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 10:13, 2 August 2013 editIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,287 edits →Retirement: ce, +modifier← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:07, 5 January 2025 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators113,281 edits →Unblock of User:82.44.247.44: ReplyTag: Reply 
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)


: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)
== You done it now, eh? ==
::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)
:::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)
::::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)


== Username query ==
I almost hope it goes to a full case so this can be thrashed out once and for all, this is going to be popcorn-worthy. I'm of two minds over much of this, as I still contribute here, but there are lots of discussions over there that really dig into some serious problems that get swept under the rug here. But on the other other hand, the d-baggery is off the charts at times, Peter Damian bragging about his explosive tell-all book is like listening to talk of ]'s filming wrapping up someday. Ah well, thanks for getting the ball rolling. ] (]) 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


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)
:*I know, it's going to be ugly but as an oversighter I feel like we are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I personally feel that if they focussed on constructive criticism, as they sometimes have, instead of being assholes and outing people they could serve a valuable function. But with so many users who would rather destroy Misplaced Pages than help it and pretty much no accountability by anyone for anything that happens there I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. ] (]) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


:Unless there is an actual organization by that name, it probably isn't an issue. ] ] 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Feedback request ==
::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 ==
Hi Beeb. As a former contributor to ], you may wish to take a look at ]. If you do, please read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Comments on its talk page. Cheers, ] (]) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


:Apparently I'm not the only one who tries solve the unsolvable problems around here. I'm going to be out in the wilderness enjoying the 19 hours of daylight we have right now for most of the next week, but I'll take a look when I get back. ] (]) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Hello, is there any way I can gain access to the history of the deleted ] article? ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{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)
== BEEBLEBROX IS AWAY ==
::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)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
I am venturing off into the wilderness and will be completely unavailable until around the 12th of July. ] (]) 02:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
:Knowing where you live, be careful of the wildlife. At least nothing there will be as threatening as the ones on Misplaced Pages ;) ] (]) 02:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
::It's been a bad year for mosquitos, they gave us some trouble but it was worth it for some time away from civilization. ] (]) 23:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
== Bamler2 ==
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Hey, I saw your recent interactions with Bamler2. I chimed in on his talk page, but he deleted my comments. I'm reposting them here, in case they are of any use to you. His deletion of my comments without any constructive response seems fairly typical of someone who's only here to fight and to suppress criticism of his poor behavior.<br />
:] {{hlist|class=inline
My .<br />
|]
Bamler's <br />
|]
Reddogsix's of the corrupted post.<br />
|]
Bamler's to the corrupted post.<br />
|]
Bamler's where he accuses Reddogsix of "improper action", though Bamler was in the wrong for changing my text.<br />
|]
My text:
}}
::*Unsolicited response from non-admin editor. My contributions s Andre draining time from other editors than collaborating. From the difficulty Bamler has responding in proper talk Incidents&oldid=546187788#sock_alert._block_or_change_policy_to_allow_socks sockpuppetry] without evidence, to sniping admins, to making unconstructive edits such as .
:] ]
:::Bamler, cooperation is crucial to collaboration, as is the ability to yield to the better idea, or even to acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong. How did you get yourself into a situation where everybody is wrong but you? And how do you expect your experience to improve if you continue to engage in the types of behavior that keep getting you blocked?
:] ]
:::Unsolicited advice: create your articles offline and get them up to snuff (establish notability, use encyclopedic tone, harvest citations, etc.,) before posting them. Or go through the ] process. Why continue the upsetting cycle of creating barebones articles live, having them speedily deleted, and getting mad at admins and the Misplaced Pages process? It all seems so avoidable. ] (]) 00:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
There ya go. ] (]) 04:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


