Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:02, 1 February 2011

Welcome to my talk page

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52

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.

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.

If you want to know why I deleted or protected a page, or why I blocked a user please check My admin log first before posting a message here.

Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.

Want to tell me what you think of me as an administrator? Go right ahead! Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/Beeblebrox is live and any and all feedback is appreciated.

Research in RD3

I agree that your concern regarding my diffs being too recent is reasonable, but I want to point out that they were merely the easiest to find. This has been an ongoing problem for a while now. I am a little busy right now but I will be glad to offer more diffs in the near future when I get a few moments to find them. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ciplex Deletion

Hey, thank you for seeing through the puffery and having to read that awful wall of text. I thought I let you know that there is a WP:COIN in progress regarding the creating user, if you wanted to come in and comment, please do! Phearson (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Renamed user 1499

Regarding the User talk:Renamed user 1499 controversy, WP:DONTBITE! Swim900 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The advice not to bite the newcomers is not a suicide pact. We shouldn't pretend someone isn't charging about like a bull in a china shop and ignoring our policies if that is what they are in fact doing. This user has wasted a lot of time and effort with their numerous requests, many of which are not visible on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Because this made my day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alfred (Freddy) Krupa

Have a look at what I say about the references (mainly the English language ones, but including one in Croat). Peridon (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Brian Cooper (Australia)

• Brian Cooper (Australia) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) ·

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to contact you - so I will try posting here. You removed my site for copyright infringement. The site you referenced was also created by me. I have removed that site now and I would like my[REDACTED] article restored please. The site I removed was http://web.me.com/picinapod/Brian_Cooper/Brian_Cooper.html)) -Miriam12345 (talk)

(talk page stalker) It reads like an WP:ESSAY, is WP:SOAP, really does not have much to do with the subject of the article, is clearly a WP:COPYRIGHTED piece of work, and I can't find any good reason for it to exist in an encyclopedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Normally, I would inform the OP of how to release the text under cc-by-sa but that text, copyrighted or not, does not come anywhere close to being a "wikipedia article". I would advise the OP to hit random article a few times to see what articles actually look like. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I rescind my request -Miriam12345 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3

As this RfC is being approached more like a user RfC I'm not sure threaded discussion is really sensible, so I thought I'd ask you here about your "Another view". Firstly as a non-admin my problem isn't with not being able to see the deletions per se, it's the effect that this has on my ability to influence the policy on its use that it the problem as I see it. From what I understand it has long been the view that admins are nothing special, they just do what the larger community asks of them. That is that policy etc is decided on by the wider community not just admins. With normal deletions there's enough review of it (at RevDel or else where) that I as an admin feel that I can adequately comment on, and help create, policy etc. It is my view that simple guidelines, like those at WP:REVDEL will never by themselves suffice to inform admins what the community view is as they are too open to interpretation and admins can inpret them too many ways. Review of their actions allow admins to better know how the community feels the guidelines should be interpreted. Without that review how do you propose admins get the sense for how the community wants them to use the tool? Even if we accept (and I don't) that only admins should be involved in this process without a review mechanism it still suffers from exactly the same problem that admins are likely to apply it inconsistently as there's no guidance on how the guidelines should be interpreted. Dpmuk (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with reviewing the policy, that is something we should do periodically with any policy. After several days of discussion about this it seems clear to me that the examples used were instances where the individual edits by themselves don't look so bad but were in fact part of a mass-vandalism spree. Completely removing all trace of said spree serves the project's best interest. If a user feels their edit has been unfairly deleted they can always ask the deleting admin to restore it. If it wasn't vandalism and they can explain why the admin was mistaken they should of course reverse the deletion, like any other flawed admin action. The fact is most admin actions are not reviewed. I would say that less than 1% of speedy deletions are reviewed, because they don't need to be. In the case of this particular application of RevDel it is essentially a more powerful form of Rollback. The only question we need ask is "was the edit vandalism or not?" If the answer is yes then Misplaced Pages is well served by having it removed entirely. There has still been no evidence presented that there is a widespread problem here, so I don't see any need for any kind of formalized review process. RevDel gets used a lot, more with each passing day it seems, but if it is being used to remove vandalism from a page's history I see that as a good thing. If more substantial evidence of a widespread problem was to surface I might feel differently but to date we have only seen a very few examples, and those were shown to be part of a vandal attack. (see the rfc talk page for more detail on that). Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly see where you're coming from although I disagree with some of it. I'd agree that the particular examples used in this case seem a reasonable use of RevDel but we shouldn't ignore the whole issue just because someone chose bad examples. As for if it's getting rid of vandalism it's OK I have two concerns with that, firstly it's not what the guidelines say and secondly what if an admin gets it wrong. By setting the bar higher that's less likely to happen. I don't have a huge problem with the idea of all vandalism being RevDel'ed but that clearly needs a new community consensus. My biggest concern however is that the reason we're not seeing a problem is because at the moment RevDels are not being reviewed at all and so even though there may be problems we may not be spotting them. For example how many RevDels have you reviewed? Dpmuk (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If I see them in a page's recent history I usually check them, maybe about fifty. Are you thinking we should review them all or that we should have some specific place for asking for review? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what the answer is, hence why I'm discussing it. It's certainly good that at least some people are reviewing them - I don't think they all need to be reviewed but why this is still relatively new I do think a formal random review may be worthwhile. I don't see this as a long term thing just something to help us develop stable guidelines etc on RevDel. Once that's done there'd be no need for it. Longer term and for review of specific deletion, well I think we'll have to wait and see how often things are queried and whether ANI can cope with that level. Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

