were previously in other notable bands", this was done by using (BAND), and no indication was given as to how notable the original bands were. I continue to standby the assertion of my familiarity with the CSD requirements, as I would be the only person to know. Netalarmtalk 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not the same thing as the notability requirement. Just because you had apparently not heard of the other bands referenced on the page does not mean they are not notable. Simply linking to their own articles easily cleared that hurdle. When I see an article like this that mentions other bands members were in, this is usually the first thing I do, as a sort of "sniff test." If the links are blue, that's it, the article is above the low bar required to avoid speedy deletion. My point is that while you took one cursory glance at this article and declared this band not to be notable because you aren't personally familiar with Faster Pussycat, I was able to establish that this article did not qualify for speedy deletion in about two seconds, and it took me less than a minute to actually prove it. I would note that while I have heard of these other bands before, I had never heard of the Sin City Sinners before just now, and yet it was just that easy. Clearly, it was not a valid candidate. Incorrect csd taggings waste the time of administrators and other users, and unnecessarily bite the newcomers. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the article had no links, so it would have been impossible for you to see blue links'. So according to your logic, any article that does assert even some notability automatially disqualifies it for CSD? If that's the case, many articles would fail the CSD requirements. Users are supposed to use their judgement to determine whether an article meets the CSD requirements. Maybe you should also use a more friendly tone when messaging other users, as "I was able to establish that this article did not qualify for speedy deletion in about two seconds, and it took me less than a minute to actually prove it." hints that you claim to have higher authority when it comes to determining CSDs. "Incorrect csd taggings waste the time of administrators and other users, and unnecessarily bite the newcomers." was also unncessary, and I would suggest you take on a kinder tone and assume good faith. Netalarmtalk 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down and re-read my last post. I linked the band names to see if they would be blue or red. This is something that should be done before tagging for speedy deletion. I never said I have a "higher authority" I was only trying to help you avoid making future bad nominations. I did not at any time imply that you acted maliciously or in bad faith. I acknowledge that you honestly believed it qualified and have only tried to explain why it clearly did not, and how simple it was to determine this. Since you seem unwilling to take my word for it, I would suggest that you comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on this matter, or perhaps seek a third opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is already a discussion germane to this situation at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked and I totally disagree with the tone of your note concerning my good-faith contributions on the List of ethnic slurs article and the related talk page. I did not disrupt the flow of comments, I simply indicated that Canuck was not a slur and explained why. A letter to a politician from the United States does not make a slur of a term. I also stroke the information to invite more discussions on the talk page. The next time you exhibit such rude behavior, I will report it. --Jazzeur (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Apparently you shock pretty easily. Striking out part of an article and adding your own commentary to the article text is wholly inappropriate. There is a reason we have a template to ask users not to do such things. Report me whenever you like to whomever you like as I have not been rude or acted in bad faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the naming conventions for ships. There were at least three ship in French service that have borne the name Armide. Rama (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry for the trouble. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pilot (Breaking Bad Episode), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Breaking Bad Episode). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scythre^Talk_Contribs 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You have messages at my talk page. --Mhera (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you redirecting my articles!!!! What's wrong with Ackar??? Maybe Tarix would need it even though I started it five minutes ago!!! I need an explanation. Ackar was perfectly fine and I was just about to add more references. What's the idea? That writing was ruined now. I'm feeling mad right now. Next thing I know you'll be redirecting my last article, Namib desert horse. Mhera (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(I replied on your talk page at the same time you were writing this. --Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for fixing that. I was trying to remember why the whole thing was familiar and who was involved in the sockpuppetry that I must have copied in the wrong title. At least this time I figured out it was a sockpuppet, much better than the last time. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wondered how this whole long article just appeared out of nowhere all fleshed out, but unfortunately it didn't occur to me to search similar titles before editing it. Alls well that ends well... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please move those FLCs back, the naming conventions for featured content candidates is "Wikipedia:Featured x candidate/articlename/archivex. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it; in the future, please don't make such moves before making sure they're warranted. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I wasn't aware that FLC archives had their own specific naming conventions, most other archives use the "pagename/Archive 1" format. Oh well, hope it didn't cause to much confusion for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. The bot that processes completed nominations (it's not just FLCs, it's featured article and featured topic candidates too) recognizes this system, so we have to keep it consistent. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know I left a note on the article's talk page, though I bet you would have fixed the issue I'm asking about eventually. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(replied on article talk page)--Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I made some further comments there. Katr67 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi beeblebox, since at your welcome message on my talk page you said i can ask you if i have a question, here it is :) i created an article about a macedonian world war II partisan fighter and yugoslav people's hero (Blagoj Mučeto‎}, and developed it day by day. but someone added that the article "may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." what is meant with this? could you eventually make this cleanup? thanks Zna (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• In this case it seems to have meant that the grammar needed just a little work. Kind of funny that someone bothered to tag such a short article instead of fixing it themselves. Anyway, it didn't need much, I've cleaned it up and removed the tag. The main thing it still needs is expansion, it's very brief. If you can locate a free or fair use image that would be good too.--Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you. i'll see what i can find. there is not much information about this person. Zna (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Wizard was going to adopt me. I saw the message you left on his talk page. The only thing I'd like to say, I'm not a he. I'm a she. --Mhera (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's the problem with the internet, you can't tell these things from just a screen name. ""Him" is often used as a generic pronoun for an individual whose gender is not known, sometimes I just avoid the whole thing and use "they." Anyway, no offense intended. --Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I know there's no offense. Just thought to get it settled from the start. Mhera is a girl name from a book. Mhera (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

