User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Defense of Speedy deletion of Open Yale Course Fundamentals of Physics

(Should i be answering items on my talk page to yuor talk page? what is the standard way? thanks)

For this free online course an article of at minimum timestamps and class summaries with links to wikipedia articles would help those interested a great deal. I know It would be a good use of my time as i go thruogh these courses and have thuoghts i want to socially collaborate with others. I think the social collaboration would be productive and promote wikipedians updating and improving many physics articles.

Let me know what you think. I am a somewhat new user so I will need some time to read over the guideline articles you offered. Thanks. --Pointblankstare (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(replied at article talk page Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

article talk page deleted. please comment at my talk page. thanks --Pointblankstare (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

done Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

This is going to be a very substantial article, shortly. I would really appreciate if you would give me at least a few minutes to develop it. bd2412 T 16:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can do that. I tagged it as "under construction" as that can help avoid this sort of thing. Creating it as a user subpage and moving it when it is ready is also a good way to get some time alone with a new article. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks - this will be up to speed quickly enough that its mainspace readiness will not be controversial. It's almost there now. bd2412 T 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Pretty much done - what do you think? bd2412 T 09:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously, you did indeed have a grand plan, you've come a long way in a very short time with this article! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

re: UAA reports

I've been doing some reading of the discussion on WT:UAA and WT:U and what it looks like is that some admins want spamming usernames to be posted on AIV (blatant) or COIN (everything else). I guess the consensus is moving to such for action to be taken solely based on a username, it would need to include something such as "Incorporated", "TM", "Company", etc... Not sure how I feel about this, but just my observations. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 22:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, I finally became aware there was an ongoing debate on the subject, and it seems some admins are jumping the gun and refusing to block some names, even ones that are fairly blatant. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply having a company name isn't considered blatant anymore - although it also violates the "role account" part of the username policy. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Why the CSD on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Lolepic028091AFD? Is it in the wrong section? Should I have put it in MFD?--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. Although deletion isn't really the way to contest a sockpuppet accusation anyway. Banned users often come back and try to hide under a new name, and it's important that these accounts be identified. Being banned as opposed to blocked is not something that just happens, you have to repeatedly prove you are not capable of contributing constructively. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Boys (South African gang)

Just out of interest, why did you remove the db-club tag and list the article at Afd? Wasn't the tag valid? Yintaɳ  08:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I felt, and still do, that the tag was perfectly valid. However, it been tagged for hours and hours, other articles I had tagged at the same time were long deleted, and there was some debate on the talk page. Since it seemed there weren't any admins around willing to make a call to keep or delete, I took it to AfD. This way, there (hopefully) won't be any ambiguity about whether it is a proper subject for an article or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, it certainly worked, da boyz are gone. Yintaɳ  20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• And if by chance the article is re-created, it can now be speedy-deleted as a recreation of a page deleted via AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

please see talk page on Abdul Aziz Khezri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmanjoon (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

In the Wikipedia tradition, I think you have more than earned a barnstar. Keep up the fine work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For contributions in so many areas: reverting vandalism, welcoming new users, checking new articles, and in many other ways working to improve and maintain content. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks! sometimes I wonder if anyone's paying attention out there, it's nice to be noticed. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WQA closing

I've discovered this [1] - the editor making the complaint about a friend being blocked turns out to be the friend's sock. See User talk:Fredd7271. Should the entry be amended? Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for the heads up! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Descant Magazine

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong. Re: Descant, I know it was biased- I was working on changing it from being so biased, but you got there before I could finish. Will you look at latest edit and give feedback as soon as I finish?Kamrcr (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Kamrcr

• That is a lot better as far as the tone of the article. What it needs now is some reliable sources to establish the notability of this publication. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Family Comedy series

Hello, I created this page because I think some of these TV shows are also great for the whole family and everyone can enjoy. I would like to make it feel like everyone of all ages can enjoy these TV Shows. I'm 26 and a big fan of American Dragon: Jake Long and this show is not specifically aimed at children but everyone of all ages and families. So please remove the nomination for deletion.