</div>
:This is in ]'s perview now, I expect they have probably seen this by now.. ] (]) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
== User:Amaury ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
Amaury is abusing Huggle again. I know that your away, but I don't know where else to put this. ] (]) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
</div>
:{{tps|c}} The links you added were not appropriate wiki material. Additionally, if you had a problem with my revert, why did you not come to my talk page like the message on your talk page said and ask about it? And no, the comment you inserted in a random place does not count. - ] (]) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::Whether or not my edits were good is besides the point. The point is that my edits were not spam. I went to your talk page and saw that someone else was also complaining about you making false accusations. You said that edit by 96.246.214.161 appeared to "to constitute vandalism". The user was simply reorganizing the article in a way that made sense, possibly because incognito mode is a feature that has nothing to do with privacy from external sources, which is what privacy usually refers to regarding browsers, and Google has been criticized for user tracking. Regardless of whether you agree with the change, it was wrong to accuse the user of vandalism. I looked at your history and searched your many usernames in the administrators' noticeboard and saw that you have made false accusations many times and have been informed and told to stop many times. Examples ] (]) 07:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I transferred this discussion to the administrators notice board. ] (]) 07:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}Hi, Beebs! Just letting you know this has been resolved. It was in regards to false positive stuff. Also, I hope you're enjoying your vacation! - ] (]) 18:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
:Resolved? The discussion on the noticeboard has not been closed yet. It has been on the discussion board for less than one day. You have to give people time to have a chance to write stuff. Attempts to prematurely close discussions is another issue with your behavior. ] (]) 00:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
:: Yup. Pretty much resolved. (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

== Request for Arbitration case declined ==
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a {{oldid2|563189795|Linking to Wikipediocracy|request for arbitration}}, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see {{oldid2|563189795|Linking to Wikipediocracy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter|the Arbitrators' opinions}} for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee,&nbsp;— ]] 04:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

::Oh well, it seems the immediate situation was resolved, surprisingly, from the other end anyway by the creation of a new page that can be linked to without fear that it will ever contain outing. ] (]) 00:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

==mfd==
I do not agree with your close of ] which I think a classic supervote. There were 4 opinions: the nom's opinion to delete as a stale draft, another editor's opinion to delete because of questionable notability and a stale draft , my opinion to redirect to the apparent subject of the article, and a keep opinion that the subject was notable and that the user thought it could be worked on further, and had a source available.

You decided to delete, ''admitting that "this may not look like the right result"'', based on your view that 1/"it was extremely unlikely that a redirect would help find the associated article" -- perhaps, but it would help the user find at least some information on the named person 2/"the incubator was a bad idea, 3/there was a user willing to work on it you would undelete -- but there ''was''a user willing to work on it.

As you didn't delete it, someone placed a speedy on it, which is reasonable of them, but I boldly reversed it while I ask you to reconsider. (If you hold by your decision & want to revert me, I will not consider it wheel-warring in this circumstance) Your reasons, 1/ is misconceived--the pt of the redirect is to find some info on the named subject, which is present in the article redirected to--it at least identifies the person 2/your personal opinion that an accepted feature of WP should be closed down, and 3/ the distinction you drew between someone who might work on it and someone who could.

Since you said, "if there is a user willing to work on it you would be happy to move it, please either relist for further discussion, move it to my user space or that of FactS[pace.-- or redirect as I suggested.

And there would be some merit in an argument that a person opposed in principle to the article incubator should not close mfds involving it. If I opposed articles on unpopulated extinct villages in general, should I close such AfDs in conformity to my opinion ? ''']''' (]) 13:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

:Well, for starters I apologize for the sloppy admin work and thank you for going ahead and cleaning that up for the moment.

:On to the actual issue: Thing is, the incubator is dead. It is likely it will be closed permanently and marked as historical in the near future. I don't dislike the idea of the incubator at all, it was a wonderful idea, it just didn't work and the community stopped using it. In point of fact there was a previous discussion about closing it that already established a consensus to do so, but interest was so low nobody ever even took that action.

:Not to put to fine a point on it, the idea of retaining a page in the incubator as a redirect is nonsense. What user would type in "Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille" as a search? Frankly I assumed when I read your remarks that you had forgotten that we were talking about a page that was not in mainspace at all as I could't see any way your argument made any sense otherwise. I've gone ahead and created a mainspace redirect to the target article identified.