People dictated the policy to me. I just put it down on paper. Why is that an edit war?

Tell 7, (administrator) Stephen, Kevin, WKnight94, and Baseball Bugs that they are the 100% consensus and nobody disagreed. Come to think of it, you are calling it an edit war so you dispute that stale usernames should not be immune from blocking. OK, I see there is now not 100% consensus. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is not to be placed in the WP:U policy. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You've missed my point entirely. You made a change to a page. The change was reverted. You made essentially the same changes again. That is edit warring, no matter what was said. Click here for information on the proper way to proceed in such circumstances. I happen to agree that blocking inactive accounts is pointless, and have replied to your thread at the username talk page. --Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see how his edits were a potential violation of 3RR that warranted use of the template on the editor. It's not the most friendly and tactful way to handle a dispute that wasn't at the point of escalation in my opinion. Personally if I were concerned with his second revert over a span of a few days I would have spent a minute writing a brief non-templated note about it. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't over the "span of a few days" it was less than an hour, and Acme re-inserted pretty much the same text that had been removed, with the reverting editor asking for discussion on talk before re-adding. I realize that WP:BRD is not policy, but it is generally not considered constructive to edit in this combative manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Beeblebrox, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of National Aviation Museum - a page you tagged - because: An infobox with information counts as content, review A3. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 12:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we have some inconsistency, every other time I've tagged a similar page it's been deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but the fact that other admins perpetuated your mistakes does not make them less of a mistake. It just means you were "lucky" that they were deleted by admins who have a weak grasp on CSD. As I pointed out on WT:CSD, the page was afterwards expanded by the creator and might not have been, if I had deleted it. If you pass your current RFA, you might want to remember this :-) Regards SoWhy 10:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether I pass or not I'll remember it. I hate making incorrect CSD taggings. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I wouldn't say that they all had a weak grasp on CSD. I'd like to think that other admins see the situation similarly to me: By far most of your CSDs were articles that really needed to be deleted; I would have deleted them too, regardless of whether the rationale was correct. It seems you didn't tag many A3 CSDs anyway; the last I saw was Aaron Bishop of June 12. (That was a user who started a page about himself with only an infobox. He had done the same twice before, and each time it was deleted per CSD A7.)