Wolfdog1 (soon to be Wolfdog406) (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. Make your case at the CFD discussion. You might want to read WP:ILIKEIT before you do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Look it's not just ADJL and I am NOT advertising, but there are others that will fit in this category. Beeble, if you don't like some of the TV shows other people like, that's fine! IF there is a Childrens comedy Series catefory, I think there should be one for families also. Wolfdog1 (soon to be Wolfdog406) (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are making your case in the wrong place. This will not be decided on my talk page, but at the CFD discussion, Which is at this link: [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

Hey, I saw your sockpuppet investigation over at [3]. I am still new to this whole fighting vandalism business, I was wondering how one would open one of these themselves? Is there another program like Huggle or an easy little guide? Thanks much. talk ProSpider 00:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I use WP:TWINKLE exclusively for my vandal fighting activities, it makes it very simple, but I believe there is a step-by step guide at WP:SOCK. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Montana's Defender

Thanks for your comments. I knew that editors could blank their talk page, and I admit I pushed things. I hope, however, you will look at his edit history and warning history. He has quite a history of editing against policy, especially on Dakota Fanning, on which he seems to feel some right to do things any way he pleases. He has received many warnings; look at his talk page history. As far as I know, his response to today's repeated placement of a warning on his talk page is his only response to all of the warnings. I don't intend to warn him again. I was just trying to get his attention, admittedly out of frustration and with some overstepping of bounds. My next step will be to make a report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI, but I was trying to get a response from him first. I hope if I have to make such a report, you will help. His bad edits occur in small increments, often over a period of weeks. That kind of editing often is not dealt with very well by some administrators, so I may need some support. Thanks again. Ward3001 (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly. Given the way the bad editing is more of a sporadic nature, AIV probably won't be much help, ANI is probably a better bet. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up!

Thanks for the quick edit! I tend to beat the!@#$ out of myself for missing mistakes, but that's a personal issue. I would like to add a photo - in fact I would like to upload several to a few articles but the process is obviously complex for copyright reasons. Still...something new to learn. By way of coincidence - I once met Anna Wing (mother of Mark Wing Davey who played Zaphod in the series) and chatted for several hours with her years ago. You had the photo on your User page...how does one get a cheatsheet for uploading photos? Is there one? Thanks again and hope Mt. Redoubt is calming itself down. Ernstblumberg (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, your quite welcome. As to the images, WP:IMAGE gives the long version, but if you have a photo you think is ready, you can just click the "upload file" button on the left column of the page, there are several steps but it's not that difficult, except for determining the license. Since Paraskeva Clark is not alive, policies are slightly relaxed, but the best thing in all cases is to try and find a public-domain image. Good luck! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of James while John had had...etc

Hey Bebblebrox. I saw you nominated my article for deletion and wholeheartedly disagree with you. I urge you to abide by your own pillar on your page that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." Thanks and have a good one. Here's what I posted on the deletion page:

Guys, this is ridiculous. When I originally started this article almost two years ago I had to fight to keep it from Speedy Deletion. Look at it's History page. Look how active it is. The only reason you all are arguing over it now is because it's become so frequently accessed and has been expanded so much. This is a model for what Wikipedia is about. I don't pretend to be an expert on the Wikipedia bylaws, but I know Wikipedia is about compiling knowledge and bringing people together in the sharing of that knowledge. That is exactly what this does. I saw this sentence on the page "List of example sentences" and my roommate and I couldn't figure it out. We did some research, figured it out, and I added the page as a means for other people to understand this linguistic oddity, without the hassle my friend and I went through to figure it out. People enjoy this article, and people are learning from it. To delete this is to subjugate Wikipedia to the type of bureaucracy that kills free thought and fails to recognize quality because it is so restrained by the technicalities of its own operation. Read the article and take from it what I intended: something worth understanding. Please do not delete this. If you really feel the need to create a new article, with a new title, by all means do so. But allow this information to be accessed, and specifically linked to from the list of example sentences page and Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo. That is what it was for. Thanks. Timt1006 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion is at AfD, and I don't see any need to carry it on here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jason Cobble

