Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 25 February 2010 (→Alan Lipman protection: fix link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Liscard

I know you declined my last protection request, but it is getting a bit silly with IPs persistently adding vandalism. I also suspect that few people have this page on watch, so it seems to rely on me to revert - and I'm not always around! Do we have to live with it or can it be protected until they get bored and go away? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The current level of vandalism is not high enough to warrant protection, normally there needs to be multiple instances each day. I've watchlisted the page myself now, and I'll try to help keep a lid on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your onpoint message on User:FisherQueen's talk page. It was somewhat helpful. I really felt demeaned, but I am moving on. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also deeply offended. Frankly I would rather be on the receiving end of an obscene tirade than an accusation of being a nazi, even if based on the "pop culture" use of the word, but I think the point has been made and acknowledged and we can safely put it behind us now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Kinda wondering why you didn't do that half an hour ago.

Oh well. HalfShadow 23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Brendan Burke discussion

Beeblebrox, I was stating why I perceived so many people to be passionate, to the point of hostility in some cases, about the Brendan Burke article (which made FisherQueen so exasperated that he felt that he had to respond with "fuck you" to one of the editors). I was not trying to: "USE LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS to make it clear that "I was" RIGHT and anyone that disagrees with "my" CAPITAL LETTERS must be WRONG". I was using the capital letters for emphasis -in a way to mirror the emphasis that a human speaker would use when naturally speaking.

I thought this was a common enough stylistic element that its use would be apparent.

There is no right or wrong here (assuming you really believe that people are acting in good faith when they comment on, or edit an article). I merely wanted to explain why so many people were upset regarding certain editors of Misplaced Pages, and their perceived tendency to trivialize people or events that the populace at large may have a lack of knowledge about. If my writing style offended you, that was not my intent. If it prevented you from understanding my intent, then that too was a failure on my part.

I simply wanted to elucidate the passion that those who have followed this story since it broke have about Brendan's accomplishments. It would be a shame if the article were deleted due to a lack of due diligence. Thank you Lou2u (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hall Nigel

Thanks for that redirect -:)...Modernist (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

misc.

Did I post this one here before? It seems to fit all of us sometimes. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, actually I saw that when you posted it at a previous WGB discussion. Reminds me of my ex wife. "We can work it out, I really mean it this time, I won't blow any more of your friends this time..." Sorry, having a flashback. I should thank her, I used to be very naive about such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Vaguely reminds me of a W.C. Fields quote about a woman who drove him to drink. I'll have to see if I can find that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And here it is, after Gloria Jean asks "Uncle Bill" Fields why he never married: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to give me a copy my article that was turned into a redirect.

This morning, I created a new page, symptoms of influenza. It was blanked and redirected a short while later. I would appreciate it provide me a copy of this article in my userspace. Thank you. Immunize (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Click here for your new subpage. I don't mind at all doing this, but just for future reference you actually could have done it yourself as the page has not been deleted and the page history is still available. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Immunize (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM

In both your unblock notice and your post to WP:AN you referred to an Arbcom motion regarding CoM. Unfortunately I can't find any such motion upon visiting WP:RFAR and drilling down. Can you point me to it? Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Butting in ... rudely? helpfully? Anyway, think what Beeblebrox is referring to is here Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Statement_by_ChildofMidnight Gerard 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I sort of guessed that he actually meant the probation page but he specifically mentioned Arbcom several times. I'm not always the brightest bulb in the chandelier so thought perhaps I had missed something. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an educated guess on my part, too. It's the enforcement page for an Arbcom decision, isn't it? Gerard 04:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. It was an alternative to arbcomm taking a case, or thinking about taking a case William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerardw is correct, that is the ArbCom action I was referring to. As I try to stay away from ArbCom if I can, it seems I was imprecise or inaccurate in my description of what processes are in motion overt there. Also see my message to CoM below regarding his unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai‎