THANKS

I am glad that I could come across an Administrator who thinks rationally. I am not Naadapriya76.212.1.85 (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually do anything besides de-activate your unblock request, your block had already expired. Thanks for the compliment though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A request

Hi Beeblebrox,

May I ask you to semi-protect my userpage and my talkpage for rabid ip vandalism? Regards.--Nmate (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

While that is extremely nasty the three diffs are spread out over a period of months. I'll do the user page as we usually do those if anyone asks but as for the talk page, Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotecting Amy Chua's page?

Hi Beeblebrox! Any word on when Amy Chua's page will be unprotected? I thought it was 23:55 UTC but that time has come and gone, so thought I'd check in. I'd like to work on tightening some of the language, and adding in some new commentary/critiques/defenses, as per discussions on the Talk page. I think it's especially important because Chua is appearing on Fox and Colbert on Tuesday, so there will probably be a lot of traffic. The page as it is has some editorial language issues (as noted by Jimmy), and I'd like to help fix it! Let me know. Thanks! Qalandariyya (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Already unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A Suggestion

I notice that you added an image request for the Oshkosh Grand Opera House. I took an image and uploaded it over 4 years before the article existed. I suggest that before you request that a photograph be taken for an object listed on the National Register of Historic Places that you check to see if one has been uploaded on the county page for the object. In this case, it is the National Register of Historic Places listings in Winnebago County, Wisconsin. There are many photographers taking photos of listings throughout the United States; even some of the more obscure places are fully illustrated. Royalbroil 02:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I requested the photo, you knew it already existed because you took it four years before there was an article for it, you added it and removed the request. I don't see what the problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that you would be interested to know that there's a placement system for photographs of historic places. It's wise to check it first before requesting photos for these places. I came across the article by happenstance. There's no harm or foul, just a little knowledge if you're interested. No offense intended by a mere suggestion. Royalbroil 02:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your timely intervention at The National Archives. It's a rare pleasure and relief to encounter an admin who sees what needs doing and just does it instead of expanding the whole issue into a vast bureaucratic nightmare for once!--Harumphy (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I got all the redirects retargeted as well. With move protection on this shouldn't happen again without consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought

Hi,Beeb, assuming GF, I wonder if it's just coincidence that you appear to disagree with almost everything I say or suggest on Misplaced Pages ;) You know, I do have the best interests of the Misplaced Pages at heart. --Kudpung (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do? I honestly hadn't noticed. I would suggest that we are both just active in a lot of policy discussions, I'm not stalking you or anything and I'm sure we are both only arguing for what we believe is right. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lawline again