I just filed my first sockpuppet investigation in relation to this article (which you have edited) and User:Jasoncobble who I suspect has sprouted a couple more heads. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasoncobble and make sure I didn't make any major mistakes, I would appreciate it -- Foetusized (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• The case looks pretty solid. I tried to be patient with this guy, tried to explain things, but he apparently is more interested in spamming Wikipedia than in learning how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Uh oh I do see one problem, you have not notified the accused parties on their respective talk pages. Personally, I use WP:TWINKLE for this sort of thing, it gets all the details right for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in the middle of learning how all this Wikipedia stuff works. You can see that I need help and if you know how the page should be formatted then do it. Wikipedia is full of people who have accomplished more in their life but also people who have done far less. I am not trying to come up with some fake accomplishments I am just adding that these guys and their band needs to be noted.All of the evidence of the accomplishment of these guys and this band is easily verifiable all you have to do is google them. Look if someone does something that is noteable give them their credit. I didn't think I was going into war. I realize there are a couple of you that know everything about wikipedia but most people don't either work for them or have the time to hang around all day so anything constuctive would be appreciated. BTW I've done my research and there are many many people and bands that are noted here on wikipedia that have achieved the very notablity that I am tring to archive so 1 you either are discriminating against these people or this band or 2 you are new and trying to prove that you can prey on new users who don't yet know the system. I am exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So I will not hesitate to file a complant against users who continue to negatively edit my pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepspot (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Zepspot (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• All content on Wikipedia must be able to be freely licensed under the terms of the GFDL and must be able to be verified by reliable sources. These two points are not negotiable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have notified all the involved parties in the sockpuppet case now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you -- Foetusized (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand this and would not be putting this up if it did not meet these guidelines. So what is the problem all the links that state my case are here. If they need to be organized and you know how to do it then please help me, otherwise move on and let me continue my constuction like I informed everyone on my pages. And I will remind you of the Biting of Newcomers.... zepspot 05-05-09Zepspot (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, the current version of the article on The Return is one huge copyright violation, that is why it is tagged for speedy deletion, so apparently you don't understand. Sockpuppeteering is also not acceptable, and it is becoming clearer you are the same account. Please use only one account. Beeblebrox ([[User

talk:Beeblebrox#top|talk]]) 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Do you know how to edit out the copyrighted material and keep the good stuff? Show me? Don't just try to delete it.

Zepspot (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• The entire article is a word for word copy and paste job. So, blank out the page and start over is pretty much the only choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• why are you deleting the stuff I am working on?Zepspot (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have been explaining over and over and over again what the problems are, and I shouldn't even be talking to you in the first place since you are a WP:SOCK.

• A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies. I am not one and you have no right to delete my pages. You sir are now violating Wikipedia policy.Zepspot (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• You haven't done anything to any of these articles since this conversation started, you just keep harping at me. I've told you, you can't post copyrighted material to Wikipedia and you shouldn't create articles about subjects you are personally involved in, and everything has to be verified by reliable sources, and you should use only one account. see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SOCK,WP:COI if you don't want to take my word for it. You have been deceptive, because you are Jason, and you are trying to get around the inherent conflict of interest with a new user name. If you want to report me somewhere, by all means, go right ahead. Also, I am not an WP:ADMIN, I can only ask that things be deleted, I can't actually delete them myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop the spamming activity

Beeblebrox, what are you spreading out such weird message to multiple editors? That has no message. If you do not stop it, I'm gonna think that your account may be compromised. --Caspian blue 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

These are all users who participated in the same AfD, and I'm asking that they continue participating in the discussion of this articles fate. Read the message, I think it's pretty clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you should stop canvassing.--Caspian blue 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASS before you throw it around. I informed everyone who participated in the AfD that the issues are not yet resolved with a neutrally worded message specifically to avoid appearing to support any particular outcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite well know of WP:CANVASS but your tone in the message was not neutral. Anyway, sorry for the trouble, I thought your account was indeed hijacked. --Caspian blue 03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• My tone in the notice may have been a little sarcastic, but it did not promote any particular outcome for the conversation. One thing I've learned (by making a similar, but much more embarrassing mistake) is that it is a good idea to go ahead and ask what's going on before making such snap judgments about established editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi, be careful what you tag for speedy deletion. This image is on commons so it can't be speedy deleted here Besides WP:CSD#F10 is specifically not to be used for images. Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. The image is not on en.wikipedia but only on commons. There is however a page on en.wikipedia but that one is only to show editors that the image is on MediaWiki:Bad image list since that is a local list only. A related question, where exactly did you saw File:Waxed pudenda.jpg being used for vandalism? (Yes, we did user talk simultaneously :) Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Right here on this page. A serial socker added it here and to my user page along with some other extremely weird vandalism, about an hour ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• diff [4] Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a one time vandal. If necessary it can be added to the image list, but it doesn't look necessary yet. Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Under construction

Don't ask me why, but your edit summary when placing the {{underconstruction}} tag at Potential National Hockey League expansion into Canada gave me a pretty good chuckle, heh. Thanks for not tagging it for speedy deletion before I even got started on it.  ;) Resolute 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• It looked like you had big plans, so I thought that would stave off hasty deletion. Glad I was able to make you laugh. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agre22

In reference to this user, see Talk:Julian Huxley. A minor offence, perhaps, but thought you'ld want to know. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Real-time ha!