Thanks for protecting the Yehuda Amichai‎ article. I note you commented "Just a reminder, the only exception to the edit warring policy is blatant vandalism" - I did try the warning and AIV route, but that was rejected on the grounds that it's a content dispute rather than vandalism. Can you advise on what to do if User:Afalpi fails to take part in the mediation discussion and carries on in the same manner once the protection is lifted? -- Boing! said Zebedee 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If they continue to edit war after protection is expired, they can be blocked for that. So can anyone else who edit participates in an edit war. That was my point. Asking for protection and/or pursuing dispute resolution = good, edit warring = bad. Hopefully a settlement will be reached on the talk page and it won't be a problem any more. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks - if necessary, I'll request further protection and escalate DRR. -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: What's the correct procedure for reporting an editor who resumes an edit war after protection has expired? (My Twinkle ARV link only has limited 'vandalism' reports)? -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WOW!

Beeblebrox, I'm very upset about your entry in my block log, which is already cluttered with bullshit. There was unanimous recognition that the block was not warranted and inappropriate for a variety of reasons. So why you would enter something about unblocking me to participate in another forum where I'm being harassed over the same edits I have no idea. Please make a proper entry that reflects the consensus. I'm very unhappy about this and disappointed that you would misrepresent the outcome of my request to be unblocked. What the heck were you thinking? Not good. Please make sure you're absolutely clear that the unanimous consensus was that the block and it's reasoning were faulty. I'm getting smeared enough as it is without you adding to the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

2010-02-13T02:45:53 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) unblocked "ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to allow him to participate in ArbCom case related to his actions) seems very clear, and appeared to reflect the consensus of discussion. However, CoM disagrees; and by his edits he has shown that he intends to disregard your unblock conditions. I think it would be desirable for you to clarify your position William M. Connolley (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(@CoM) I'm sorry this has upset you so much. The message I left on your talk page when unblocking you was pretty clear I think, and reflects both reasons for your unblock, but you are right that I failed to include the primary reason in the log, and that primary reason you are unblocked is because of the discussion at WP:AN. Additionally, at no time did I state that this was a conditional unblock only to allow participation in the ArCom case, there are no terms attached to the unblocking. I apologize for any inconvenience this matter has caused you, I had in no way intended to insinuate that the ArbCom proceeding was the sole reason for your unblock, it was just an oversight on my part. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know what to believe Beeblebrox. Truly I don't. your unblock statement is already being used by the blocking admin to justify further going after me at the climate change forum where I'm being retried for the same stuff. Obviously I'm upset and frustrated. If you look at my edits before this all started you will see I was doing article work. I've been trying to avoid conflict and waiting very patiently for admins to deal with the nastiness in the Climate topic area so that I can edit there collegially without attacks and baiting. I thought I did a good job of avoiding responding to the many many provocations although I have been outspoken about the biased enforcements that have been noted my many good faithe ditors. If you would clarify your unblock and add yet another entry in my block log I would appreciate. If not, well I guess it is what it is. But I don't think it's right, and the fact that it's already being used to abuse me by the same admin who issued the block is telling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just re-read the blocking policy to make sure I wouldn't just be making things worse, and it seems there is precedent for making such a block, so I'll block you for one minute or whatever in order to clarify the matter. As for the attacks based on the unblock, if you could point out where this is occurring I'd be happy to set them straight about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate it. I'm very frustrated right now as a lot of nasty and untrue things have been said about me. So I'm going to try to take a break. Take care and have fun. :) I hope you won't miss me too terribly. ;) In the meantime, keep the faith, I don't expect to be gone long. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

talk page stalker/Peanut Gallery returns: Hard to know for sure as I am not privy to CoM's existing relationship with editors, but on his talk page this ] seems less than helpful. In addition there were multiple edits, since struck out, by a user determined to be a sock User:संपादक. In addition there were the comments at WP:AN but which, if any, are attacks and which are comments is a matter of interpretation. Gerard 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured he was referring to BozMo's claims at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, and have tried to clarify the situation: . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of courtesy I should mention I give an opinion on this unblock on my talk page. :