Hi Beeblebrox. I just blocked SnoopyPA (talk · contribs) as a fairly obvious sock of Lawline. Same MO: straight to Hot Lap Dance Club where it proceeded to shave off a bit more of that already drastically reduced article. There are also a couple of other "tells" which I'm sure you'll notice. This account was actually created a couple of hours before the previous sock, FreedomFighter77 (talk · contribs), so I'll request a CheckUser to ferret out sleepers. Favonian (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised. With the article now gone perhaps that will be the end of it. Then again, they were blanking large parts of the article then arguing to keep it along with swearing they were quitting Misplaced Pages then demanding to be unblocked so who knows. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BrekekekexKoaxKoax‎;

Small point -- while I am glad you have blocked this user, was it for the BLP edits or for the usertalk page attack on user:John? To explain, I put in my comment pointing out how Brek's reference to the Nazi anthem was a personal attack. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the above. A clear pattern of disregard for numerous policies, and now with a bunch of unhelpful sarcasm and personal attacks on top of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your support. --John (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

William Houston Blount

Beeblebrox

Just yesterday you deleted the entry of William Houston Blount, thank you for taking the time to consider his entry. However I think I agree with your line that "you are a stickler for the letter of the criteria as opposed to the spirit" and in this case re notability. I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Blount's case was properly considered as he is without a doubt a notable person in the state of Alabama and the southeastern United States. Mr. Blount's passing was covered by an article on the front page of the Business Section of the Birmingham News, in addition an op ed by the same newspaper (I know same source) was written just to cover and reiterate what a significant resource to the city of Birmingham he was. His death was covered on a radio station as well. He was a significant player in the creation and growth of two major NYSE and AMEX listed companies. He was inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame, he had a major tanker named after him, a charity named after him and documented major philanthropist for the state of Alabama. All this was noted in my entry with references and links however even more of his active work which was covered in the 70 and 80's never made it online.

I just wanted to make sure you understood the above significant and notable things he accomplished and just made the deletion decision because he was the focus of only two articles which happened to be the same source. While I still disagree with your "stickler for the letter basis" as it omits a notable person from wikipedia, I wanted to make sure his case was carefully considered. Thanks for your time. Houstonbking (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Houstonbking (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC) —

Here's the thing, when an administrator closes an articles for deletion discussion, their own opinion of the article does not enter into it. My task was to evaluate what consensus was reached in the course of discussion. Arguments with a firm basis in Misplaced Pages policy are given greater weight than those that do not have it. Lack of multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage is the primary reason articles are deleted from Misplaced Pages, and that seems to be the case here. I'll grant that if more users had participated a more clear consensus may have emerged but unfortunately that was not the case despite the fact that it was given a full 14 days as opposed to the usual 7. If you feel my interpretation was in error you may appeal at deletion review. (and please add new comments at the bottom of a page, not the top, I didn't even see this at first. The best way to add a new topic to a talk page is to use the "new section" tab at the upper right of the page) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and time. Sorry about misplacement of the new topic. Meanwhile I'll consider next steps Re Misplaced Pages and WH Blount . Houstonbking (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined CSD on Celebrity Reflection

I had no idea about infoboxes being sufficient reason to decline CSD. Learn something new every day. The sad part is that I fixed the infobox as the original author left it in a sorry state. Oh well. Cheers! SQGibbon (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think it is kind of silly. If you can't come uo with one sentence you haven't actually written an article, but that is the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock on hold template

Please accept my humble apologies for omitting to use this template. As you point out, you already pointed out the same omission in May of last year. I do not think I have omitted to use it inbetween these two errors; it will not occuur again. --Anthony Bradbury 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness it's not just you. I would estimate that about 30% of recent requests I have reviewed are still listed despite an admin already having engaged with the subject but for some reason they don't actually touch the template. I've even seen cases where they have clearly accepted or declined the request but still haven't altered the actual template. It's kind of aggravating. (conversely, I saw one last week where they accepted the request but forgot to actually unblock the user and they had to request it again) Anyway, you apology is of course gladly accepted, I may have been a bit cranky, it was still early morning where I am at that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Being Human (North American TV series)

I was wondering if you could give me some assistance here. CloudKade11 (talk · contribs) has moved all the articles relating to the "North American TV series" to "US TV series" without commenting on the discussion. I posted a message on their talk page advising them to read the discussion and to comment on it. I also stated that I would be reverting their edits. CloudKade11 simply ignored me and performed the move again. I was wondering if you could protect the page from page moves and then move it back to North American TV series as per the discussion. The user is claiming it has nothing to do with Canada despite the cited sources saying it does. Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  08:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See the talk page, I've re-instated protections. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  09:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thank you too. I guess i missed one set of the moves. B, for the record, the moves of Being Human from U.S. to 2011 to Canadian were not fighting but trying to find a viable disambiguation. Noöne was upset about or contested any of those moves. They were "i have a better idea, let's try this". Please remember to look into updating the episode count Monday night as i am not sure many other admins are involved with the article. Cheers delirious & lost ☯ 11:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail!