:So that leaves keeping or userfying as the two remaining options. ] and the previous consensus not to have this article in mainspace would seem to make it pretty open-and-shut as far as just keeping it. While there is no deadline this was not edited a single time in the nearly two years it was "incubating." Why I didn't automatically usefy it is I suppose a matter fo personal style. Users often comment about how an article could be helped but are not actually willing to do it themselves. So, I invite them to just say "please userfy this" and I will do so. I don't think that's much of a barrier. I'm looking at the draft right now and my personal feeling is that it is so poor it would be better to just start over, but since you explicitly asked I've gone ahead and moved it to your userspace at ]. ] (]) 01:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

== Computer mouse ==

I looked over the Douglas Engelbart article, in which he is presented as the exclusive inventor of the mouse.

In no place in Misplaced Pages does there seem to be acknowledgement of the fact that, in the United States, Andy Hertzfeld was considered to be the inventor of the mouse, and that this error went on for 30 years.

I recall having seen the claim in various magazines over the years.

It should appear under abnormal psychology, if nowhere else!

] (]) 15:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

:If you have some ] that ] what you say (it's not a subject I know anything at all about or have much interest in) please ] and add a mention of it to whatever article is appropriate. ] (]) 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

== consensus building ==
{{discussion top}}
*Building consensus with you is difficult.&nbsp; At the AfD for ], I added of references to the article.&nbsp; You never could bring yourself to say, wow, I was wrong in my when I said, "Fails notability guideline for businesses as there do not seem to be any independent reliable sources that discuss the subject"...that airline is vital to the regional economy of ], it is covered in numerous books, has been recognized by the White House for its contributions to society, has drawn national attention for one of its crashes, and is regularly covered by the regional newspaper in Juneau.&nbsp; At ] you refused to say that a three-page article in ''Sports Illustrated'' was something other than a "trivial mention", even though we gave you the text from the guidelines about the meaning of a "trivial mention".&nbsp; ] (]) 02:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

::Ironic that you would accuse me of such when it is so incredibly obvious that the incubator is a failed project and consensus is in favor of closing it. You keep trying to make this personal, and I keep trying to tell you it's not about me or you, although you do seem to be the very last active particpant in the incubation process. And I modified my propsal earlier today to try and accomodate some of the concerns mentioned in that discussion, so, again, ironic. You can add a greenhouse, a portal, a magic sky castle staffed by monkey butlers and magic unicorns, whatever, it won't change the fact that the incubator just didn't work out and has failed. Neither will bitching about old AFDs. I'm sorry your edits did not force me into making statements in compliance with your point of view, I'm not necessarily one of those users who feels they must respond endlessly in the same conversation when they have already said their piece more than once.

::That would be another area where you and I differ. ] (]) 03:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Given your recent behavior I must ask that you not post here again, dealing with you is exasperating and I don't feel it accomplishes anything for anyone. Thanks for respecting my wishes in this matter. ] (]) 05:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== re: ] ==

Good afternoon, Beeblebrox. I am closing out some old RfD debates. There is unanimous consent to make your proposed change to ] so even though I participated in that debate, I feel comfortable closing it out. I do not, however, feel comfortable making the change to the template. I just don't have enough experience with that kind of wiki-code. I'm going to take off the RfD header but otherwise leave the redirect along. Could you please repurpose the page in accordance with the RfD at your earliest convenience? Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 18:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

:*{{done}}. I just stole the code from {{tl|Not done}}. ] (]) 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

== Silly thread at ] ==

Thank you for hatting the entire discussion. I did it myself, because as well as being quite wrong, the first post was definitely not a contribution towards improving the article, but ] reverted me. He apparently didn't like me pointing out the ugly truth.

I'm glad it's hidden completely now. It was never any real use, and just endorsed bad behaviour.

So, thank you again. ] (]) 07:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

== Request for deleted page ==

Hi Beeblebrox, I recently wrote the page '']'' about the journal, which is notable (now has an impact factor, etc. I was going to make ] a redirect page as this is informally used as an abbreviation for the journal but I discovered a pgae by that name was deleted and the AfD makes it seem likely it was about the journal. Would you please either provide me with a copy of the page or let me know if I should just create the page as a redirect? Thanks. ] (]) 08:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

:It was a one-line stub on the ''International Journal of Science, Management & Engineering'', which was apparently just established earlier this year. I think you can go ahead and just do the redirect, if the other journal should become more notable in the future it can be converted to a dab page. ] (]) 15:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for your response and the information, I'll make the redirect as you suggest. ] (]) 23:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