Hi. We appear to be simultaneously editing Ashcombe School to remove copy lifted fromthe school brochure. Earthlyreason (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• That was pretty spammy stuff... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Inner Worlds article

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for cleaning my article of Inner Worlds. I've never created one of my own before, and your edits were most helpful. Best wishes. Qqs83 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Qqs83

• MY pleasure. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Seinfeld

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Talk:Jerry Seinfeld.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'd also like to know how come I didn't get a single comment for the positive work I started doing on the article. I rearranged some sections, removed a bit of nonsense, did my share of research to find reliable sources and started to mold the grammar as it was (and still partially is) in desperate need of improvement. Instead of addressing the positive, you're looking for what's wrong. As I mentioned on the talk page, two measly sentences about Jerry's roots (especially him being half-Syrian), when backed up by reliable sources, can only constitute a valid addition to the article. Drone2Gather (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there was a content dispute that got dragged onto WP:WQA, so I didn't go looking for a problem, the problem was brought to my attention. The reason I removed the family history section was not because it is unsourced but because it was not relevant. As I said in my edit summary, the article is about Jerry Seinfeld, not his entire family tree. As far as why you didn't get any praise, I'm afraid that's often how it works around here, the problems get all the attention. As it says every time you open the edit window "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet another nonexistent problem... I guess 'round here it's guilty until proven innocent, aye? Anyhoo, Jerry's article deserves two sentences about his ethnic origins. If those were expanded into a whole paragraph I'd agree with you. As for sock puppeting – none as such occurred. I simply didn't notice that my login session expired... getting up in the morning can be a bit hazy :) Drone2Gather (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Talk:Jason_Jones_(pro-life_activist).
Message added 13:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Investigation into User:Tennis_expert

Hi. I noticed that you chipped in here with an opening comment of "After looking a little closer, I think this entire case is highly suspicious.". Just to let you know that speculation is now growing that there have been suspicious edits by 75.63.7.15 (talk · contribs) and My first is in ptarmigan (talk · contribs) (in terms of possibly being related to Tennis_expert (talk · contribs)). In terms of the anonymous edits, discussion has started here. I'm new to all this procedural stuff, but I thought I'd try to get some advice from you on the best way to proceed in this case. Thanks.  HWV258  00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry it took me so long to reply. Neither of these accounts seems to have edited in several months, so ther is little point in opening a case at WP:SPI. If they resume editing in the future it may be worth looking into. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Template Csds

Hi there, I'm working on a huge overhaul of the pages that contain lists of Hornbostel-Sachs. I need these templates to stay; please look at

3: Instruments in which sound is produced by one or more vibrating strings (chordophones, string instruments). to see how this is going to work. Thanks Ninehouse (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• They don't make sense as templates currently. Fix them up and I'll happily withdraw. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes I do see what you see...

Funny how a new user would do this to another user he doesn't know from Adam. I do believe a block is in order, but who is this a sock of? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well we'll see what SPI or possibly checkuser have to say. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(users were all blocked) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

image question

Hello again - I have a photo (copyright 2008 New York Times) that I would like to upload re: Klaus Perls, taken in 1965. I wrote to the photographer who told me to contact the paper about the license and I did not get a reply. Can I upload it anyways to wikicommons (having filled in the necessary documentation form) or do I press on with the paper as ultimately I might be able to get permission to use the photo without commercial restraints? Clearly, the photographer sold them the copyright in 1965 or they must have purchased it from somewhere. Thanks for your time.Ernstblumberg (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really an expert on this sort of thing, you should ask for help at WP:IMAGEHELP, they can answer this for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Sorry that this is a bit late, but I would like to thank you for taking the time to welcome me :) All the best, Fahrenheit 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• My pleasure! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Horneldinkrag