Certainly I am not fussed about my nose. However there is a correct procedure for appealing blocks, you put an unblock notice and an admin considers it. When you are involved with a group of other people in a large scale content dispute under probation per Climate Change deciding instead that you want the block posted on AN/I whilst it is still current so editors who was engaged on your side can all say how injust it was, in my view was a process failure but life is too short to worry about it. And yes, I guess being told would have been more courteous. I was told when I became an admin that if people did not call you Hitler sometimes you were failing to do your job and I don't often run into this kind of thing so I am not going to be weeping into my porridge. --BozMo talk 07:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Tod

Just to clarify. Vladimir Tod seems to be a fictional character in three published books by Heather Brewer where I redirected it before the creator restored the version with CSD template.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

huh. Ok, let me have a look at restoring it as a redirect then. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure if this whole thing is notable. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is ok?

I put a AFD tag here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nodar_Kumaritashvili&action=historysubmit&diff=343844459&oldid=343844024 He is not notable but an article called Death of Nodar might be. Cassandra 73 removed the tag. If he disagrees then discuss it. It is not like an AFD tag is on Michael Jackson or France articles.

This is blockable. If not, then anyone can wipe out your user page on the excuse "I disagree". Why are people so mean. Please administrate and block Cassandra 73 or at least put back the AFD tag. Revenge No (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be like doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABeeblebrox&action=historysubmit&diff=343847684&oldid=343847481 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revenge No (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, don't mess with my talk page just to prove a point. Secondly, I'm on my way out the door right now to go to a Homebrewing competition, so I'm pretty much booked solid for the rest of the day. You can request any edits you want done to the page by using Template:editprotected on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Anja Juliette Laval

Hey there Beeblebrox. Just wanted to follow up on the speedy tag I placed on Anja Juliette Laval. I considered an unsourced BLP of a pornographic actress, which would certainly be a bad thing if it was wrong, to fit WP:CSD#G10. I did that for a couple of them, but then I switched to prodding the articles as such: What do you think about that line of tagging instead? NW (Talk) 20:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems valid to me. Frankly I think the vast majority of porn actors don't meet the bar for inclusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I did mention my argument for why this performer meets WP:PORNBIO on the talk page for that article. It kind of bugs me that nobody even seems to bother to read the talk page and so much takes the time to discuss the issue before speedy deleting. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the G10'ing of unsourced porn bios. If G10 is going to be declined, or PROD is to be used instead, then the allegations that would be harmful if untrue--such that so-and-so appeared in adult films--should be removed until and unless sourced. In some cases, that would make the articles A1 or A3 candidates, so just G10'ing the entire thing is probably more appropriate than a trim-and-prod. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think I should just speedy these articles if people are going to do things like this. Thoughts on how to deal with issues like this? NW (Talk) 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai

Hi there. There's been a request at RPP to extend the protection on this article as the dispute hasn't been resolved. To save me wading through the history, I thought you might be able to make a quicker decision, so I thought I'd raise it here. Cheers. GedUK  10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended for two days. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that. Could you please help by telling me what I need to do if I see the edit war continuing - how do I report it for admin attention? -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Would it be considered improper for me to notify the other involved editors that an RfC is in progress? -- Boing! said Zebedee 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If they were already involved, it wouldn't be canvassing if you sent them a neutrally worded message about it. Edit warring can be reported here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're no longer banned from my talk page.

After doing some thinking, I realize that you were only trying to help, so I will allow you to continue posting. However, please do not be patronizing and all that stuff. It's not just you, though. I don't like it when anybody patronizes me. Also, thank you for the help on the "Archives" section on Apparition's talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

self-requested blocks

Beeblebrox, you seem like a nice guy who's got his Misplaced Pages act together, but other than that, I'll admit you're kindof a random user to be asking this question.

I noticed that Misplaced Pages's policy is to NOT enforce self-requested blocks. Instead, they refer you to a JavaScript-based "wikibreak enforcer" which may be used instead, but all that does is keep you from logging in, it doesn't prevent you from creating alternate accounts or using Misplaced Pages anonymously (although, come to think of it, the same could be said about blocking users too).