Sorry, I inserted two <nowiki>==</nowiki> instead of three <nowiki>===</nowiki> and the "Discussion" went into a different thread. I shall let it stand just as it is now. Thanks. ] (]) 21:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

== Request to reopen RfC ==
I'd like to reopen and add my endorsements to ] and see it get archived properly. My experience has been that the user's disruptive behavior spans multiple articles and I didn't get a chance to weigh in due to an absence. I also feel a more thorough review be performed but I have no experience in this area and therefore cannot proceed except to request the RFC gets more exposure from a greater variety of editors. Additionally I feel it may have been closed too early because the user who created the RfC and requested it closed was distraught. At a minimum I want to at least contribute my endorsements and comments to ensure everything is better documented and can be referenced later by anyone - should it be warranted. Thanks, <math>\sim</math> <b style="background:#000; color: silver; border:1px solid red;font-family:Century Gothic">&nbsp;<font color="red">℗</font> ]</b> <sup>(]</sup><sup>(])</sup>&nbsp;</b> 03:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

:*The RFC ran for a full month, it had not been edited in nine days when I closed it, and it has been closed for a full month. There was nothing premature about the close and I can't see any benefit to re-opnening it now. If you want to be involved in dispute resolution related to the issues raised there, see ]. ] (]) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

== FYI ==

Hi Beeblebrox. Please see ]. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

== Deleting the link for Heliskiing ==

Dear Beeblebrox!

I was adding a link (www.heliski-russia.com) for a page Heliskiing, but you delete it as a promoting page... I'm sorry, but then there are at least 3 more links which are commercial links:
^ How heli-skiing works
^ Heli-skiing in the Alps
^ When Is The Best Time To Go Heli-Skiing?

so, why you keep them and delete the one which I add? I can proof taht we knows all about heliskiing, much better than anybody else with more than 10 years of experience. Our page contents a current photos and information about heliskiing, isnt it a best information for the people who wants to know what is heliskiing and how it looks?

Thank you in advance for the reply.

Kind reards,
Maria Gaiani <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I'm afraid you have got your facts wrong. I did in fact remove them all as you can see from this edit: . You must have known this because the next thing you did was to recreate the section with ''just'' your preferred link:. they are all equally inappropriate links. The notices I left on your talk page contain numerous links pointing to the relevant policies. ] (]) 06:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

::Just took another look at this. The links I removed were in the "external links" section. The other links you are referring to are in the "references" section, and you do have a point. Several of them do not appear to be ] as defined by Misplaced Pages. Frankly, that article is in a pretty sorry state and has been for some time. I've tagged it for this issue and will try and find some time to rectify the problem. ] (]) 17:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

== Precious ==

<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 )}} {{border-radius|1em}} border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">
<div>
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}} {{border-radius|0.5em}}">]</div>
'''"move along"'''<br />
Thank you, vandal fighter in open resistance, for welcoming and deleting, for and ], for and ], quote: "clarified, move along", - you are an ] (15 April 2010)!

--] (]) 07:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
</div></div>

:Thanks! ] (]) 17:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

::You are welcome ;) - Regarding part of : I am fond of Eric Corbett (not to extremes, though). He was always gentle to me, look for "Malleus" on my talk where the name change was discussed, - his "rudeness" seems to come in responses, --] (]) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

== Userification request ==

Hi Beeblebrox :) I've been looking through some archives at deleted articles, and I believe ], which you deleted after an AfD discussion, is now notable enough for an article. As a result, could you restore the article into my user area? That way, we keep together the page history, and I (possibly) have to spend less time redoing the article. Thanks in advance :) ] ] 08:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

:{{done}} see ]. ] (]) 17:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:*Perfect, thanks. :) ] ] 19:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

== Dandeline Taraxacum officinale, blow ball flowers ==
]
Hi
I am a student from India.

Can you tell where can I find these white Dandeline Taraxacum officinale flowers, in this month of year?
I need to study these flowers for a project.