Thanks for your help. I would assume it's the same guy that was stalking me from an IP over the weekend. I've got a theory on who he is, but I'll keep that quiet for now. P.S. He requested an unblock. Friends like that, though, I don't need. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. I saw the unblock request, personally I would tell them to ask again with their original account. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting idea. He had put a note on my page that said he was behind me a hundred percent. And I was thinking, "Isn't that what Booth said to Lincoln?" :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Montana's Defender

"I think perhaps a user conduct WP:RFC is in order,as a last resort to try and get this user to actually discuss things with other editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC) "

Wouldn't WP:ANI be a better starting point? If one or more admins could have a word with him, that might get his attention. Then if he continues as usual, an admin might be more willing to block if needed.

Unfortunately, right now I don't have time to develop a posting, as it helps to have diffs, and that takes time. The most I can do right now is keep an eye on him. Maybe I can do more later if he keeps up his usual habits. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation (America/s)

Hey Beeblebrox! User:Geoff Plourde has agreed to take up the case that I filed a while ago. Mediation taking place here. Your input would be hugely appreciated. Thanks! Night w (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Beeblebrox! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Question for you

Hi again, for contributing the best way to articles, where would you suggest to pick them? I think I can contribute with very strong research skills to a lot of topics. So I would appreciate some guidance. --Esinclair52 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, one easy way to find articles that might interest you is to find a WikiProject related to it. They usually have a list of all articles within their scope. There is also an automated system at User:SuggestBot. I sometimes just hit the "random article" button until I find something that interests me. Hope this helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Montana

Agree on backing away. Thanks for your help on this matter. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry...

..But this edit summary could not go without recognition :D Jozal ^(talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"you little shit"

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

You knew better, and you did it anyway, and now you are getting creamed at RFA over it. Should have just done this five minutes later since there is no way to take back an edit summary... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA

We all make mistakes. You'll be an even better editor later. Don't be discouraged. I hope you try again later this year. Dlohcierekim 00:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA etc

I couldn't agree more with Dlohcierekim. I've just stuck my oar in- in rather strong support, but, alas, I doubt it will do much good (though I live in hope, being an optimist!). I think the project could do with a few more admins with a sense of humour! By the way, Jimbo's quote was pinched from Bill Clinton (except he said law making, not wikipedia!). Anyway, good luck and I hope to see you around at some point. I have a tendency to lurk around CAT:SD so perhaps I'll bump into you there. All the best, HJMitchell You rang? 00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! If you could leave a {{talkback}} on my talk page, I'd be much obliged! HJMitchell You rang? 00:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you for your remarks. I'm not discouraged, an awful lot of admins don't make it on the first try, and it should be rather easy to avoid doing something similarly stupid in the future. Unfortunately this has overshadowed the whole RFA, so I'm getting very little feedback on my answers to the RFA questions. If you, or anyone else has anything they'd like to say about them it would be much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always nice to be appreciated! The only thing I would say about your questions is that humour does not translate well onto "paper". I can tell you mean well and that you're cracking a joke, but it may not be so obvious to others. Also, I like your honesty but comparing RfA to a rectal exam? Perhaps not too wise. As long as you're honest, though, you can't go too far wrong. ::::Also, perhaps consider getting rollback so you can show you have experience using the tools, and, if you don't already, you could always lurk at CAT:SD- it's always amusing to see some of the crap that goes through there but declining speedies on pages that don't meet the criteria shows a good understanding of key policy.

Really though, I think, if you keep your nose clean for a month or two, maybe a little longer (with lots of civil edit summaries in between!) you shouldn't have too much trouble at a second RfA. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 19:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As the "instigator" of the pile on I'd just like to add a comment or two. Firstly RFA may seem unforgiving but this isn't allways the case. I'd expect another three months will be sufficent for that diff to be overlooked. Secondly I've been more than favourably impressed with your decorum, tenacity and civility through this RFA. I'd be confident that a future RFA will pass and as you rightly note many people don't get the tools at their first try (myself included). Pedro :  Chat  08:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro. I would like you to know that there are no hard feelings whatsoever. And I will be back in August to try again. (maybe I'll have you scan my contribs first...) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA has been closed

