User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Aashiedits & MISHRACOM

• Aashiedits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MISHRACOM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there any way to check if Aashiedits & MISHRACOM are the same user? I do find it strange given the pages edited by both users. I apologize for wasting your time if you feel that my request is not justified or turns out to be a waste of your valuable time. Superfast1111 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't surprise me at all if they were. I think it is probably time to kick this up to WP:SPI so that the experts in such matters are aware of it! I will file there in a moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not here

Be back in a week or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• and I'm back. sort of. still trying to maintain a "vacation state of mind." Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ireland

Hi there, there was a request at RPP to semi protect this (and leave PC on if preferred). I've indef semi protected the article, and removed the PC. I think the edit count's too high really, and there's not been any sensible contributinos from IPs. Feel free to revert, reinstate or whatever. Just thought I'd let you know :) GedUK  12:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

PERM

Hi Beeb. Hi. Are you up for doing a quick stab at WP:PERM? It's all a bit backlogged recently and I just haven't got time at the moment for anything other than the low hanging fruit ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I could take a look, I've got a bit of time today. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that. I'm going to be out of town again for the next few days on flood damage control. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing requests for permissions doesn't sound at all like work compared to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover

Thanks for your response/advice at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover! When do you think would be a good time to re-request it? I really want to help out in file moving and I'm guaranteed not a hat collector. ///EuroCarGT 00:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the right time to re-apply would be after you have more experience in the file namespace. a good way to establish a positive track record would be to find mis-named files and request that they be moved, this would demonstrate the type of understanding of file naming conventions that is expected of someone with the file mover right. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty then! Thanks for your tip. ///EuroCarGT 00:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Rollbacker with mere edits

I think you have assigned permission level to this User:Rose$keel [ Here ]. But in the noticeboard you have declined the request. I think it might be some mistake. Please have a look on this. --    L o g  X   19:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

NOELIA

Hello Dear friend Thank for protecting the page but you protected with vandalized information, you must read the last version a refer to the references like the DOB, the correct DOB is 1979, please place the lock with the accurate Information not with the vandalized version. am bringing this to several supervisors please take alook at this this reference http://www.noelia.tv/noeliadocwikipedia/ the reference is the for the DOB and you lock the page with wrong information.. Please revert the Lock or the accurate Information Please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noeliawiki (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• On the same topic, do you think you could weigh in here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noelia? Do you think it would be alright if I removed the claim from the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And here I thought they were mostly arguing about her birthdate. I also do not speak Spanish so I have no way of knowing what that segment actually says. Google translate was not even able to make sense of the title but it also seems to say something about Santeria. If it seems like a BLP violation I am ok with it being removed, my only interest up till now was just to stop the edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I removed it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

PERM/R mistake

It looks like to me that you made at a mistake at assigning permissions at WP:PERM/R, and gave the rollbacker right indented to Boomur accidentally to Rose$keel. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Beeblebrox, as you clearly meant to decline the rollback request I have removed access. Normally I would have waited for you to come back online, but given the editor has stated that they intend to use rollback to edit war I thought it might be best to yank it sooner than later. Sorry if I've stepped on any toes! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No toes stepped on, thank you both for clearing that up. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo did only remove the permission from Rose$keel, but Boomur still doesn't has the permission. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. thanks again. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Permission

Hello, i appeared in potential reviewer candidates list. If appropiate enable the same. Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And your request on WP:RFPERM was declined. An automated list of "Potential" does not equal "actually ready". Wait 3 months, request again via the proper channels, and please don't forum shop ES&L 10:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What he said. I was not even aware of whatever that list is until just now and have never used it to review requests for permissions. I have to tell you that anyone applies for every single permission that can be applied for at the same time is pretty much guaranteed to get denied on all fronts as it is obvious hat collecting and not based on an actual need to use the tools requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually i thought rights like "autopatrolled" and "reviewer" are hardly be misused. So we have list for both of them; i have seen in past that admins granted rights on basis of list of autopatrolled etc. Just my thought.Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Any tool can be misused by a person who does not understand or does not respect what it is for. That is rather the point of having users request them rather than just automatically granting them based on arbitrary threshold. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PsiEpsilon#12 October 2013

You may want to comment there about the apparent return of PsiEpsilon = Dimension10 = ... Regards, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 11:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Error in posting

You posted something on my talk intended for someone else [1], but no further action required as fixed now. Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Suppression

I think you had made some mistakes. I was the one who requested suppression of an edit, not Bhaskarbhagawati. So if there is something that needs suppression in the future, can I contact you by email? Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 10:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

wow! I have been making a lot of mis-clicks lately. Sorry for the confusion. You certainly can contact me by email, although it may get dealt with faster if you contact the oversight team as detailed at WP:RFO. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi BeebleBrox, thanks for your contributions, are you sure that there was no consensus to delete this template([2]), 8 editors (one of them an admin, some of them template experts) requested deletion, only the creator of the nominated template and another editor voted keep? Kiatdd (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Determining if a consensus has been reached is not so simple as counting who put what's bolded word in front of their comments. In fact, I wouldn't even count your own remark as an argument to delete because you say to delete it then restore an old version. (as one of the other participants mentioned, that idea does not make a whole lot of sense) and there are several comments without any bolded words that nonetheless appear to be arguments in favor of keeping. Plus ideas were floated regarding merging or splitting the template. So it is not nearly as simple a matter as just seeing how many people used the word "keep" and how many used the word "delete." Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with you as I see a consensus to delete, even if you don't count my vote there are still 7 deletion requests, and if you review comments by GiantSnowman, Student7, Toddy1, Quiddity, eh bien mon prince, SamuelTheGhost, and 65.92.181.39 ... they do not appear to be just votes thrown in randomly. Kiatdd (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

PERM

I know you're good at this, so I was kinda wondering if you could make one of those drop-down things for Rollback with some standard template replies such as for example:

::{{notdone}}. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only {{x}} edits to mainspace I don't think you have sufficient editing experience. Take a moment to check out what counter-vandalism is at [[WP:CVU]] and when you have made 200 or so edits you may wish to enroll at the [[WP:CVUA]] to learn more. ~~~~

::{{notdone}}. Please see the notice at the top of this page. I see you just also applied for Reviewer. Let's see how you get on with that first and then we'll take another look again when you've made a few more edits. ~~~~

::{{notdone}}. Please see the notice at the top of this page. This is not what Rollback is for. Take a moment to read [[Wikipedia:Rollback]] and if that's what you would like to do you can then check out the [[WP:CVU|Counter Vandalism Unit]] to learn more. ~~~~

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually a total hack when it comes to template coding, I usually just steal bits and pieces of code from templates I have seen and put them together until I have something that looks ok, I don't actually understand what at least half of it even means. I could make the page notice, but if we want to make a multiple-function template like the ones used at the confirmed permission board, UAA, etc, it will probably require someone with a little bit more skill. Fortunately such persons are not particularly hard to find. last time I thought a change was needed I floated the idea at WT:PERM and someone else changed the template. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so it looks as if we're in the same boat then with templates. I've actually done stuff like this in the past when I have designed complex help pages and stuff, but a) my memory is now like a sieve, and b) I ain't got the time right now. Do you remember who has and who can? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Done already by Callanecc. He deserevs a beer! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests for permissions/Reviewer

Because I did not receive an answer on the page I applied for Reviewer rights and my request already got deleted by a bot, I decided to ask you here: I do not agree with the reasons you gave for not giving me Reviewer rights, and I would have expected that I could talk about that on the request-page or get a third person involved. So, could you please answer to my answer?

Erm ... why just a little bit? In the de.WP I was told that in fact only being trustable is required to get editor/reviewer rights. I know that the en.WP-system is different, but you created the "Reviewer"-role for people who want to review changes on certain articles, and that is also what I would like to be able to do. I do not think that I lack experience, because from the de.WP I already know what things such as vandalism are, and I think that f. ex. vandalism looks the same in every WP.

Thanks. |FDMS 12:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Just to let you know, I also review requests for permissions. Those request pages are not for discussion, unless you're asked a specific question. Once the  Not done or  Done is added, no further posts should be made. Your description above shows that you might not even understand the "reviewer" permission - why are you discussing vandalism - that's typically what Rollback permission is about. You also need to know that EN.Wiki admins will NOT grant a permission because of your work on another language wikipedia - I couldn't, for example, tell what was good or what was bad on the Hindi Wikipedia. You must prove yourself on the English Wikipedia in order to be granted rights on the English Wikipedia. ES&L 13:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Nobody is perfect, that is why I think that it would have made sense if a second person reviewed my request.
2. Reviewers review changes before they get part of the version shown by default on certain pages. They do this because otherwise vandalism might get what users see by default when doing research on sensible topics.
3. The german Wikipedia is the second largest Wikipedia, with more active users than the Hindi Wikipedia. If you (or Beeblebrox) do/does not speak german, let somebody else review my request. |FDMS 13:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

With number 1, we trust admins to make the best decision based on the information available - there are no second reviews until perhaps a couple of months later when you have new information/history. With number 3, you're obviously missing the point: you MUST prove yourself on the English Wikipedia - period. I don't care what you've done elsewhere, we have no requirement to, nor indeed SHOULD we ever review your contributions on another project. That's like asking me to grant you a BSc degree from my university simply because you have a BSc from another university in the same state/province. I obviously chose Hindi for rhetorical purposes. Short form: when requesting permissions on this project, the admin ONLY has requirements to check your contribs on this project. If they're sparse, do no expect permissions. ES&L 13:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have much to add beyond what you have already been told by me and by ES&L. You have made a grand total of 21 article edits here. That is not a sufficient track record to even think about granting any sort of advanced permission. So I didn't even consider checking the valididty of your claims to have permissions on other projects, and I didn't review the few edits you have made here because you simply have not editied enough here to have any possibility of becoming a reviewer. While there is no firm threshold for how many edits you must have we generally expect at least a few hundred article edits before such a request is given any serious consideration. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 21:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest investigation of participants in an RfC you closed

Two months ago, you closed an RfC on Talk:Flickr about WP:UNDUE coverage of a controversy. One of the dissenting voters in the discussion, User:CaffeinAddict, has now opened a conflict of interest investigation about myself and several other of the voters in that discussion. You may recall that he called your decision "bullshit" and threatened to quit Wikipedia over it. He has a history of spuriously calling users shills on Talk:Flickr, but this is the first time he has escalated it to formal action. I am quite sure that none of the involved editors are shills, and I obviously believe that your close was based on consensus and policy-based arguments. I would greatly appreciate it if you could pop into the WP:COIN discussion to state that the RfC was properly closed, policy was followed, and that nothing underhanded occurred in this debate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC). 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.

Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 16:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Permissons

How many edits are needed to get permissions and how can I stop vandalism? Mouseinphilly (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a "hard and fast" number but generally if you have less than 500 edits to articles your chances are pretty low. for more information on vandalism and how to help stop it see WP:VANDAL. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible sock-puppet

Hi Beebs
Just contacting you about a possible sock-puppet. I noticed that the page Sulaiman Shikoh that I CS'ded back in January 2012 had been re-created, twice, most recently Jan. 2013 by Rayaraya (talk · contribs). As you blocked the original creator of that page P.Sridhar Babu (talk · contribs) as a sock of Sridhar1000 (talk · contribs), AGF but I was just speculating that maybe there was some connection? ;-) If this should go elsewhere like WP:SPI or WP:AN/I, just point me there. TPS input welcome too! :-D 220 of ^Borg 03:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a cursory look and so far I don't think it is very likely. This account does not exhibit the gross incompetence seen in the other socks, some of which were blocked before it was even realized they were socks because the edits they made were so awful. It looks like they just happen to share a common interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK Beebs, I'll go back to pottering around WP. ;-) 220 of ^Borg 11:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reviewer tool. I have reverted enough questionable edits to have made a few mistakes over a year or so but I think these were few in number and were quickly explained or corrected. Some of the discussion on my talk page actually involved mistakes by the editor or situations where I offered an explanation but did not concede the reversion was wrong. In any event, I believe that I recognize valid edits and can use the reviewer tool judiciously and carefully so that I will not disappoint your expectations in giving me the tool. Donner60 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oversighter needed

Could you please check WP:ANI, section "3 more paid editors?" Some edits seem to have disappeared completely, and a few of us are wondering if they perhaps got oversighted, so it would help if you could check the oversight log for the pages in question and let us know what you've found. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I can help here. I was appointed right around the same time that the suppression tool superseded old-school oversight and have very little experience with it. Of course even if I could figure it out all I could tell anyone was whether or not there had been an oversight. I suppose the next step is WP:AUSC if the admins who previously deleted it can't recall any reason that would warrant such drastic measures. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "whether or not there had been an oversight" was basically all I was asking for. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. The last entry in the main oversight log is from 2010. I tried searching the titles in the suppression log and got nothing there either. I can't find anything on these two pages other than the deletion summaries. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

and now it's all visible again without anyone doing anything, so looks like a server glitch of some kind. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Thank you, because all I was asking was "what's in the suppression log and the old oversight log". Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC). 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.

Blurred Lines 17:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: re: edit warring

The following discussion 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.

---

.

In my opinion there are edit wars and there are edit wars. It takes two to edit war, but if one editor is removing appropriate and sourced material and ignoring attempts at discussion, and the rationale for removal misapplies policies or is barely coherent, the status quo is to leave that material in. (By the way, I think the action you took is appropriate, but I think it's a false equivalency to say I am equally to blame as Mercy11, and I wanted to clarify per your comments.) Andrevan@ 23:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it does not agree with policy and is not the way the edit warring policy is enforced. One need look no further than the first paragraph of WP:EW: Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not what was happening. Did you actually look at the diffs? The text you cite here refers to when there is a difference of opinion on something which is an opinion, e.g. I believe that X consists of undue weight being ascribed to this minority viewpoint. You are not entitled to your own facts (or sources). We had a single editor removing a single sentence of sourced, appropriate content and citing WP:BURDEN, then, removing it again citing WP:WEIGHT; this is not a "wrong version" argument. This user, in a parallel case below on AN/I, explains why. Mercy is a long-time contributor which is why his ranting and behavior are surprising. Andrevan@ 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless what they were doing meets the definition of vandalism, edit warring with them is edit warring. It is really no more complicated than that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrevan, you're way off base with your interpretation of policy here. Even if you're right you may never edit war - period. If you're an admin, you need to set the example, not blatantly screw up the policy! ES&L 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the policy has become more rigid since I last dealt with a dispute like this, but where I come from removal of good faith material with appropriate sourcing and referencing with a plainly unsound rationale is tantamount to vandalism in being revertable. We also used to have a holy thing called WP:IAR which said that you should follow reason and logic in applying policy. Mercy11's changes and behavior are clearly problematic. Andrevan@ 00:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Problematic yes, but community consensus is that it's not something we're permitted to IAR about ... edit warring applies to all, except for the listed exceptions on that policy ES&L 01:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