Thanks Sachin Jain <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: {{tps}} You're studying the common dandelion for a project? Almost anyone in Canada and the Western US has these darned things blooming from May until September, as much as we try and remove them. (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 10:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
::Indeed, in North America they are everywhere. They are considered an invasive plant where I live in Alaska, the seeds come up on traveler's cars and recreational vehicles, and they grow to enormous sizes, as you can see from this picture which I took in my own yard. So basically, if it's summer and you are in an area where they grow, all you need do is find an lawn, roadside or field that has now been mown recently and you should see them. However, from your IP it appears you are in India. I don't know if they grow there or not, but it is probably the wrong time of year right now. ] (]) 16:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

== Sorry ==

Didn't realise you had this discussion and didn't get an EC when I added a comment at the bottom. ]&nbsp;]⁄] 18:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

::I think we can just move your comments inside the archive tag and leave it at that. (incidently I agree with your remarks, but I'm hoping the peaceful settlement with B will grant some modicum of clue about the right and the wrong way to resolve issues...) ] (]) 19:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

== SA's block ==

Actually, his current block is in response to evasion of an Arbcom block. I really don't know: does that make it still an Arbcom block even if the Arbcom block would have expired by now?&mdash;](]) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

:I've been looking at and... what a mess. It's not the absolute worsst I've ever seen but it's in the top five.. Hard to say, but I'm inclined to think if the final block was for block evasion, and was not noted in the log as arbitration enforcement then it is a "normal" block. ] (]) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
::I don't think I would fight hard against either interpretation. I can't look forward to the idea of having another set of problems like this come back, though, so I hope wherever it lands the answer remains "no".&mdash;](]) 16:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

== Article that is deleted ==

I was wondering if you could get me the info on ], it was deleted for copyvio problems and then remade as a stub, I cant seem to see the discussion or anything that led to it being deleted. I created the original article and worked with several people on it, so I don't know how it got deleted for copyvio problems as its wording would have been messed with by several different people over time. The thing I think might have been a problem is that there's only so many ways you can word that certain species live in an area and those sections may have gotten some in an uproar. If you could bring the article into userspace and I given some time to fix the problems I think it would be the quickest and best way to bring back an important well-fleshed out article that I don't think could be made as well a second time.] (]) 21:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

:Looking at this, I don't see any evidence there was any discussion, and given the history there should have been. I'm thinking I might just restore all the deleted edits so they are available in the page history. ] (]) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
::{{done}} you can now see all old revisions in the history. ] (]) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I think that this unilateral restoration of ]'d content was irresponsible. ] returns only 50–100 pages, so you should have found the ] log at a minimum. ] might not remember a deletion from 2010, but it would have been courteous to ask.

# ] {{oldid|Malta Test Station|393371144|tagged and blanked}} ].
# Camelbinky reported SandyGeorgia at ] (archived to ]) and notified her (archived to ]).
# ] tagged and blanked ] and ] and {{diff|WP:Copyright problems/2010 October 28|393487965|393454822|listed them}} at ]. SandyGeorgia {{diff|WP:Copyright problems/2010 October 28|393499828|393487965|listed Malta Test Station there}}.
# ] ] and ] as ]. ] ], and ] finished its cleanup .
#* ] questioned Fram's deletion (archived to ]).

Please consider reversing your restoration with ] (RD1) or ] (deprecated, but more of an undo). ] (]) 04:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
: I echo this request. Copyvio text is deleted rather than blanked to remove violations from our article histories. This is done unilaterally via G12 or via investigation at ]. There is no "discussion" needed. Fram would have checked the article text against the source text and deleted the article if it was found to be predominantly plagiarized. If Camelbinky is interested in looking at the original text to attempt a rewrite, maybe it could be emailed instead. --] ] 11:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
: Oh my. (Notification bar worked this time.) Echo all above. ] (]) 12:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

