Misplaced Pages

User talk:Beeblebrox: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:41, 22 January 2013 editKoshVorlon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,029 edits Civility is policy← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:37, 8 January 2025 edit undoSunnya343 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users17,171 edits →RfC notice: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
<big>'''Welcome to my talk page'''


{{Archive basics

|archive = User talk:Beeblebox/Archive %(counter)d
<span></small>
|counter = 52
{{archives
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 23:44 November 22, 2023 (UTC), Beeblebrox added ] -->
{{archives
| collapsible = yes | collapsible = yes
| collapsed = yes}} | collapsed = yes
|search=yes
]I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.
|image = ]
|title = tracks of previous discussions
}}
{{clear}}
{{User:TParis/RfX_Report}}


]
]''' If you would rather communicate by email''', it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email.
{{Admin tasks}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>


{{clear}}
] '''Do you actually ''want'' to be blocked?''' I'll consider your request '']'' you meet my criteria, ]
</big>
−
</div>
{{skip to top and bottom}}
]


== Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel? ==


I don’t understand why you redirected ]. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? ] (]) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Holiday cheer ==


:It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. ] ] 02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{| style="border: 3px solid red; background-color: #FFFAF0;"
::It's my understanding that in AfD discussions, the outcome is not from a majority vote but rather from the content of the discussion. There was zero justification by any of the editors voting to delete or redirect. The nominator wrote This was not true in my estimation. I took my time to carefully evaluate the sources and add to the article. I noted that from my reading all the sources except the interview and one other met ] in ]. No one responded to that. After the first relisting, only one editor responded and did not give any justification for their vote. If others could explain why these sources shouldn't count towards notability that would be one thing, but they didn't. Ideally you would open this back up and ask for a direct evaluation of the references. If no one responds directly to the references, to me this is a "no consensus" decision. Note I'd never heard of this person before the AfD so my concern here is process. ] (]) 16:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
:::I believe I reasonably interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I will note that the lone "speedy delete" comment was ''not'' considered as there was no explanation whatsoever of what ] would apply. Any content that may be worth keeping can be pulled from the page history and merged at the redirect target. ] ] 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" |
::::I'm disappointed that you didn't address my ] concern as I'm not sure how you could interpret consensus without knowing why each editor voted the way they did.... I didn't realize the history with the page markup was available from the "Articles for deletion" subject page so thank you for noting that. ] (]) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;"|'''Holiday Cheer'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid blue;"|''']''' '']'' is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes ], and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
|}
==Season's tidings!==
] ''To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year!'' ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


== Happy holidays! == == Username query ==


Hi Beeblebrox. I'm asking you about this because you're the most recent admin (at least at the time of this post) to have been active at ]. Do you think there's a ] or ] problem with respect to {{no ping|Socceroos TV}}? I just want a second opinion before adding {{tlx|uw-username}} template to their user talk page. -- ] (]) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #CC0000; border: 10px solid #008000;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Happy Holidays!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! ] 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
|}


:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for taking a look. I did some Googling and didn't come up with anything; so, I'll just AGF here and pursue things no further. -- ] (]) 22:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request ==


Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Policy ==


:{{done}} It is at ]. I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention that several participants at the AFD found serious issues with the way this was sourced and that the content did not reflect an accurate reading of the sources. ] ] 19:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. ] (]) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, gotcha. ] ] 19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::So a user has moved the article to the mainspace. Can this please be reverted and locked until the evidence at the SPI is evaluated? ] (]) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. ] ] 08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thanks! ] (]) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==


] from the past month (December 2024).