Hi Beeblebrox. I have closed your RFA a bit early as it does not look like it will succeed, and no new reasons to oppose have come to light recently. Please address the concerns that were raised, and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is you can jump right into WP:RFA in mid-August, but if you want some feedback in August before you leap, WP:ER works pretty well. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since only one thing was mentioned by every voter except the "one note" voters, I think I know what to do, or at least what not to do. I wish you hadn't closed it, I almost had my fifty sockpuppets ready to swarm in and turn it around! No really, obviously it just wasn't going to happen this time, I'll just go back to my usual humdrum activities for a few months. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, they're not humdrum to me, keep those speedy tags comin'! What more dramah could you want than deletion work? - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, sorry about that. What I did when mine failed was semi-forget it for three months; concentrate on areas of the wiki that I most enjoy and then approach some of my opposers for advice. ϢereSpielChequers 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see it fail. I'm having a planet designed for you as we speak. It'll contain a Wikipedia where you'll pass your RFA with flying colours. Yintaɳ  22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA is almost the Wikipedia equivalent of the Total Perspective Vortex... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing that infobox on Sand Mountain (Alabama). I always have trouble dealing with some of the technical stuff. Jojhutton (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, it took me a minute to figure it out too... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Weather-related external links

I wasn't aware of the ANI but, after review it, Mike had replied and the situation resolved AFTER I did the reversions, so, no, I was not reverting "any edit on site" after the discussion, as you seemed to imply on my talk page. I saw his edit on a to a page on my watchlist which appeared to be spamming to an commercial site that, it turns out, he was in fact associated with and reverted his edits related to those links (as did at least one other admin, who seemed to be working from newest to oldest while I went from oldest to newest). That said, thanks for bringing the ANI discussion to my attention, which featured an explanation of Mike's good faith and a general consensus for how Wikipedians should deal with dead climatology links. I would therefore not object to any good faith reversions of my good faith reversions of Mike's good faith edits (whew! that was a mouthful). Also thanks for bringing my perhaps too quick rollbacks to my attention and best of luck in any future RfAs. I had meant to give a moral support on your last one, but I got tied up in real-life stuff and sorting People from... categories. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• What brought it to my attention was your reversion at Valdez, Alaska, in which he made two edits, one adding a new link to replace a dead one, and one some minor cleanup, and they were both reverted. I guess I didn't look at the timestamps that closely myself... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• PS-I zapped that speedy request that you just made for ya. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• cool Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

need formatting help

{{helpme}}

• Ok, I'm not exactly an expert at formatting. I want to put the barnstars on my user page down at the bottom in their own section, but every time I try to do that it ends up all screwy, with stuff getting "squished" and overlapping. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done

The problem was caused by one of those other templates you've transcluded at the top of the page. One of them probably has a missing close-bracket or </DIV> or something. I didn't actually bother to work out which; I just put {{clear}} - this tends to sort out such things. Then I created a new section "== Barnstars ==", and moved them into that.

Hope this is OK; For more help, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use another {{helpme}}; OR
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  23:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. bonus points for managing to thank me before I even saved the above :-) You're welcome; any time.  Chzz  ►  23:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I see that you have been doing some tagging for speedy deletions recently. Thanks for all your help. One thing to bear in mind is the need not to tag things too quickly, as new users are just beginning to figure out how to edit WP. I'm thinking especially of this article Carden School Of Fresno which like most schools, probably deserves a chance at showing notability , and which you tagged a minute after creation.[5]. Speedy deletion tagging needs to be done quite carefully to avoid biting new contributors, and you might find it useful to read these essays and advice.[6] and [7]. Thanks a lot once again.--Slp1 (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am very well versed in CSD actually, and this seemed a test page, there was not an issue of notability but rather no actual content. By using Twinkle to tag, every user that gets a CSD notice on their page also gets a welcome message that has helpful links for new editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Deadliest Warrior