::This all started because Sandy was upset at me about some policy discussion where I pissed him/her off and then others just started labeling me a plagiarizer. Perhaps I'm not the best editor but not everything I do should be thrown out without help to fix the problem because someone is pissed at me. The articles were not "predominantly plagiarized" in the least. And as was mentioned about ] by more than one person- there is only so many ways to mention that the population and demographics of some place are xyxxz and it's not plagiarism if that's the issue (and on that article it was. I'm sorry if some think this is an acceptable way to bully and harass me.] (]) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)m
::: If the articles were deleted in error, then they can be restored without further ado. However, I reviewed one of the sources from Helderberg Escarpment against the old article text this morning and the article text did indeed plagiarize the source (via close paraphrasing). Thus, at least in that instance, Fram's action was correct and the article history should '''not''' have been restored. The old article text could be emailed to you if you want to rewrite it, but it shouldn't have been restored. I hope Beeblebrox corrects this situation soon, as we now have copyvio in the article history again. --] ] 16:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
::: RE:<blockquote>This all started because Sandy was upset at me about some policy discussion where I pissed him/her off and then others just started labeling me a plagiarizer. ... I'm sorry if some think this is an acceptable way to bully and harass me.] (]) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)</blockquote> Her. And that's just baloney. It all started because you plagiarized and ] It's a bit concerning that you don't acknowledge that still. An additional concern is that you left Misplaced Pages rather than helping in the cleanup, which brings us to the current situation. ] (]) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
:::: And now catching up at ANI and at Camelbinky's talk page, I see there are still quite a few concerns of many different types, raised by (among others) {{user|Floquenbeam}} and {{user|Bishonen}}. I'm sorry to see all of this, which isn't a good sign. I'm not so sure I appreciate this new notification system as I could have remained blissfully unaware of the ongoing saga. ] (]) 18:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

*Ok, ok, everyone please calm down. I was (obviously) unaware of the background here. I took a quick look at the sources, and the argument that an article that had been worked on by several different users was unlikely to be a direct copyvio, and I thought it added up. Maybe it didn't, and maybe the restoration was in fact an error. There was nothing in the edit history or the deletion log linking to that copyright problems discussion. Please give me a moment to evaluate all this new information, and please do not fight on my talk page while I'm doing that. Thanks. ] (]) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

::After reading some more of the sources and comparing them to old versions of the article I believe I identified which particular edit began the introduction of close paraphrasing and I have revdeleted everything between that edit and the speedy deletion. ] (]) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

::: Thanks, and unwatching now (only came in via ping from new notification system). I'm not sure if I've ever met Flatscan before, but they sure did their job here! ] (]) 19:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

::: Thanks for your prompt response, Beeblebrox. Some issues remain in {{oldid|Helderberg Escarpment|320021648|the last visible revision on October 15}}, but additional revdel may not be necessary. The sentence about ] is the most problematic: shows a few significant similarities. The sentence immediately before also has similarities with that ] source. The Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy PDF is similar to the sentence that it supports, but there are limited ways to word it. There is , but the source is from the ] and (]), so it is plagiarism and not copyvio. ] (]) 04:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

== Your revert on ] ==

I'm wondering if you noticed that your revert on said page wasn't automatically accepted by pending changes, which I thought would happen seeing as you're an admin. '']]]'' 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

:I had not noticed, I was operating under the same assumption. Weird. ] (]) 15:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

== Your assistance please ==

] is on my watchlist, because I edited it.
There was a change that showed up on my watchlist, so I went to see how it had changed.
The revision history shows dozens of entries were made unavailable -- including mine -- due to a copyright violation.
My edit summary says I added a new reference -- so clearly not a copyright violation. I'd like to make sure that reference is included in the article. ] (]) 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

:The background of what has been going on there is detailed in the section above titled "Article that is deleted." Revision deletion was used to remove all revisions of the page from when it had copyvios on it, so it doesn't mean that your edit was actually a problem. The ref used added is not currently used in the new version of the article, it was . ] (]) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