As someone who was heavily involved in creating CSD, I would hope that you don't see CSD as a rigid rule set that always needs to be followed to the letter, but rather as just our best effort at providing an easy list of criteria for making quick decisions. More important than the letter of CSD is your common sense. So, especially if - as seems likely now - you become an administrator, I would urge you to see the big picture. Try to put yourself in other people's shoes: If you see a new page about a museum, please don't think about whether it has an infobox or not. (Unless, of course, you plan on improving the article.) Those things don't matter for CSD; they can all be fixed in due time. Just imagine how a reader who happens to be an aviation nut would be happy to see an article about this museum. Or imagine how someone who lived in that place seeing it and saying "Oh, there's a stub about this museum, let's expand it". That's the sort of imagination that started Wikipedia! — Sebastian 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that you did just what I had in mind in the case of Jaseng Hospital of Oriental Medicine. So you don't need to be told what I wrote, and I considered removing or rewording it lest it comes across as patronizing. But I decided to just add this paragraph and let it stand, because we all need a little reminder once in a while to keep doing the right thing. — Sebastian 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please help to add verifiable references from reliable sources to this article. You may find some here or there. Please also see Wikipedia:Help desk#Help_editing_a_page. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

hi. you just deleted my article. admittedly it wasn't that great, but I'm kind of new to this, and I wanted there to be an entry for i^3hypermedia because there are a lot of performance artists in the vicinity who take advantage of the space. can you suggest anything that would make it sufficiently 'encyclopedic' so that I can link other artists (who already make mention of the venue)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annacronysm (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. The biggest problem is that is was written like a press release. Try to avoid flowery language like "empowering the individual toward a more immersive and interactive artistic communication". All articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should be clear and easy to understand to the casual reader. Also, there are not any reliable sources cited. All content on Wikipedia must be verified by outside sources. Click here for information on how to add those. Good luck! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

````Hi, thnx for the info you gave me. The banner on top of my article which displayed that I have used some words which are defining the subject more. I have changed my article a bit, Can you share with me what else I can do to stop it from being tagged with any other term or being deleted. As I have used references about the kid I am talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid author (talk • contribs) 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources you are using need improvement. Reuters is a good source, but this particular article appears to be a press release. The other refs are articles written by Ms. Nuri, as opposed to being about her. Additionally, Wikipedia articles can and should be linked to related articles, but they are not considered reliable sources for article content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

```` Ihave added now some more references which are actually talking about her and her mission. I hope this time I have searched some better links and references to make the information about her more authentic. Thanks for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid author (talk • contribs) 10:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm delighted that you're running again and I'm sorry RFA 1 was tanked with a load of "per Pedro's". I'm pleased to be in the support column this time. Good luck! Pedro :  Chat  14:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, hopefully this one will be even more loaded with "PerPedro's" then! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jaseng Hospital of Oriental Medicine, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaseng Hospital of Oriental Medicine. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Needless_disambiguation_page_CSD.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are image size restrictions, but my image was not too large. Your original image of 425×659 was too large, but 100×155 is too small. Although there is no official "max size", a good rule of thumb is to keep it <.1 MB (251×398 = 99898 bytes; hence the size I used). So either we can use my image (I think the name is a little better), or resize yours once again. We used the same source, but I also have a better rationale. You make the choice, and let me know if you need any help. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All the tag says is that it should be as small as possible, so I was just trying to follow that. If there is one thing that has become clear to me recently, it's that I don't know squat about the more complicated areas of image use policy. Your version undeniably looks better than the tiny version, so I say let's go with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congrats! — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First non-crat to congratulate you! ;) Read through the ARL, start out with some of the easier deletions and such, and good luck with everything! Nobody's perfect, but I'm you'll be a net positive as an admin. Best, JamieS93 19:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do the whole "thankspam" thing, but I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to everyone who participated. To those who opposed or were neutral, rest assured your concerns will not be ignored, and I will do my very best to live up to the trust the community has placed in me. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, congratulations! - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats Beeblebrox - for some reason, I felt quite strongly that you should be promoted and took quite an active role in the RfA. I'm glad it came out the right way, best of luck. ~ mazca <sup>talk</sup> 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats for me as well! Shinerunner (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• By the way, I've already made several admin actions in the last few hours, and I'm very eager for any and all feedback, although I've been fairly cautious so far I'd like to make sure I'm on the right track. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have voted for you had I known. You sure do have my support from this point forward.