We can go around and around - neither of us broke 3RR and the article is now protected, so it doesn't seem like such a bad outcome. But I stand by my reversions of the removals made by Mercy, and I think it's clear why they were in keeping with policy. Andrevan@ 01:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You should try running for a reconfirmation RFA with that argument - see how that works. Seriously. You cannot in good standing as an admin stand by that, period. You're expected to set an example - hell, I've voluntarily given up the tools for 6 months because I personally failed to set the correct example ... and I cannot fathom how you're claiming to stand by your tremendously incorrect actions. After all, you don't have to break 3RR to be edit-warring ... or is that something else you don't understand correctly? ES&L 01:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've clearly explained, Mercy11 was removing valid, sourced content and citing incorrect and incoherent policy arguments. Therefore my reverts of his removals, while they may look like edit warring of the usual "wrong version" sort, were actually more like reverts of vandalism. I hesitate to call it outright vandalism because Mercy is a long-time contributor, and until recently I was assuming good faith, but his recent inappropriate edits were at best unproductive and against community consensus. Please see his talk page where he has still refused to answer for his redirect from FBI files on Puerto Ricans to FBI files on Elvis Presley - which, assuming he can't come up with an explanation for, IS plain old vandalism. He is also an avowed POV pusher, territorial, and likes to own articles - but that's another issue. I may still prepare a user conduct RFC on Mercy's behavior and pursue that route, though obviously I would prefer not to since most of his edits seem valuable. But I suggest before you take me to task for my "tremendous" activities, you look more closely at the nature of the dispute and our respective reactions to it. Andrevan@ 01:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Here's one admin who shouldn't be handling ANEW cases, at the very least. And a protected article is never a good outcome. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  I think Beeblebrox took a reasonable move in protecting the article. All generalizations are false, except this one. Andrevan@ 01:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's only a reasonable move since he's dealing with two apparently boneheaded editors. You could just have waited out the discussion on the talk page, after which you can charge the user with disruptive editing if they do it again. It's weird that I have to explain such a reasonable proposal to an admin. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• How about no personal attacks? And what do you mean wait out the discussion? As in ignore the AN/I? Why would I do that? Andrevan@ 01:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Huh? I assume you started the talk page conversation before the ANI report ever got started; I assume you started it while you were edit warring, not after your edit warring was brought up at ANI. That is, I want to assume that. And I think boneheaded is perfectly appropriate here. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I started the talk page conversation before revert warring, yes. Again, in a normal content dispute, I wouldn't have reverted at all, but Mercy's reasoning was so blatantly wrong. Let's see what he says, below. Andrevan@ 02:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take the first step in resolving the 2 edit warrings in question as well as their associated content disputes: I have already made a proposal to Andrevan HERE which he rejected HERE ("...I don't intend to give up either of the edits I reverted you on since neither was appropriate. I've been an admin here for almost 10 years now..."). I believe my proposal was simple, straighforward and, most of all, fair: to split things 50-50: he got his way in one article that we were both editing, and I got my way in the one article that only myself had edited before. IAE, he rejected what I thought was a fair proposal. But I agree with the other editors here: we should learn from admins, in particular Andrevan who has, so he says, 10 yrs editing here. So my second proposal is simple: Andrevan can have his way: In Cornelius Rhoads, in Museo de Arte de Ponce, even in FBI files on Puerto Ricans (whatever that last one was). If, fact, for the asking you can do as you wish with Pedro Albizu Campos. Honest; they can all read as you want. It's that simple, Andrevan: you win it all and I lose it all. It's a matter of principle for you; well it's a matter of principle for me too. So we both win on principle. Would you accept this second proposal, or did I miss something you would still like to bring to my attention? (Oh! and lest I be accused back of wikihounding, Andrevan, let me know if any of my edits in this talk page offend you, I will in no time remove them as a gesture of goodwill.) Kind regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by what you mean here, but if you're trying to extend an olive branch, that seems like a good step. As my associates have pointed out above, I wasn't exactly the paragon of admin impartiality in this dispute, so I can apologize too. But I would like you to explain why you made that redirect from Puerto Ricans to Elvis. Andrevan@ 02:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is confusion, perhaps one of the other editors here can help; I seem to have failed at that quite miserably with Andrevan before. However, I wasn't looking to confuse anyone when I said Andrevan can have all 3 articles to himself. That offer stands. As for the redirect, well there is nothing else to do there. Andrevan did (HERE) what he did,,, no one is judging him. I don't believe. Going back to that would be resurrecting old wounds. I am ready to move on, isn't it yet time for everyone to move on too? What's in the past, is in the past. Also, now there is a Drmies (HERE). Does anyone know who he is? I think he is unhappy about something. Could one of the more experienced editors/admins direct him to a noticeboard or something where he can get some relief for whatever ails him. I will be cleaning my Talk Page soon - what's in the past is in the past. Kind regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Old wounds, really? You only created that redirect on October 26, and the conversation about it only the last few days. Anyway, I'm not trying to harangue you about it, but for those reading this, your unwillingness to answer for the redirect is strange, and admins can see deleted pages. So that will speak for itself if and when anyone decides to dig this up. Anyway, if you're signalling that you want to drop this, that's fine with me. It seemed we were editing harmoniously until recently. Andrevan@ 03:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Before we leave this behind, I would just mention that you got adminship at time when it was incredibly easy to get. Admins like drmies and myself went through a far more rigorous process involving being grilled on numerous policies and having it made clear to us that if we were not interested in doing things by the rules we could not be admins. The reason the process got so much tougher was because so many admins from your era were willing to shape their tools into weapons and use their status as admins to get their way in situations like edit wars. So, I admit that when I run into one of you who is still here and still acting in this manner, it gets my hackles up. You are truly far behind the times if you think there is ever an excuse for edit warring. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but after reviewing your RFB I can say with 100% certainty that if you had presented that nomination at any point in the last five years it would have been shouted down and closed in a matter of minutes. I'm not saying all this to try and tell you I think you are a terrible admin and crat, I can see that you have done a lot of good work but you need to realize that times have changed since 2004 exactly because it was too easy before and now the community expects more of admins. I'll also admit that I think sometimes they expect a bit too much of us, but we are certainly expected to know what edit warring is and to never, ever engage in it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of both this particular case as well as whether my nominations would have been successful today. I've explained myself several times already, and if you've already made up your mind that I'm an angry old admin who never should have gotten in, then I guess nothing I can say would sway you. There's nothing for either of us to do about it, so let's be on our way. Also, let me just state for posterity that I am not so impressed with "your crop" of admins if you and Drmies are representative of it. Drmies made a personal attack above on this page, and then added insult to injury by ignoring my attempt to reach out and give him a chance to backpedal. You have shown ignorance of IAR, a core policy, and common sense with your "never, ever" doctrine, and you seem to have forgotten the cardinal rule of adminship, which is that it is "no big deal." Good day. Andrevan@ 05:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Without pointing the bone at any admin/'crat in particular, I do think there is a lot of sound reason in what Beeb says above. After all, some month counts over a 10-year period do not convince me that an admin (or 'crat) is necessarily up to speed. I'm fairly active, but even I occasionally miss new policies, guidelines, and precedents - they don't always get changed or updated through a formal RfC. (See also: current discussions at WT:RfA). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Without pointing at anyone in particular, you then point at someone in particular. Kind of like when people start a sentence with "I'm not a racist but..." I didn't just turn up and start editing this month, I've been editing continuously for essentially that entire time as your link to my edit count shows. More to the point, edit count has nothing to do with whether I would have read updated policies, so I don't see how that could possibly provide evidence either way as to whether I am up to speed. Anyway, I don't need to justify myself to you, since you haven't even made clear that you have reviewed the incident. Andrevan@ 05:35, 6 November 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.

User talk:Dogmaticeclectic

Hi Beeblebrox. I've left the unblock template on his talkpage open in case another admin wants to take a look at it, but I'm giving some serious consideration to honouring Dogmaticeclectic's latest unblock request. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know your thoughts? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 15:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like another admin didn't care to wait for my reply... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Lilith Sternin

The following discussion 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.