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bishonen#Policy. Looks like you would be willing help Bishonen with this. I think all conditions are met.--] (]) 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
== Happy New Year ==
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
{| style="border: 2px solid red; background-color: #FFFAF0;"
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|]
|rowspan="2" |
|]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |'''Have an enjoyable ]!'''
|]
|-
|]
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid green;" | '''Hello Beeblebrox: Thanks for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages, and have a happy and enjoyable ]!''' Cheers, ] (] - ]) 05:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
|]
<br><br>
}}
:<small>Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.</small>
:] ]
|}</div>{{-}}
:] ]


</div>
==Early archiving==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
I noticed that, in November, you simultaneously a tag and . If your behavior was procedural, I think it was premature and has now had the effect of . If you were indeed against the proposal, then you deserve a finger-wagging for stifling conversation with a premature archive in a way that superficially appeared to be merely procedural. — ] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"></sub></small>]]</span> 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
:The merge tag was added to the article ]. That's May 19th 2010. No actual proposal for merging was made on the talk page at that time. Fast forward to October of this year. You made a comment and the person who added the tag replied. More than a month later I removed that tag and archived that page. How anyone could think that it was premature is a bit obscure to me, so your "finger wagging" is a bit misplaced from where I am sitting. For the record I have no opinion whatsoever on the actual merge proposal. While I can't say two comments over a period of two and a half years constitutes a consensus there is also a lack of consensus ''against'' the merger so instead of complaining to me I suggest you review ] and ] as they both seem to apply to this situation. ] (]) 20:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
== Hello? ==
</div>

I see you're back. Are you going to consider my request ?--] (]) 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

== (Belated} Barnstar ==

It's a little late, but I've been meaning to give this to you for starting up the FZ project:
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For finally getting the ] project started
|}

== ComputerGeek3000 ==

I think you jumped the gun just a bit. He was originally blocked by copyright violations. When he returned, he started by posting fair-use images of living people, but with correct sourcing and copyright information. Once I pointed out the problem with images of living people, he stopped, and every subsequent image was of dead people. He was clearly listening to warnings and modifying his behaviour to take them into account.&mdash;](]) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

:That's what I get for just going by the warnings. I'll have another look. I'm still concerned about the utter lack of communication though. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:: Just saw that block-unblock thing. Kww is right up to that point, which is also the reason I didn't block again. The reason I gave him that final warning was because of his last upload: he first uploaded a non-free image of a deceased person, with correct attribution and everything, but it happened to be from a commercial agency, so it had to be deleted as F7. Innocent mistake, so far. But he then re-uploaded the same image and changed the authorship attribution to "unknown", as if trying to circumvent the rule with a falsehood, so that's basically another deliberate copyright violation, in my book. I'll be happy to leave it up to you how to further deal with him. ] ] 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

:::I'm hoping they will get the point from my unblock message that when they are not sure what to do they should ask for help instead of guessing or worse, lying. It is possible they will manage to do that but I am not holding my breath. ] (]) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

== Arbcom Reform Party ==

You are an admin and you should know better than engage in personal attacks like this one (especially the edit summary). Please redact. ] (]) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

:The evidence of his dishonesty is manifest right there on that very page for all to see, as well as at his candidate page for the recent arbcom election. If he is going to be the leader of this useless organization he will need to be able to face that his actions will be criticized. ] (]) 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::You might want to re-read the opening paragraph of ]: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Criticism is one thing, but giving your post the summary "Oh, and you are a liar" is not criticism, it is a personal attack. ] (]) 13:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::::The problem in this case is that the "content" is the party itself, which is being run by a person who has shown a staggering pattern of ] behavior along with outright dishonesty. The content and the contributor are more or less the same thing in this case. ] (]) 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{collapse top|whatever}}
Above page is proposed to delete again in Nov 2012

Here are the comments by users
Jsorens > Keep
:
175.157.37.73 > Please Keep
:
Shu-sai-chong > Keep
:
MediaJet > Keep
:
131.107.0.81 > Keep
:
obi2canibe > Not improved
:
''' Sue Rangell > The result was KEEP.'''
:

Can you please re iterate tags put by user self for this page. No one mentioned problems in this version and all agreed result was '''Keep''' from previous '''Keep and improve''' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:*I'm sorry but I don't understand what it is you want me to do. I closed a previous AFD on this article back in August but otherwise have had no editorial involvement with it. Administrators do not have any special authority over actual article content. ] (]) 17:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::: is your involvement to the article. is the discussion you used to put tags to the page and result was '''Keep and Improve'''. is the latest discussion about the page and most of the people appreciated the content and one person said this need improvements. The result was just '''Keep'''. I don't want you to go inside the content or the article. Just look at the latest discussion and agreed result considering your tags (neutrality,grammar, structure, point of view,expert on the subject). Then can you please double check whether you want to keep tags introduce by your self. Even participants collectively concluded page is improved your feedback is important since you are the person who introduced tags. Thanks

:::::I introduced the tags as a result of the ] arrived at at the discussion in August. Since ] it would be more appropriate to discuss this with users who are actually involved with this article, which I have not been watching in the interim, to determine if there is a consensus now that it has been sufficiently improved and the tags are no longer applicable. You could also pursue some form of ] if you are unable to resolve this issue amongst yourselves. ] (]) 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::: What I can't understand is you put tags as a result of the consensus ( '''Keep and Improve''' ) arrived at the AFD discussion in August. So why you reluctant to re consider your tags considering result of the consensus ('''Keep''') of latest AFD discussion happened during November ? If consensus of AFD can be used to introduce tags why a consensus of 100% same AFD discussion can't be used to remove tags ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::: The tag were introduced by you. You must able to use same algorithm or what ever facts you considered when tagging the page to re consider tags are required. Others don't know why you made these tags and what algorithm used for tags. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::::I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. Added the tags as a result of the close of the previous discussion. I have not been monitoring the article in the meantime and I am not interested in becoming involved in it now. like everyone else here I am a volunteer and self-assign what work I do. I don't take assignments from you or anyone else. ] (]) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::::: If you say you are not interest about this article it is ok. But if you edited something you are a party of a dispute. I will create a dispute resolution to remove tags in which I may add you as a party.

I created a dispute resolution discussion on . You may participate to the discussion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{collapse bottom}}

== Are you familiar with a certain users vandalism and talking style? ==

It seems that you know him, as you've reported him using socks years before, so I would like to ask you if you're familiar with his older incarnations or talking style. I do not know where he operates, so I can't check anything back then. From the list of people who report his socks on sock investigation page, most users who have dealt with him more than once have retired. The current suspected sock has respond to my message. Can you take a look at and tell me what you think? There's also an ongoing investigation of whether Redcoyote18 is Bambifan101's sock here , and a CU says that the physical location is quite different. We're still waiting for more opinion from another CU at the moment, but more entry from someone familiar with him will be appreciated. If Redcoyote18 is indeed innocent, like, a good faith but misguided/disagreeing editor, I would want to give him a fair chance. May I have your opinion in this regard? ] (]) 14:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

:It's been a ''very'' long time and I'm not sure I would be able to say one way or the other, but I will have a look. ] (]) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

::From what I am seeing I don't think it is him. Although he has certainly been known to alter his targets and style in the past this seems like just some other hard-headed person. I could elaborate on my reasoning by email if you like, I'd rather not get too detailed here, just in case. Either way they are probably headed for a block. ] (]) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Thank you. But there's no need to do it via email. I've added the link to your response to the sockpuppet investigation page. More than one user, including me, suspect that a new user is the case. The spelling's different. Once I learned that this user's location is quite different from Bambifan101, I asked around. Gotta give this user a fair chance. ] (]) 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

== Bears. Grrrrrrr. ==

Hey, Beeblebrox. I'm wondering whether was such a good idea. The page has 229 watchers, which should be more than adequate to ensure that valid edit requests don't languish. There have been six edit requests over the past six months—not exactly what I'd call a "high number". Five of the six requests were answered the same day; the sixth, which required a fair amount of thought, was answered within two days. The most recent request (the one that brought me to the article for the first time ever) probably would have been accepted had it been posed as a pending edit, and it might well have been left unmodified, which would have been unfortunate. If you'll notice, what the user requested was less than what was optimal, and less than what I did. If it ain't broke . . . imho. ] (]) 11:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