--Bsadowski1 09:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible need for RevDel?

Hi there. I found where somebody cut-and-pasted an entire chapter from this book into the Two Egg, Florida article, in this diff. It was reverted (charitably due to being "unsourced") by another editor, and I've warned the IP editor who added it appropriately, but I'm wondering if this calls for Revision Deletion per CFRD #1? And the IP has put the entire copyvio text on his talk page, too... Thanks for your time. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and I gave them a stern warning about repeating these copyvios and some guidance on how to proceed if they actually have permission to be reprinting this content. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The copyvio is still visible in this revision. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the mop needed to make a second pass, got it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Tiderolls 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

remake Women's superiority as redirect to Matriarchy?

A page named "Women's superiority" was deleted. In December, it was visited 311 times. You deleted it Jan. 3 because the related article had (I think) already been deleted. To my knowledge, if it was a redirect, it was not a subject of an RfD. May I recreate it as a redirect to Matriarchy? or should I ask elsewhere? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the term "Women's superiority" is synonymous with "Matriarchy" but you are free to recreate it as redirect. It was in fact deleted solely because it pointed to a page that had been deleted at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not synonymous, but it's close enough, given the articles available and considering that people are trying to get to the information. The intended redirect's subject is discussed extensively in the destination article, so it'll be relevant, and the destination article cross-references the only other article of likely relevance. I'll get to making a redirect soon. Thanx again. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh

No, I did not ask you to verify there was "consensus" about any move. Forget about the move, alright? This is entirely about article scope (WP:SYNTH and WP:CFORK). The move was just one attempt to resolve these problems. I will be perfectly happy with any alternative approach.

I asked you to verify whether the page is in violation of WP:CFORK and whether it is about any reconizable topic. As you may know, Misplaced Pages pages in article space need to declare that they have some recognizable scope which can be established based on references. As an uninvolved administrator, it should be possible for you to look at the page and understand what it is proposing to discuss. If this is the case, I would be interested in what that is. If not, I would ask you to do something about it.

Please understand that I am not involved in any content dispute. I am involved in an administrative attempt to enforce the "one article per topic" policy. This edit should be sufficient to illustrate the purpose of my involvement even for the completely uninitiated.

Can you please give me the benefit of doubt that I may actually know what I am doing? I have been an administrator since 2004, and I am not known for using my admin tools as lever in content disputes. When I say that this isn't a content dispute, you may consider the possibility that it is, in fact, not a content dispute. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already made it abundantly clear to you that I think what you should do is walk away from this situation. CFORK is a content guideline, so once again you are mischaracterizing the situation. This is not a problem that calls for "enforcement" by an admin, it is a problem that calls for a consensus based decision to a mutually agreeable solution. The fact that it has been difficult to arrive at such a solution does not change that. I never said you were not a generally competent admin, but you did misuse your tools in this case. I don't see any reason to continue to discuss this issue with you since you are not receptive to my point of view and I am not willing to take over your "enforcement action." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Lars Haeh

I have taken the liberty of unblocking this user, despite the fact that at User talk:Lars Haeh you were named as the Reviewing administrator with the unblock on hold. The reviewing admin has been editing infrequently recently, and has not responded to the request to comment. Since you, I, and another admin have all independently examined the case and seen no evidence of the supposed problem, it seemed better not to leave the user waiting indefinitely. If you think I was wrong to unblock at this stage please reblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good call to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What did you mean?

--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that all Arabs have degenerate minds. Maybe I misread what your intent was but if that is what you are saying... Please tell me I'm way off base and have misinterpreted your intent, that would be great. 22:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)