Used to be that articles with nothing but infoboxes were deleted immediately; the user in question has a number of previous blocks and some questionable edits and uploads. I'm not against this guy recreating the article, but I hope he puts some content in it. I guess I need to read up on some of the revised rules (blush). Thanks for the update and congrats on the promotion. I can't think of anyone who deserves it more. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Imagine how I felt when my own ignorance of this particular detail was brought up in the middle of my RFA! Anyway thanks for your kind remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You say Sonic h hasn't been warned enough to block. He/she has had 8 warnings. In a history of 30 edits, 28 have been vandalism, and 2 have been dubious. Responses to warnings are flippant.[16][17][18]

How many more edits does it take to establish she/he is not here to help? --Escape Orbit <sup>(Talk)</sup> 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the other warnings are from months ago. If he continues vandalizing after the more recent warnings we can move on to a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another admin didn't see it that way, and has indef blocked them, so case closed I guess. I'm very, very new to the admin thing and maybe a bit too nervous about making a bad block. I think I'll just go look for some pages that need protecting or something for a while... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view, you need to treat IP vandals and vandals with accounts somewhat differently when deciding on blocks. An IP can indeed be used by multiple people, so we generally ask for a few recent warnings to stop before blocking. Conversely, accounts are generally only used by one person, so once they've been warned I generally feel it's safe to assume they know that they're vandalising, and if it starts up again they can generally be blocked straightaway. If you're confident that an editor is maliciously vandalising, and knows that they are, then you shouldn't worry about blocking them - that's what the block tool is there for. Ultimately every admin has different opinions on exactly where to draw the line, but I think the secret is not to be completely constrained by our warnings system. Best of luck with it. ~ mazca <sup>talk</sup> 10:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be disheartened :). I would agree with you about most the warnings not being recent, but only if there was evidence of constructive editing in the intervening time. I'm all for assuming good faith, but an account that has a long term pattern (or indeed any clear pattern) of being used only for vandalism should be blocked on sight. If they have ignored one warning, then no amount of further warnings is going to stop them, and may only encourage their attention-seeking behaviour. I believe this is a usual policy for vandalism-only editors. --Escape Orbit <sup>(Talk)</sup> 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 