---

Look, the title is protected enough. I swear that I'm not changing or planning to change the title anymore. In fact, I accept the notability of this character and found the "Frasier and Lilith" relationship not independently notable (out-of-universe). Moreover, separate explanations of Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin are enough to determine their own notabilities. I did request unprotection three months ago, yet you haven't responded. If I want to request content change (along with title change), I would do so soon. However, I can't in the future because out-of-universe notability is more important than in-universe notability. Also, I don't think consensus would support the change. --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what it is you want from me. The only current protection on the article is move protection. If you aren't planning to try and move it I don't see what the issue is. Move protection is often indefinite, it's not an accusation against you or anything, there is just no reason for moving the page without a consensus to do so. If I've missed your point I would appreciate it if you would make an effort to be a bit more clear about what it is you are objecting to. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably I assumed that you are familiar the issue that I initiated, but I guess not. Well, the move-protection was enabled because of the dispute that I started. In the beginning, I changed the title without discussion first. Then title warring happened, causing the page to be move-protected. Then the discussion was initiated in talk:Lilith Sternin, and then the consensus was against the title change. Or, should I say that consensus found the Lilith character more notable than the relationship itself. But I don't know how to make it clear to you. A year later, the dispute died down, and I already accept the character's notability. So I don't think protection is necessary for now; agree? George Ho (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I do remember this, but I don't understand why it is you are asking me to remove the move protection. As I already explained, there is nothing unusual about indefinite move protection of an article that has previously had issues with page moves. So, unless you have some reason that the current move protection is harmful I still don't see the point of re-opening an issue that, as far as I am concerned, was over and done with over a year ago. You are of course free to request unprotection at WP:RFPP if you wish. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So can I revisit this for the next five or ten years? George Ho (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

George, I've explained to you that such a protection is not unusual. I've asked you to tell me why you think the protection is causing harm and you have refused to supply a reason. I've directed you to a means to appeal the protection that would be reviewed by another admin. Revisit it all you want, just leave me out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 12 November 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.

SHFW70

Would you mind assessing the way SHFW70 is behaving Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). I've assessed it and left a message on their talk page. If it continues I will block without even bothering to take the issue to ANI, und damit basta. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, sic factum est. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

aaaaaand.... they are now indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

E-mail Notification

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.

(If you reply to my email, please post this notification back on my talk page. I do not access the email address I use for Wikipedia very often, so the notification is the only way I will know that I have received a new email.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to Alaska

I went down the Parks around the beginning of August, and did pay attention to which crossings were at-grade versus grade-separated. You do have a point, but I believe the statement still has validity, even though it could stand to be tweaked. White's Crossing is no more, and I was surprised that the Monderosa was still in business after being bypassed (or for that matter, Tatlanika Trading next to the Rex Bridge). I thought I read recently that work on bridging the Broad Pass crossing is supposed to start next year. The railroad does have a specific initiative to bridge as many crossings as they can. Most of that is concentrated on National Highway System routes, I presume because there's money available. Doing something about the numerous at-grade crossings in the Wasilla and Fairbanks/North Pole areas, either through rerouting or bridging, will be much harder. That probably belongs in the railroad's article, but since that article has such a touristy bent, I don't expect it to be taken care of anytime soon.

I've been avoiding Anchorage in recent years, but I had some old matters I was neglecting, and had no choice to go down there and take care of it. I could still get a beer for $4 and see familiar faces at the Pioneer Bar, but everything else about Anchorage appeared alien, crowded and expensive to me. That may explain why they're not as sure now about moving Eielson to JBER as they once were. I also managed to break my camera while climbing down a hillside to get a better shot. At least I did have one chance encounter before that: while walking down 36th Avenue snapping shots of the Loussac Library/Frontier Building/JL Tower, I happened upon Bill Kazmaier, who consented to a photo. He was the second pseudo-famous person I took a photo of this summer, the other being Will Shortz. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

IDIOT

Like you got nothing better to do? Ah well. Send me the $20 and I'll vote for you as well. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll vote for him, and I don't need twenty quid for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll undercut Drmies for a fiver. Beeb for president. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, weren't you in education also? I got car payments to make. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When we've got people who openly state they are running just because somebody had to do it we have problems. As a functionary who has worked for the current committee I have at least some idea where these problems lie and I guess I am dumb enough to think I may be able to improve things. However, the slush fund is running a bit low right now so instead of cash I will be mailing you a coupon for a discount on a horrible breakfast at your local McDonalds. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll send you the answers to the questions in the next few days. Note that Gerda's question is really about Mahler and how much you love him, so make sure to stick that in. And if you're referring to Floq's candidacy, remember that when he put his up there wasn't much of a field. Besides, I think he's doing it for the right reasons, even if it sounds a bit dismissive in the way you phrase it. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's Reger ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, it is my feeling that Floq would be a good arb. There are a few others on that list that I am fairly certain would be terrible. That's more or less what convinced me to run. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I await your email with the list, just to see if it jives with mine. :) Drmies (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Transclude page for 2013 ArbCom elections

Hi Beeblebrox. Thanks for putting yourself forward as a candidate for ArbCom. Could you please transclude your page to the candidate page by going to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates and pasting the following text there?

