Talk:The Human Bean

Edit war

The warring editors haven't communicated much. Please figure out acceptable article contents here, while the article is fully protected. —EncMstr (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's rather random. The original editor was blocked for not paying attention, and has several messages of "please stop removing the speedy deletion tag" on their talk page (I suspect it to be a her). Second, I've not edit warred, and neither has anyone else (except for the original author in question, because those are very likely sockpuppets) in attempting to see the article improved, I myself having reached my third revision last night before going to bed and then subsequently being reverted after that. Third, I am merely trying to remove the spammy nature of the current article, which was seeing it repeatedly tagged with speedy deletion tags and other things as well as by stubbing it. I'm fairly certain the handful of editors who were online last night on IRC could back me up in this, as well as policy and guideline (particularly WP:Spam) in my attempts to improve the article.

Please actually take a look at the full edit history next time in detail. This is not an edit war. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The original editor was blocked for 15 minutes, apparently to get her attention. It didn't look like there was effective communication, though that looks quite one-sided now. That means I overreacted, partly due to the late hour I reviewed it, and partly due to my difference engine being slightly overwhelmed by the flip-flop changes, making it look worse than it is. Using the Wikipedia diff, it looks like a straightforward WP:advert versus good faith WP:NPOV dispute. I've dropped it to semi-protection since Sarah.love08 (talk · contribs) won't be autoconfirmed for 3 more days. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —EncMstr (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. If I had woken up to find it in such a manner, I would have unknowingly broken 3rr (instead, I've ignored the rule in an attempt to attempt to save the article!). We'll see if this version sticks for a bit until I can add some citations and such. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Telling us why it's notable wouldn't hurt either. :) --Deadly∀ssassin 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But that wasn't why it was getting CSD tagged. It was getting csd tagged for g11, not a7. :p --Izno (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You make your choices, you takes your chances. :) --Deadly∀ssassin 03:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Obviously the same company, with one version looking like a decent article, but looks like a PR job. I propose a simple redirect, copying the few sourced sentences over and integrating them into this version. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tag. It appears that The Human Bean Company already redirects here. WTF? (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Human Bean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120220112448/http://www.thehumanbean.com/Page.asp?NavID=124 to http://www.thehumanbean.com/Page.asp?NavID=124

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Locations!?!?

It is 144 or over 300

Why is New Mexico listed twice among the states that have locations… 2601:283:300:22AA:601D:FE78:3AFD:D1FD (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)