Sir, I am sorry that you interpreted my post as a personal attack (you stated on my talk page that it was) I assure you it was not. In fact I stated thank you for learning from your mistakes and as you stated in a replyto user HJMitchell on your talk page (archive No. 9, as I see you just archived your talk page) "...an awful lot of admins don't make it on the first try, and it should be rather easy to avoid doing something similarly stupid in the future" (emphasis added). I was stating that you lived up to your promise. Moreover I stated that you did a good job of following and enforcing wikipedia policy as I stated "...please let them [RFA folks] know you have my vote." You were constructive and you did not lose your tempure and resort to anme calling, you would be a good admin--thats all I was saying. i am not sure why I was warned for personal attack and the comment was deleted. I assure you there was no sarcasm and I did not intend it to be so, I am sorry you read sarcasm into it. Please remain on the same constructive path you were on before the warning and deletion, dont be so paranoid and I am sure you will make admin. Thanks again, and I appreciate your input. I did cede to you in the debate over the matter, so thanks for enlightening me on Wiki policy. Cheers!! --24.210.221.242 (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I know what to say to that. This [8] is a pretty vitriolic remark, and I don't think I was in error to take it personally, as it was about me, but if you are willing to forget it and move on so am I. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually to tell you the truth, I was trying to be an ass when i brought up the admin thing. And then when i posted the reply above I was just trying to be an annoying ass and act like I was innocent. But as you said, we had our fun and lets just move on. Take it easy man. --24.210.221.242 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Voting"/comments from anon IPs

So, uh... we might want to clarify that text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Editing_from_anonymous_IPs to prevent any misunderstandings?? (Right now my head is spinning around like a toon's. :-) ) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration that it be clarified. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't noticed those possible SPAs. Not looking like the cleanest of AfDs, eh? I've also dropped by Wikipedia talk:Arbitration to request clarification. Thanks for your efforts. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

- I also mentioned to User:ElfQrin that we'd both asked for clarification. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--(NGG) 02:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--(NGG) 05:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking for somebody to help with possible AfD

Thanks for your recent help re "voting" by anon IPs.
Something else you might want to help with:
--- Physician George Tiller recently shot and killed, Scott Philip Roeder arrested, Scott Philip Roeder named as former member of Christian Patriot group "Montana Freemen". ---
Our article Montana Freemen is peppered with "citation needed" tags. (But presumably will be getting a lot of reads over the next few weeks.)
I really think that we should AfD the article and see if people will add the cites, or if not, then delete the article as failing WP:VERIFY.
As an anon IP I can't do the AfD. Do you agree that an AfD is warranted and would you care to start it? Obviously, if you don't want to do this for whatever reason, I can look around for someone else. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's not really how it's supposed to work. Deletion is a last resort, when all attempts at providing proper sources have failed. I'm not a big fan of the {{fact}} tag, I think it's better to either source a statement or remove it from the article if it is controversial. There are some sources cited at that article, more than enough for it to pass an AfD, and there is little doubt that this group passes the general notability guideline. These guys got a lot of press during their famous incident, there just aren't enough specific citations in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. No question in my mind that this passes WP:N, I'm just concerned about the lack of cites.
"I think it's better to either source a statement or remove it from the article if it is controversial."
I'm not convinced that that is the best way to handle this sort of thing, but if you think that it's better to remove unsourced statements from the article, then I'll do that. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are sources cited, and it may be possible to add footnotes to controversial information with the sources already available. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a fracas in that article recently, eh?
You wrote "I assume you are not referring to my revisions."
Correct: I was not referring to your revisions.
Have a good one. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a certain amount of edit warring disputes in that article lately. I don't know much about the subject and don't have time to help maintain the article much. I've posted notes to a couple of places asking people to help keep an eye on it. If there's anything else we should be doing...

Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Beeblebrox, I'm an italian user, haven't been particularly active in en.wiki yet. I'm trying to add some useful and pluralistic reference to Noemi Letizia. Let me know if that's ok (today I won't be able to associate sources to the text, hope to so soon). Nightbit (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the revert?

I would like to ask you to have a look at this edit and tell me, if you really think it was necessary, why. By the time I finished my last edit before you reverted, I had removed or changed nearly all of the POV material that was recently reintroduced into the article. If you really think that is a better version, go with it. But I'd like to know why it's better. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• (Already left note on article talk page, let's keep discussion there) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC for Corp Usernames