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}/Statement}}

Please preview the page before you save it to make sure everything looks ok. Thanks for your help. 64.40.54.244 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much threw my hat in and left the rest of it for today. Looks like someone else took care of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENB revdel

Was that you? There is confusion. Is there no way to fix the fact that we can no longer pull up a diff to see what has been posted since we last visited? In other words, we have to read the whole page to see what we missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is I fact what you will need to do. The only way to fully remove suppressed material is to suppress every single edit from the entire time it was on the page, otherwise all anyone would need to do find what was suppressed is to any of the preview the intervening diffs. That's really about all I can say about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Advice/help wanted re reporting a possible non-standard (and non-privacy) Child Protection issue

Hi, Beeblebrox. I have documented a possible non-standard (and non-privacy) Child Protection issue here, and am trying to bring it to the attention of Wikipedia's Child Protection officers, so they can decide on the matter, but I'm not sure how to do so, as it's seemingly not (or not clearly) covered in WP:Child Protection. Your advice or help would be appreciated. I've also tried posting a similar request as a comment at Wikimedia Foundation's Sue Gardner's blog Wikipedia pattern for the very young editor ( here), but I don't know whether my post has been received. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that this project is not censored and it would be an extremely simple matter for any unsupervised child to actually read articles about any body part, bodily function, sexual position, or bizarre fetish they could think of, I find it unlikely that shielding children from seeing a few "naughty words" on a project space page is going to be taken as a serious child protection issue by the WMF. So instead of appealing to a higher authority to just step in and do what you wish you are going to have to seek a consensus in order to effect the changes you desire. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not about 'naughty words' or body parts or sexual positions, etc, it's about seemingly encouraging bullying and cyberbullying of children, as I have now explained there at much greater length. And as far as I'm concerned, whether my views are valid or mistaken, I have a moral (and arguably also legal) duty to bring the apparent risk to the attention of Wikipedia's Child Protection people for them to decide if it's acceptable or not. I'm not clear how to do this because WP:Child Protection seems to be about reporting suspected paedophiles, not guidelines that appear in practice to encourage bullying and cyberbullying of children, and I don't know what you mean by WMF (though it sounds like WikiMedia Foundation, or something like that) nor how to contact it, as you haven't told me. If WMF decide to ignore me that's not your problem. However at least I can try to find out how to contact them, so thanks at least for that much info.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I've now e-mailed my concerns to what seem to be the most appropriate addresses at Wikimedia, and we'll see what, if anything, results.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hey, Beeblebrox, would you please consider revdel'ing all edits after 19 November 2013 at Jeffrey Beall as BLP violations? Thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done, and I have also issued a final warning to the user who was posting the offending material. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What Nicolabellomo Blog As seen in Jeffrey Beall?

I missed it ):> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momjosh12 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Good. That was kind of the whole point. See the thread directly above this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it nicolabellomo blog, i think it should be like this: if i see them i will like but this is a librarian, but he was fired and moved away now it this sound like nicolabellomo blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momjosh12 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you mean by this remark, but you seem to be missing the point entirely. The material was removed from view as a gross violation of the biographies of living persons policy. This was purely an administrative action on my part, I am not looking to have a discussion about the author of the offending material. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

File mover

Do you think I should be a file mover now. In a discussion 2 months ago you told me, "...to establish a positive track record would be to find mis-named files and request that they be moved". I often review the upload log for misnamed files and try to template them with {{Template:Rename media}}. ///EuroCarGT 03:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been terribly active in tht corner of WP:PERM lately! but if if you feel you have acquired a decent track record now I would encourage you to re-apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright! ///EuroCarGT 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WPO

Re: Just as an addendum to my "official" response, before answering your question or Rschen's earlier question I had a look over there. There was an awful lot of discussion about what WO's role should be in this election. Looks like over a hundred posts over several threads. And in the end, the most pressing question our supposed harshest critics asked of ArbCom candidates was "what do you think about us?"

Wikipediocracy is not a monolith. I hope you take that away. See for example, the diametrically opposite reactions to the candidacy of David Gerard. As for me and my question set, I deliberately phrased things the way that I did to draw out expressions of world views that correlate to certain behaviors on ArbCom. Elections are all about helping friends and thwarting foes and while my phrasing probably wasn't perfect, it did do a reasonably good job of separating the sheep from the goats. Of course, you are free to read my question(s) as an extended exercise in navel-gazing, as you wish... But it's the answers that matter and I feel that the extended question as phrased produced its desired effect. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I realize it is made up of individuals and that you don't all share the exact same philosophy and goals. However I also read this remark: "I'm trying to make it easy for people who really hate the site to go off, which is the key information from my perspective." I don't hate the site, I just have little to no use for it in its present state of affairs. And I see now that because I said as much I am once again the subject of petty name calling over there. So, back to ignoring it as calling me an ignorant bastard and a scumbag is not something I can take as an honest effort to fairly criticize WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The central issue isn't whether one likes or dislikes WPO; or whether one reads it or doesn't read it. The main questions are the relationship between central authority and decentralized decision-making, the degree of "judicial activism" (for lack of a better term) that potential Arbs will employ at ArbCom, and the relative level of tolerance for often crabby content writers vs. demands for orderly (and sterile) day-to-day administration. How will dissidents be treated? To what extent is criticism heard? All of these things. It's a matter of sheep and goats — finding 9 friends of a decentralized, loose, dissent-friendly, free speech-loving WP to sit on the Committee. (The other huge issue is transparency, but that's not gonna change without a concentrated push that isn't in the cards in 2013.) As for name calling, meh, I've been called names there, too. And called people names. Whatever. Best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In a large, deliberate body like ARBCOM, it's important to have viewpoints balanced, both the strict and the liberal ones. It's not good for debate and decision-making to have too many like-minded editors as arbitrators. Block voting is what is to be avoided, not any particular point of view. IMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a good suggestion for you to make to the dozen or so people who compiled voters' guides — which I did not. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check User:Wirya's user page for something fishy

Hello, I picked your name randomly from recent discussions on the MFD page. Could you take a look at User:Wirya? From what I can tell the user has been inactive for many years, but his page has been edited from IPs adding names and and a picture. It appears fishy to me, but I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done. Thanks.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, something weird is going on there. I've removed all those revisions, protected the page, and nominated the image that was on it for deletion at Commons. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the block evader posting on your talk page…