A gift, and feel free to holla should you need anything, even if it's just a simple query. Cheers, Nja<sup>247</sup> 12:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Beeblebrox! I noticed that you fully protected this article due to edit warring/content dispute, but it is not the case. The multiple reverts is indeed reverting vandalism and it's not a content dispute. This user especially, user 79.xxx has a long history of vandalism on multiple articles, most notably this article. Please see User:Elockid/notes1 for more inforamtion. They've been blocked multiple times for vandalism and introducing deliberate factual errors regarding Brazil and from the history of this article history, they've been reverted by multiple users. Also user 201.xxx recently has partaken in the vandalism Vandalism 1 and this Vandalism 2. Brazil is definitely not that developed and is definitely not the highest out of any country. It looks like obvious vandalism. Would you mind just semi-protecting the article since again it isn't a content/edit war dispute? Elockid <sup>(Talk</sup>·<sub>Contribs)</sub> 20:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Short answer:no. There is no recent discussion on the talk page despite all of the changes being reverted. I don't see anything in those diffs or the numerous other edits to the page that are clear cut vandalism. However, I'm new to this admin thing, so feel free to comment further at WP:RPP if you would like another admin to review this protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Elockid's version seems probable, though the protection period is quite short so no need to worry too much. Nja<sup>247</sup> 20:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just worried that they might start vandalizing again that's all even after the protection since it's so short. But if you check here HDI of Brazil the main source of the article, you'll see that Brazil (at .807) is in no way near the figures user 79.xxx and 201.xxx have been putting and user 79.xxx has what it seems adapted to sneaky vandalism to try and get away with their edits. You can also see with that link that all the numbers don't match with the anon edits I told you about. Elockid <sup>(Talk</sup>·<sub>Contribs)</sub> 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack your page Beeble -- Elockid, if the IP vandalism starts again after protection drops off re-add your request at WP:RFPP or ask on my talk page and I'll look into it. Also be sure you're warning the IP editors of why you're reverting their edits on their talk pages. Cheers, Nja<sup>247</sup> 06:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the hijack, I'm eager for feedback on my admin work. My concern here is that it really does look like a content dispute from the outside, and there's been no discussion about it that I could see. However, if someone really is adding deliberate errors, that's no good. I looked into it because I think I'm fairly familiar with the protection policy, I know basically nothing about the article's actual subject, and probably most others haunting RPP don't either. I wonder if there is a better forum to report this, since Elockid's description is of complex abuse that involves multiple articles and ip addresses... WP:ANI maybe? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism overall is under sneaky vandalism and sometimes that's very hard to spot. I understand if you saw it as a content dispute. The content/edit dispute you probably saw was a couple of users acting in AGF trying to revert some of the vandalism on the page. Also to address Nja's concern, no matter how many times I warn/others warn or how many times 79.xxx. is blocked they just keep coming back under a new IP and start vandalizing. Another 79.xxx was just blocked yesterday for vandalism again, this time on other list of countries because they couldn't edit the human development index article. :( But Beeblebrox, I think you're doing a good job so far by looking in things. :) Here's some comments from other users about the anons I talked about other than the standard "Reverted edits by" or "identified as vandalism using (TW)" or "Undid", warnings, etc.:

• Anon comment 1
• User talk:79.45.97.179
• Comment 2 (in edit summary]
• Comment 3 (edit summary)
• Comment 4 (edit summary). Elockid <sup>(Talk</sup>·<sub>Contribs)</sub> 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you SALTed that page. One of the recreations was inadvertently mine (it appears that HotCat has a bug that can recreate pages). I can't tell if there were any other recreations. FYI.LeadSongDog come howl 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like yours was the last one. It had already been speedy deleted four times, so the salt is probably still in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! When I have some free time I plan to take a crack at the still-burning Minto Flats fire. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Swaminarayan,kindly unbloke--Green akshardham (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Because an edit war has been raging on the page. There needs to be discussion regarding these obviously controversial changes on the article's talk page so that a consensus can be reached. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you extend the block so that full consensus can be reached? <sup>The</sup> World 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Generally, page protection should be a short as possible in order to keep editing as open as possible. It is my hope that this protection will be sufficient to make it clear to those involved that edit warring is not tolerated. If edit warring recurs after the protection has expired, it can be reported at WP:RPP. Also, further edit warring could easily lead to user blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Beeb, can you please take another look at this? It was resurrected and re-written, but still doesn't have enough to establish notability in my opinion. Thanks. ArcAngel (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It was exactly the same as the last version, I deleted it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt mean to put the wrong tag there, but that was the closest one I could find. Does that mean you cannot speedily delete software articles? Martin Raybourne (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Generally not for reasons related to the notability guideline. If it was blatant advertising (which I don't think this is) it could be tagged with {{db-spam}}. If you still think it should be deleted,you could try proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It will help us to get organized. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and good luck. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With your permission, I'll move that to the Talk page. Nevermind, I moved it. And added a note at the end. See talk page.

And I always liked "Another One Rides the Bus. :) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Just Step Sideways. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.