== Tv schedules ==

Programming schedules are posted on articles for news channels. Should we rewrite or remove those schedules? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I should think so. ] would seem to apply. We're here to report the broader facts about subjects, not to advertise their programming schedule. Such information is readily available elsewhere and generally should not be in an encyclopedia article. ] (]) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Retirement ==
* 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'''
Re: . It served its purpose: it let someone write down "Kww is driving editors away" one more time.&mdash;](]) 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
* 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}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
:I've had it with that useless project. It was started, like so many projects here, with good intentions, but it isn't doing a damn thing to retain anyone. Keifer announced his "retirement" on something like six different pages, and then when straight back to posting all over the project, a classic ] move. I'm just going to unwatch that page, the project is a disaster and discussions there are some of the most unproductive crybaby crap on a website that has more than enough of that already. ] (]) 01:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
:: Well do you have more convincing arguments than just saying that the views expressed there are "crybaby crap". Specifically, do you consider the views I expressed there are crybaby crap? --] (]) 01:17, 2 August 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 don't really care anymore. I consider it a failed project and I don't plan to go back and examine your contributions specifically to see if they were whiny or not. ] (]) 01:23, 2 August 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)
:::: It can get very frustrating, all round, at times. --] (]) 01:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
:::::Failure is a perception that can be viewed in many ways and with many individuals, but if anyone is beginning to whine....well, let's leave it at that. I note that you have some issues with working with others Beeblebrox. In a recent discussion you seemed more than willing to ignore nearly all my concerns at ] to continue the argument of a disruptive editor who was socking to keep up the argument. While I addressed several issues you brought up...you didn't hear a thing a said. Using your own analogy, then you are a failed editor. But this is just stupid. You just seem to be very angry. Frankly, I don't give a crap about that. Calm down and discuss in a rational manner and there is always room one way or the other. But, determine you are in the right and everyone else in the wrong, and you are working on your own. There are threads I would love to close as being against the spirit of the project, but we don't work that way on Misplaced Pages or at WER.--] <sub>]</sub> ] ] ] 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


:Interesting. So it would highlight edits to their user and talk pages? ] ] 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*Beeb, I know you won't go there to see it so as an FYI, have a look at and have an 'admin cabal'/personal acquaintance beer on me when you've read it :) ] (]) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (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)
**Admin are people to. Talk page discussions at WER recently have veered towards the discussion of form verses function editors as well as other comparisons of admin and other contributors. It isn't what I would like, but what I would like are editors that really want to help each other and not just point out their faults, failures or lack of empathy. AN, AN/I and other boards don't have the nickname of "drama boards" for nothing, so it would seem even the established venues are failures as well. Then again...maybe it isn't actually accurate all around and reaction is not the way to tell if something is succeeding or not. Just say'en.--] <sub>]</sub> ] ] ] 02:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
:::I'll give it a shot I suppose. ] ] 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Uh Mark, I think you have me confused with someone else. ] is a redirect talk page that has not been editied since 2007, so I assume you are talking about ], but I don't recall being in any sort of argument with you there.
::::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)


== Now you see me, now you don't. ==
::As for WER, it seems to me to be becoming an increasingly "us-vs-them" environment, with "them" being all admins and "us" being people who like to complain about admins. That is not a framework that is going to result in retaining users, and neither is reverting those who try to stop ''yet another'' diva announcement from turning into a series of personal attacks on the users who supposedly drove them away. Keifer spammed something like six different pages with his retirement announcement, then kept right on editing. He has about 75 edits in the last 24 hours alone. He's not retired, he never was, and that discussion was not helpful, not related to editor retention, not a good thing in any way. If you can't see that then the project, which you seem to have somehow "assumed command " of is never going to make any real progress toward retaining editors. ] (]) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


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)
:::Some users who occasionally appear to demonstrate an antipathy for all things adminship, may have damaged WER beyond repair, just as they have made a mess of the RfA process. As soon as people stop tarring all admins with the same brush, perhaps we can start painting a better image of the backroom management of Misplaced Pages all round. ] (]) 04:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
::::You need to look in a mirror, Kudpung. From what I've seen, *you* are the guiltiest of any user of "broad-brushing" other users. (If an editor makes a valid criticism of a specific admin, you come along and accuse the editor of being part of a "brigade" and having an "antipathy against all admins".) Seriously Kudpung, do you think anyone respects the overgeneralized, black-and-white, accusatory, divisive shit you continually shovel?? ] (]) 10:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:07, 5 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

12

0

12




TfD

0

0

2

0

2




MfD

0

0

0

0

0




FfD

0

1

13

0

14




RfD

0

0

26

0

26




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




Request name

Motions

 Case

Posted




Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3

none

(orig. case)

4 January 2025


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)



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)



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)