:*From what I have seen so far most PC edits are being reviewed within one hour so it is hoped this will encourage users to submit edits. if it doesn't work it can be changed back to semi easily enough. ] (]) 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

:::I'm skeptical that ] is the sort of article that would benefit from PC, being of the top-level, heavily watched persuasion. I had hoped it would be applied more conservatively, specifically to solve demonstrated problems that under-watched pages are having under semi. Anyway, I guess it's fitting somehow that you're the one to PC the first PCed article on my watchlist. (I actually mean that in a a nice way, believe it or not.) ] (]) 19:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::I should have mentioned as well that it was under PC during the trial and was put back under semi when the trial was over. ] (]) 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

== Around ==

Are you around? <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 06:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:Not sure if you mean in general or right this second, but the answer to both is "sort of". ] (]) 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::Cool - would you please remove my rollbacker right - I don't need it an it seems to affect twinke in a net loss sort of way. Thanks - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 06:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:::{{done}} ] (]) 06:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Many thanks to you Beeblebrox - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 06:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::You know, now that you mention it I have been having trouble with twinkle lately. But rollback is automatic in the admin toolkit, I don't think I can get rid of it without turning in the whole set. Maybe some tech nerd has a fancy script for this... ] (]) 06:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::For what it's worth, I would consider this removal to be somewhat "under a cloud", as I'd just warned YRC for inappropriate rollback use prior to this request, which YRC removed just prior to making this request from you: . I find the timing...interesting, to put it mildly. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::::To be perfectly honest, I consider rollback to be a more or less worthless user right. Since YRC requested it be removed because it was interfering with Twinkle (which has rollback included in it and can be used by anyone who has registered an account) it seems fairly unimportant either way. ] (]) 07:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::True enough, just wanted to let you know what's going on. By the way, I happen to be a tech nerd, would you have some interest in a .js that suppresses rollback for admins? I'm not sure if that's possible or what interference it would cause with Twinkle, but if it's acting up, it might be worth a few lines of code. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well, I am not entirely sure rollback is the issue. Twinkle rollback sometimes does not work for me, but I have also been having issues with its protection function. I suspect it is related to the tool not being optimized for iPad, which is how I have been editing much of the time lately. ] (]) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

== Userfy deleted ==

Could you please userfy the deleted version of ] for me? ] (]) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:{{done}}. see ] ] (]) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

::thanks! ] (]) 19:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

==Penyulap==
I have not got to the bottom of the block yet, but I can say with a fair degree of confidence Pen is not a suck-puppeteer in any way that is significant. These claims were made based on a number of misunderstandings, which reflect badly on us as a community. As I say I am not exonerating Pen completely in regard to other matters, because I have not investigated them (and maybe never will) but so far he comes up, if not squeaky clean, at least clean enough, and as they say "more sinned against than sinning". '']&nbsp;]'', <small>05:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC).</small><br />

:I don't really know myself, but I was under the impression they had repeatedly bragged about socking. However I also understand Penyulap has a somewhat unusual sense of humor and overall style of communication. At the moment I'm not sure it really matters given the bizarre rant submitted as an unblock request. ] (]) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

== Block of Ucycoin ==

You blocked {{user|Ucycoin}} for having a "promotional username". Can you please explain the reasoning for that block? — ] ] 15:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
:Never mind, I found the reason by examining the old revision of their sandbox. — ] ] 15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

Please unsalt. I want to redirect it to ]. ] (]) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

:{{done}}. ] (]) 00:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

== Message from ComputerGeek3000's IP address ==

Dear Beeblebrox, ] blocked my account for violating copyright policy again, but I didn't upload no more images on Misplaced Pages and I continue to edit without violating copyright policy, and I read the ], ], and ] project pages and I fully understand the copyright policy on Misplaced Pages and I did what you told me, not to upload no more images on Misplaced Pages and that is what I did. ] (]) 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
:Note that Computergeek3000 has been found socking on Commons, using sock accounts to upload the images there and linking to them here.&mdash;](]) 19:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
::I would also note that ] is the surest path to ''not'' being unblocked. please use the unblock template as described in the notice on your talk page. ] (]) 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