I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Malvern water

Thanks for giving your input on the topic and closing the issue. It was getting tedious and we were going in circles. Also, concerning your closing remarks ("All of you" that have engaged in insults, name calling, [...]), am I included in it? I don't feel that I am, but if I am, I would like to know it (along with what you consider problematic behaviour) so I don't repeat the same mistakes I made (if any). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actual diffs would have been helpful, but if this is for real: "go away you're a nuisance who's only goal is to piss us off" Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC) for example, then yes, that includes you. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's completely (and IMO, willfully) out of context, the full quote is I tagged the article on the 25th, thinking it was clear. I was wrong, and clarified. So I tagged it again on the 31st, clarified what I meant, expressed my willingness to help, and you're all "go away you're a nuisance who's only goal is to piss us off". I've given the full context of the other (mis)quotes on the wikiquette page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you for doing a thankless job, and giving some wise words. Taking your advice, spending time elsewhere ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

csd

can you stop trying to delete the ben sandsted artical, he has helped little leauge all across the west coast, I think he desrerves to be known, and he desreves an artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamaster4 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• You need to provide reliable sources to establish his notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of List of educational institutions in Sikkim

Hi. I saw that list of educational institutes for indian states/cities are totally unorganized. So I am right now created list for all states. I am in this process, some of the pages could be stub also. I will add the correct references and more data on this page. Please remove the request for deletion of this page. Sparkume (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Um... no. If there are fifty more things to add to the list, I'll reconsider, but for now I don't see any purpose in this list. Deletion debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of educational institutions in Sikkim, not here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, you got me, I've withdrawn the nom and closed the AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Barack Obama administration controversies

If you are going to delete Barack Obama administration controversies then why is there a whole category for George W. Bush administration controversies? Danvers (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Danvers

• Reasoning is at the AFD, but the short answer is that none of the "controversies" you detailed happened during the Obama administration, but rather during the campaign, before there was any such thing as an "Obama administration". Complaining on my talk page won't change anything, I'm not an admin. Again, take it to deletion review if you like. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In appreciation

		"Speedy" Award
		In grateful acknowledgment of your consistently excellent work with speedy deletions. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, thanks, I do seem to be on a "hot streak" this evening... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Calf

I have proposed moving Calf to Calf (cattle). --Una Smith (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please preface your position on Talk:Calf#Requested move by one of these: Comment, Oppose, or Support? --Una Smith (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I thought it was a discussion, not a vote, I think my position is pretty clear from my remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates

Thanks

You're awesome. Thanks. I used to be a huge critic of Wikipedia, and I figured I should contribute instead of criticize. Thanks for your help. (Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at COMPFUNK2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lakefield Junction Station

Re speedy deletion of this and associated articles, while not the initiating ed. I don't mind spending some time salvaging them if possible. How quickly does SD occur if not tagged with hangon? Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• It all depends on how soon an admin comes along and sees it. These may well be notable plants, but as they are 100% copyrighted they all need to be completely re-written from the ground up, so it may actually be easier to let them be deleted and start over. They were based on pages at [9] if you want to see them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I had spotted a copyright difficulty but hoped it could be worked around. On reflection you're probably right and they may not be worth the trouble, especially as the images too may not be usable. RashersTierney (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Great River Energy

Hello Beeble, I think I removed the copyvio, material. Could you check and see? Thanks, Dlohcierekim 19:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)`

• Here's where we get into a bit of a gray area. The section on member co-ops is a copy of [10]. But if all the co-ops are going to be listed in alphabetical order, there's no real way around it. On the other hand, maybe we don't need a list of all 28 member co-ops... The rest of it looks ok though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dlohcierekim 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to thank you for your imput and even ending the discussion at Wikiquette alerts. You are right to say it's a dead horse issue. I added the additional information (dictionary definition) to help the other editor in what I thought was a cultural misunderstanding. That being said I wanted you to know that I've learned from the process and in my own edits and summaries I'm going to be cautious so as not to give what may be an unintended or misunderstood reason for hard feelings. Shinerunner (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I you look at my user page at my favorite quotes there are a couple that may amuse you.Shinerunner (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I really appreciate you coming here and saying that. WQA can be very frustrating to contribute to, sometimes I wonder if its worth the effort. I'm also glad you aren't allowing yourself to be discouraged by this incident, as I can see from your contribs that you make many useful edits to Wikipedia. Share and Enjoy! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi..

Hi. I just wanted to say "Thank you" for the welcome to wikipedia. I'm wondering who edited the "Infant" page.. The last time I saw it, it did not have the pic of a baby 10 weeks old. I was not logged in at that time. oh well.. Anyway.... I'm a Girl like my user name says. Baby GIRL 008! Well... Adios (Farewell)! --BabyGirl008 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)