Hey Beeblebrox, in addition to considering a range block, you may want to consider semi-protecting your own talk page temporarily so the block-evading IP editor doesn't harass you. (From WP:AN) Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I find reverting them to be easy enough, but I have never earned how to execute a range block. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering that you have been a sysop since February 2011, you should probably learn how to execute range blocks. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, he said "earned" ... Beebs needs to earn the authoriTAY to make range blocks LOL ES&L 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves aka ES&L: Yeah, should have noticed that… Epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ever since the last software update my iPad's autocorrect function has been getting awfully presumptuous with it's guesses as to what I was trying to say. I have actually been an admin since August 2009, but I have run into admins who have been around longer than I have who don't know how to do to range block, or a history merge, or any of the more complicated admin tasks. When you go to do one warnings pop up saying not to do it if you don't know much about it, so I've always found it easier to just ask one of the many admins who do know how. I feel like I have enough superpowers without being able to block an entire city. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Sorry for the wrong date, I only looked at Special:Log and didn't look very closely. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

Hi, I would like to request revision deletion for this edit, as a BLP violation. Jinkinson talk to me 02:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. i have blocked the user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's why it is good to have talk page stalkers that live in different time zones. I just woke up half an hour ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Diamond Records

A newbie has started an AfD for Diamond Records which I already challenged. Can you help out? Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking follow-up and more

Thanks for unblocking my account upon accepting my unblock appeal. You were right about Nightscream's actions there. As a veteran contributor since 2005, I was wondering how you became an administrator to this website? Rtkat3 (talk) 1:38, December 6 2013 (UTC)

The usual way, by running at WP:RFA. I took me two tries as I made an error in judgement of my own shortly before the first one. The second one went much better. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

...I share your concerns, however this is not a new issue. Misinterpretation of policy and obdurate responses have been evident for years. I don't hold out much hope that things will improve, but I wish you luck in your attempt to bring about a positive change.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Friendly hint

Grammatically speaking, it should be, "This user functions at a sub-optimal level before his (or her) morning coffee." (Singular subject = singular possessive pronoun.)

You're welcome. Sca (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to share that with whoever created that userbox. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't matter: "their" is also singular possessive. ES&L 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's plural, clearly referring to two or more subjects; it's just that lazy English-speakers, mainly American (as is yours truly), don't bother to speak grammatically. But I realize Beeblebrox didn't create the user box. Sca (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, we are detracting from the actual useful content of Wikipedia. Leave Beeblebrox to drink his coffee quickly before he starts to perform at a sub-optimal level or whatever. Epicgenius (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @EatsShootsAndLeaves: Actually, it's disputed, but no matter; this is an issue not related to Beeblebrox or his actions. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Now here's something truly ironic: I make my coffee with by boiling water in an electric kettle and using a coffee press for the actual brewing. So, just now I went to pour a cup and it was the color of .... well, it looked like pee. A pale yellow, not brown at all. I had poured water from the kettle without actually boiling it first and brewed a cup of cold, yellow, bitter garbage. "Sub-optimal" indeed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you bite the bullet & drink it anyway? Sca (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Friendly hints

'...used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite form his or her): Someone left their book on the table'. Webster's College Dictionary, 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd.

'[ singular ] used to refer to a person of unspecified sex: ask a friend if they could help [...] The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used since at least the 16th century. In the late 20th century, as the traditional use of he to refer to a person of either sex came under scrutiny on the grounds of sexism, this use of they became more common. It is now generally accepted in contexts where it follows an indefinite pronoun such as anyone, no one, someone, or a person, as in anyone can join if they are a resident and each to their own. In other contexts, coming after singular nouns, the use of they is now common, though less widely accepted, especially in formal contexts. Sentences such as ask a friend if they could help are still criticized for being ungrammatical. Nevertheless, in view of the growing acceptance of they and its obvious practical advantages, they is used in this dictionary in many cases where he would have been used formerly.' Oxford American Dictionary.

"This use of they/them/their has been normal in English for centuries, and is perfectly correct. It is most commo, in an informal style, but can also be found in formal written English. here is an example from a British passport application form..." Swan, Michael (2001) Practical English Usage p. 528. Oxford University Press ISBN 0194421465

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung, I corrected "commo" to "common" because I thought that that was a grammatical error on your part. If there are any problems, let me know. Epicgenius (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Note to self: Don't edit another person's posts on talk pages because what they mean (yes, that is correct) may not be what I am perceiving it to mean. Epicgenius (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are well aware that that was a typo and not a grammatical error. Please do not unnecessarily refactor user's posts. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I'll revert it now. Epicgenius (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Epicgenius (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Global Organic Textile Standard

Dear Breeblebrox, I am the contributor who published the "Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS)" Wiki page which was deleted for promotional reasons. GOTS is a non-profit organization - a worldwide standard setting criteria for sustainable processing of organic textiles. The aim of the created page was solely informational. Wiki pages of other organic standards, e.g. the OTA Organic Trade Association and Soil Association, both members of the GOTS International Working Group, are also available on Wikipedia and take reference to GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard). Please kindly review and please help to restore the page. I do understand that the Username I chose is against the username policy, so I have requested a username change. Global Organic Textile Standard (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

replied at User talk:JaLiS. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternative box

Getting back to the coffee user box, I can offer the following alternative, which I'm reasonably confident contains no potential grammatical issues. Sca (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This user is an expert brewer and drinker of coffee.