==You have a new message!==
{{talkback|Mediran|ts=08:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)}}

==You have a new message!==
{{talkback|Mediran|ts=09:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)}}

== ] ==


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability back in Jan 2008. I've removed it because inclusion in The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to prove notability. If you disagree, you may want to consider taking it to the Notqability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, ] (]) 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
== Thanks, and my apologies ==
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
Thanks for your informative help. And my apologies for my ignorance having caused me to unwittingly break Wiki rules.] (]) 10:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== 3 year old edit ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
Hello, Beeblebrox! When I read a WP article I have a habit of checking it's evolution throughout the years via the page history, and I sometimes do this on its talk page, too. Which brings me to an edit you made 3 years ago. In , you removed a large chunk of a talk page with the edit summary "archiving/tagging" but I can't find an archive. Was this accidental? If so, could you please create the archive? Forgive me for pestering. Rgrds. --] (]) 09:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== Unblock of ] ==
::I just tried to do so, and got a spam filter message: ''"The following link has triggered a protection filter: <redacted>.associatedcontent.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.''" So, somewhere in that chunk of text is a link to that website that is being blocked. I had to redact the prefixes just to reprint the warning here on my talk just now! I vaguely remember this now, I searched the text but could not find the link. I could swear i also remember explaining that on the talk page at the time, but I don't see any such edit now. ] (]) 15:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Since you recently unblocked that user with conditions following ], I am politely asking if you would be interested in my new user script, ], which allows you to temporary highlight those users in order to keep track of them! I am thinking that this situation could be a good use case for it. ] (] · ]) 18:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Whoa, I got it to work: ], but now I don't know what to do with it. Could you make sure the talk page is linked to the archives properly and check that I did it right. The offending link was in the first sentence of the ] section (the text in italics, I replaced the "." with "<dot>"). Rgrds. <small>(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.)</small> --] (]) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


:::::Nice work, looks good. I added the relevant tags to the archive and talk page. ] (]) 18:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC) :Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? ] ] 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::It would highlight their username (like other user highlighter scripts), so you can spot them in, say, your watchlist/recent changes/discussions/etc. I'm thinking of maybe expanding the scope of the script so it can also mark users in the editing restriction log in the same way. ] (] · ]) 20:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'll give it a shot I suppose. ] ] 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I installed it and bypassed my cache, but I'm not seeing anything. ] ] 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm now seeing it on other users' pages, but not the IP. Does it may be only work with accounts? ] ] 21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Oh, that might be because it doesn't work on contribution links (which replace the user pages for IPs in some places), I'm going to fix that! Thanks! ] (] · ]) 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::It's actually looking to me like the user has to maybe be ''currently'' blocked? ] ] 22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Good catch, there was a <code><nowiki>!= "unblocked"</nowiki></code> instead of <code><nowiki>== "unblocked"</nowiki></code> somewhere in the code, I've fixed it! Does it work at ] now? ] (] · ]) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::That was it, working now. ] ] 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== MFD on Rich Farmbrough's blog == == Now you see me, now you don't. ==


I can't find any reporting on it, but over the last two days large parts of Alaska have apparently been subject to ] attacks. My entire ISP has gone offline at least four times in the last twenty-four hours. So, I may be right in the middle of something when I suddenly go offline, and I may or may not feel like resorting to using my mobile hotspot to get back online. ] ] 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Beeblebrox,
I see you closed this as '''Keep'''. Per the policy ] blogs are not allowed on user pages, so
how on earth is this a keep ? Policy supersedes votes, so policy should have been carried out (No I'm not yelling at you....I'm curious ....that's all ) <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:2px;">].<font style="color:white;background:blue;">&nbsp;'''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh ...&nbsp;</font></span> 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


:Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. ] (]) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:*"policy supersedes votes" I don't where you got that idea but it is dead wrong. Policy is meant to reflect the community's will, not dictate to it. ] is Misplaced Pages's fundamental model for decision making and it seems abundantly clear that consensus did not support your deletion reasoning. ] (]) 15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
::I don't think my ISP is even the real target. They are a regional provider that mostly operates wireless-only residential connections. Their major infrastructure is piggybacked onto that of larger players', who I assume are the real targets. It's annoying, but if it's not Russia softening us up for an invasion that's probably all that will come of it, but I admit I do keep thinking of ]. ] ] 22:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Potential topic ban violation ==


Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.
:Policy indeed does ,
. I won't add more here, but the main point of all of these links are to show that policy has and does override consensus. <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:2px;">].<font style="color:white;background:blue;">&nbsp;'''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh ...&nbsp;</font></span> 17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
:{{tps}} If policy trumped consensus, there'd be no point in xFD discussions. Simply apply policy, right? Nope. No point in pursuing this Kosh, it's a dead end and all you're going to end up doing is looking bitter about it. ] (]) 18:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


I was reading some military history articles and found my way to ] and saw that there was a ] for the user ] adding "decisive" to the result section of the infobox going against ].<br>
::::*Those links all go to the edit window, not specific edits, so I don't know what in particular you are referring to. If you wish to challenge the outcome of the MFD you can pursue a ]. ] (]) 18:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I was going to leave a link to the relevant MOS section on their talk page since the revert didn't give an explanation and I saw a large unblock discussion resulting in a topic ban on Azerbaijan and other related topics. Since the edit would seem to go against a restriction that you imposed, I felt like I should let you know. I suppose it could be considered a minor breach, but I figured I should perhaps inform someone lest it get out of hand.
:::::*He already has ]. ] (]) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::Hmm, yes and according to the timestamps he did so before even my first reply here, yet he did not bother to inform me of it. charming. ] (]) 18:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Yep, hence my note. Nothing to worry about, but poor behaviour nevertheless... ] (]) 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds! (I mainly just revert vandalism and don't report users too often.) ] (]) 08:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)<br>
::: So..... you asked me where I got my notion from that policy superceded votes, and I gave you links, and your response was not to read them? Great. Next time <b> read </b>. I pointed you to three discussions on ANI board where that very thing was stated. <br><br>
+
Is there a way to access the source code for the now-deleted ], please? With all the hard work put into it, i wish Misplaced Pages would at least allow the chance to move this to (say) a channel listing Wiki. Thanks! --] (]) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)>br><br>
−
−
−
1.) Was ] on then 7th indent down on ]
−
stating:<br><br>
−
I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. <b>The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this.</b> Kelly hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
−
−
−
2.) Was <b>ADMIN</b> ] once again on the AN board ] stating , once again , that policy superceded consensus:<br><br>
−
−
While yes, the act of making something deletable and then nominating it for deletion is bad form, that's not the case here. The thing that made this (and every other possible non-free image) deletable wasn't consensus or the presence or absence of the image in an article. If a free image exists all non-free images are off the table and to be deleted from the encyclopedia, period. Doesn't matter what consensus is, nor does it matter how much better the non-free image might or might not be: It's not up for debate. Between two non-free images or two free images, by all means let the debate continue in a polite and aboveboard manner. In this case, however? Nuke the non-free image--there's no debate to be had, just a reiteration of the policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)<br><br>
−
−
−
3.) Yet another admin weighted in ] ion this AN posting ] and he stated:<br><br>
−
−
People this is a Foundation Issue. The use of the images specifically violates WP:NFCC#8. Someone please explain to me how the use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8 and I will gladly stop what I am doing. Also, I am admin of this site, and am obligated to enforce policy. I am not required to wait to enforce policy, nor do I need consensus to enforce policy. I am stopping now because there is opposition (ignorant opposition, but opposition at that). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)<br><br>
−
−
Once again stating that <b>policy</b> trumps <b>consensus</b>. So it's not just my word, it's at least 2 admins and one user.
−
<span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:2px;">].<font style="color:white;background:blue;">&nbsp;'''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh ...&nbsp;</font></span> 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
*By your own logic ] proves you wrong in its first sentence. Don't yell at me to read when you are the one too lazy or incompetent to post actual diffs. Actually, just go away, I have had it with your thick-headed nonsense. ] (]) 21:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
::: Really ? Actually, it isn't just '''my''' logic. I based my argument on the arguments of three other users, two of whom are admins, so now what you're really saying is those other three uers (and I ) are wrong and you're right. O.K, if you really believe that, fine. 21:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


:And as I'm scrolling back up your page, I see you already had a related discussion about this user and keeping track of their edits. My apologies if I took up your time on something you were already aware of... ] (]) 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Not at all, I was not aware of this and your alerting me to it is appreciated. I'm writing something up on their talk pages right now. Thank you. ] ] 08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Glad to be of help! I read through that whole discussion and it felt like it'd be a waste to throw away all that work you folks did by letting things potentially go too far. ] (]) 08:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== List of Bell TV channels == == Deletion review for ] ==
An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> –] (]]) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC notice ==
Is there a way to access the source code for the now-deleted ], please? With all the hard work put into it, i wish Misplaced Pages would at least allow the chance to move this to (say) a channel listing Wiki. Thanks! --] (]) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the ]. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. ] (]) 00:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} See ]. Please be sure to properly attribute any content that is reused elsewhere. ] (]) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:37, 8 January 2025



tracks of previous discussions
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online


please stay in the top three tiers



XFD backlog



V

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Total




CfD

0

0

23

0

23




TfD

0

0

0

0

0




MfD

0

0

0

0

0




FfD

0

1

9

0

10




RfD

0

0

41

0

41




AfD

0

0

0

0

0








Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases




Case name

Links

Evidence due

Prop. Dec. due




Palestine-Israel articles 5

(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)

21 Dec 2024

11 Jan 2025


Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions




Motion name

Date posted




Arbitrator workflow motions

1 December 2024



−


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Why did you redirect Mary-Catherine Deibel?


I don’t understand why you redirected Mary-Catherine Deibel. Those who proposed this gave no reasons and no editor responded to my analysis and additions to the article. Why not relist or declare no consensus? Nnev66 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)



It was already relisted once specifically to allow for such a response, and none was forthcoming. It can therefore be assumed that your point was not found persuasive, the only comment coming after being in favor of merging or redirecting, and the only other "keep" comment was self-identified as weak. All other comments indicated opposition to a stand-alone article. I don't think another relist was likely to change that. Beeblebrox  02:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's my understanding that in AfD discussions, the outcome is not from a majority vote but rather from the content of the discussion. There was zero justification by any of the editors voting to delete or redirect. The nominator wrote "A local celebrity only, with an interview and an obituary in The Boston Globe." This was not true in my estimation. I took my time to carefully evaluate the sources and add to the article. I noted that from my reading all the sources except the interview and one other met WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. No one responded to that. After the first relisting, only one editor responded and did not give any justification for their vote. If others could explain why these sources shouldn't count towards notability that would be one thing, but they didn't. Ideally you would open this back up and ask for a direct evaluation of the references. If no one responds directly to the references, to me this is a "no consensus" decision. Note I'd never heard of this person before the AfD so my concern here is process. Nnev66 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe I reasonably interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I will note that the lone "speedy delete" comment was not considered as there was no explanation whatsoever of what CSD would apply. Any content that may be worth keeping can be pulled from the page history and merged at the redirect target. Beeblebrox  21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you didn't address my WP:NOTARG concern as I'm not sure how you could interpret consensus without knowing why each editor voted the way they did.... I didn't realize the history with the page markup was available from the "Articles for deletion" subject page so thank you for noting that. Nnev66 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)



Username query


Hi Beeblebrox. I'm asking you about this because you're the most recent admin (at least at the time of this post) to have been active at WP:UAA. Do you think there's a WP:CORPNAME or WP:ISU problem with respect to Socceroos TV? I just want a second opinion before adding {{uw-username}} template to their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)



Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. Beeblebrox  18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I did some Googling and didn't come up with anything; so, I'll just AGF here and pursue things no further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)