WP:RFAR

Hi. For the record, I am male, as it indicates in the banner at the top of my user page. I understand that finding right pronoun when referring to a user whose username is of unclear gender can be an issue, which is why I have that banner up there. Not a criticism mind you; just thought I'd let you know for future reference. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your confusion

On this. I assume the report was based on the assumption (one that I share) that no one, no one but a troll, would ever refer to himself as "yolo" or "swag", both of them words used in speech exclusively by annoying teenagers. Blocked as a VOA in any event. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I could see how it would be a red flag to let is know to look at someone's edits, but the name itself does not seem to violate the username policy. If it did then User:YOLO Swag probably would not have been allowed to run for ArbCom last year. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hah. I have to admit, though, every time I saw YOLO Swag on my watchlist I had to restrain myself from instinctively reaching for the block button. I do actually wait to see what such accounts do before blocking :) Someguy1221 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

RSN close requests

Hi Beeblebrox. I know in the past you did a lot of closing of discussions. Are you willing to review for possible consensus and close these two RSN discussions? If not are you willing to recommend or ping another uninvolved admin? Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never really participated in any capacity at RSN so I'm not sure I would be a good choice for that. I have lots of talk page stalkers though (hint hint). Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm, no takers (yet). Any recommendations? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood Recreation Ground

Hello. I am asking for a bit of advice here, and I'm asking you because you've previously declined this page's A7 challenge; I feel that there is not enough content in here to justify a standalone article. I have tacked the contents of the article on to the end of my draft about Gander Green Lane; do you think it would be an idea to redirect that page to Gander Green Lane when it's in mainspace?--Launchballer 13:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I only declined it becaue A7 simply does not apply to places. Merging it is probably fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 10:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Machine

Embrace the suck (that's a red link?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm astounded that the two of us got elected. Should be an interesting year. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I'd be astounded too, if we got like 1st and 2nd place, but I'm not that surprised we both barely made it across the finish line. (don't take that the wrong way either!) As long as I don't block one of our colleagues, and you don't tell them to fuck off, we should be fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, congratulations to both of you. Beeblebrox, please check the email account attached to your "email this user". Thanks! Risker (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think you're mad wanting to do it, but I like the result :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations and Best Wishes. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations. Try to avoid telling folks to fuck off, especially when they richly deserve it. NE Ent 23:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Beeb, I'm really, really pleased about this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congratulations - and as I come from the land of Hogwarts I offer you the blessing of expelliarmus dramaticus for one year from today. Good luck. Ben MacDui 09:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Congrats, Beeb! It was a pleasure voting for you and Floquenbeam.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• What did you dream? It's alright, we told you what to dream. Congratulations, anyways. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 02:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to everyone who commented above, and everyone who particpated in the election. I will try to live up to the trust the community has shown in me. I already know why arbs sometimes seem so distant, there is a lot of reading to do on a daily basis, and my term hasn't even started yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

copyediting needed

At your edit--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Argh. This is a weird thing, my spellchecker does not function properly iff I am editing on my iPad and using a wireless keyboard. The trick is, I often don't use it, so I get used to errors being highlighted or autocorrected, then I use the keyboard again and forget I have to check it myself. I brought this up at WP:VPT a while back and the only real answer I got was that something was interfering with it and I should try shutting off various tools and scripts until I figured out which one. Maybe I'll get around to that at some point and go back and ask for an actual solution... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Mascot

Hi Beeb's,
If you don't have a 'mascot' yet this would be it, Bidenichthys beeblebroxi. ;-) 220 of ^Borg 14:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

HA! I would love to discover something, apparently you can name it pretty much whatever you want. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis

Is this guy 'sposed to be editing cannabis articles now? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know the topic ban is still in place and he has been editing in vioilation of it. Unfortuantely I have previously engaged in a content dispute with him so I am kind of involved. I informed him of the topic ban but I probably shouldn't be the one to issue any blocks. I guess it's back to WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and opened a thread on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Just now getting back to this-- thanks for looking into that. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a note about 184.21.95.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)-- which started editing after Toker's block-- to the ANI, but no one has responded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted BLPs

Hi Beeblebrox,

You deleted Beth Sotelo and David Morgan-Mar after closing the AFDs. Do you have any objections to userfication so that I can do some work on them? BOZ (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Gracias! :) BOZ (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JianhuiMobile ^talk 07:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream RfAr

I only just now have seen this.

RL has been kicking me in the tail of late (as I am sure you can imagine). I may be around after the holidays (hopefully), but I see that phases of cases seem to have deadlines now, and I'm not sure I'll make the evidence deadline. So I thought I would point you to some information.

First, I'd like to express that I would like to think that NS is a well-meaning editor. But in my estimation from years of interacting with him and seeing his edits and usage of admin tools, I really don't think he "gets" what being an admin is about.

After a few lengthy interactions where I and a few others tried to convey/explain to him concerning various situations, when he finally saw that he may be sanctioned, he then started a process of seeming forum shopping for cases where it was even to flagrant for him to take any more INVOLVED action. Sometimes it looked like normal "Hi, you're an admin, could you come take a look over here", and sometimes not so much. Though more of the latter on other admins talk pages, I think.

My talk page archive is here. If you need to unblank one (or more) of the talk page archive pages for the duration of the case, of course, please feel free. I courtesy blank them for what I think are obvious reasons : )

Please see the page history of this page: [[3]], and also the talk page history of my talk pages and User talk:Daniel Case around the same time frame (and after). I also remember at one point - maybe a year ago? - where he sought out Daniel's and my help, didn't get the response he wanted and rather insulted Daniel as I recall. See here: [[4]]

In all, as I said, I think NS is a well-meaning editor. But adminship isn't for everyone, and I think in this case, it might be worth Arbcom looking over whether it is appropriate in this case.

I hope this helps, and all this aside, wishing you and yours a merry Christmas season : ) - jc37 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth, I agree with you that Nightscream has good intentions, he just can't seem to accept that being on the "right side" of a dispute does not exempt hm from the edit warring and involved admin policies. I think I have made a pretty compelling case already, but I'll have a look at the links you provided as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still reading through all your info : )

Side effect of being more of a reader than editor this year - when not signed in, I haven't seen my watchlist. But, I've been muddling through : )

Oh, and congrats (if that's the right sentiment : ) - on arbcom membership : ) - jc37 19:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35