Request


Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine article? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)



 Done It is at User:Makeandtoss/Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine. I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention that several participants at the AFD found serious issues with the way this was sourced and that the content did not reflect an accurate reading of the sources. Beeblebrox  19:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't worry, this is the reason why I requested the version, for further examination of these issues, namely sockpuppetry, not to restore the content. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Beeblebrox  19:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

So a user has moved the article to the mainspace. Can this please be reverted and locked until the evidence at the SPI is evaluated? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it was already moved back, I will go ahead and move-protect it. Beeblebrox  08:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)



Administrators' newsletter – January 2025


News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).



 Administrator changes



added Sennecaster


readded 


removed 


 CheckUser changes



added 


readded Worm That Turned


removed Ferret




 Oversight changes



added 


readded Worm That Turned


 Guideline and policy news




 Technical news



  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


 Arbitration




 Miscellaneous






Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Unblock of User:82.44.247.44


Since you recently unblocked that user with conditions following the discussion in which we both took part, I am politely asking if you would be interested in my new user script, User:Chaotic Enby/RecentUnblockHighlighter.js, which allows you to temporary highlight those users in order to keep track of them! I am thinking that this situation could be a good use case for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)



Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? Beeblebrox  20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It would highlight their username (like other user highlighter scripts), so you can spot them in, say, your watchlist/recent changes/discussions/etc. I'm thinking of maybe expanding the scope of the script so it can also mark users in the editing restriction log in the same way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot I suppose. Beeblebrox  20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I installed it and bypassed my cache, but I'm not seeing anything. Beeblebrox  20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm now seeing it on other users' pages, but not the IP. Does it may be only work with accounts? Beeblebrox  21:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that might be because it doesn't work on contribution links (which replace the user pages for IPs in some places), I'm going to fix that! Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's actually looking to me like the user has to maybe be currently blocked? Beeblebrox  22:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, there was a != "unblocked" instead of == "unblocked" somewhere in the code, I've fixed it! Does it work at User talk:82.44.247.44 now? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That was it, working now. Beeblebrox  22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)



Now you see me, now you don't.


I can't find any reporting on it, but over the last two days large parts of Alaska have apparently been subject to DoS attacks. My entire ISP has gone offline at least four times in the last twenty-four hours. So, I may be right in the middle of something when I suddenly go offline, and I may or may not feel like resorting to using my mobile hotspot to get back online. Beeblebrox  21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)



Thanks for letting the community know about your situation. Stay safe, Beebs. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think my ISP is even the real target. They are a regional provider that mostly operates wireless-only residential connections. Their major infrastructure is piggybacked onto that of larger players', who I assume are the real targets. It's annoying, but if it's not Russia softening us up for an invasion that's probably all that will come of it, but I admit I do keep thinking of Leave the World Behind. Beeblebrox  22:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)



Potential topic ban violation


Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place for this.

I was reading some military history articles and found my way to Battle of Baku and saw that there was a revert for the user 82.44.247.44 adding "decisive" to the result section of the infobox going against MOS:DECISIVE.
 
I was going to leave a link to the relevant MOS section on their talk page since the revert didn't give an explanation and I saw a large unblock discussion resulting in a topic ban on Azerbaijan and other related topics. Since the edit would seem to go against a restriction that you imposed, I felt like I should let you know. I suppose it could be considered a minor breach, but I figured I should perhaps inform someone lest it get out of hand.

Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds! (I mainly just revert vandalism and don't report users too often.) Sigma440 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)





And as I'm scrolling back up your page, I see you already had a related discussion about this user and keeping track of their edits. My apologies if I took up your time on something you were already aware of... Sigma440 (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Not at all, I was not aware of this and your alerting me to it is appreciated. I'm writing something up on their talk pages right now. Thank you. Beeblebrox  08:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! I read through that whole discussion and it felt like it'd be a waste to throw away all that work you folks did by letting things potentially go too far. Sigma440 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)



Deletion review for Guite people


An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guite people. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)



RfC notice


Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2018 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)