I'm curious, do you know why Misplaced Pages doesn't honor such requests? I'm interested because I'm borderline OCD, and a voluntary block option would be helpful, since staying off Misplaced Pages is not always a simple matter of will power. Interestingly, the IMDb has a similar policy; they refused to ban me from the message boards, and gave me an alternative that, much like the wikibreak enforcer, is more or less ineffective in keeping me off the site.

If you think it's inappropriate that I'm bugging you about this, I apologize. If you don't mind, but don't know the answers either, any advice on where to ask these same questions would be appreciated; sometimes it's difficult for me to figure out what questions go on what pages. Thanks. Minaker (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the policy, which you can see here, says that such requests are generally not granted, it does not say it can't or shouldn't be done. I think the logic behind it is that Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and indeed it isn't, and often persons requesting such blocks end up asking for them to be lifted before the agreed upon term. However, I personally think it's more or less harmless to block someone for a while at their request, and I'm willing to do so under the following conditions:

• It has to be for a substantial length of time, not just one or two days.
• You will be hardblocked, meaning you will not be able to edit your talk page or use Misplaced Pages's email system to request unblock for the duration of the block
• You agree not to try and evade the block. If I find out there has been sockpuppetry occurring the deal is off permanently.

I was actually thinking of creating a category for admins to add themselves to Category:Administrators willing to consider to requests for self blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AL Dhafeer

How should we go about improving this article? Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this your way of contesting my decline of your speedy nom? As I said, I was able to pull just enough context out of it to establish what it was, so it does not qualify for the specific criteria under which you nominated it. I also added it to relevant WikiProjects in the hope that those who have some knowledge of Arab tribal topics might be able to improve it. Improvements can be made in the same manner as they are made to any other new stub article, by searching for sources to verify and expand the content, by cleaning up the article and clarifying the language, by finding relevant internal and external links that may be appropriate to add to the article, that sort of thing. Many Misplaced Pages articles started off in a pretty pathetic state, and many are created by users whose grasp of the English language is somewhat lacking but that does not mean they do not have valid contributions to make. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your other improvements to the article. My concern was that the article, which was patrolled and untagged, would be left without any further attention.

I'm not offended by your removal--it's not my way of contesting a decline. I am only concerned about the occasion when CSD patrollers remove speedy tags from problematic articles without some other indication that the article needs attention. For example, that might be as simple as a tag, or as complex as a full cleanup. I didn't know what sources you'd found from your edit summary either, which added to my confusion.

Your later edits to the article, of course, negate all of my concerns. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Error

Re this:

21:10, 17 February 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Wickland (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) ‎ (blocked other account indef, making this the standard one week first timer sock block)

21:08, 17 February 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sumbuddi (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (user has indicated they will not be using this account and have a new one, this will "keep them honest")

I think you should read this: User talk:Daniel_Case#Error. Thanks 86.179.106.212 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai RfC again

Really sorry to bring up the Yehuda Amichai RfC again, but despite your warning to not make accusations of sockpuppetry without being prepared to file WP:SPI, User:Afalpi is effectively continuing to do so by referring to me as "Gila Brand , Korny ONear,Boing Dear" - he/she alleges that I, Gilabrand, and Korny O'Near are socks. And Afalpi is showing no sign of good faith at all - editing past discussion to emphasise POV, re-inserting old versions of my comments as if I'd signed them (though admittedly there was a valid point in that one - just executed incorrectly and in bad faith), and repeatedly accusing me of "manipulation". What should I do about this? -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'll just ignore it - thick skin and all that -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Self blocking criteria

I have added another to my personal list, and thought it should be noted to other sysops in the category for consideration. Of course, it is entirely your own choice... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

Hello, it's the person you declined for unblock yesterday. I had forgotten about two doppelganger accounts I created in 2008, this and Paragon of Night Skies (I forgot to tag them, I was new then), and I figured I should let you know about that before I get myself in deeper shit for block evasion. Please do what you will with these two accounts. I used the Paragon of Night Skies one today once to fix a small vandalism on History of Sierra Leone (I happened to be on that page logged out, saw it, logged in, undid the vandalism, then logged into this account to post this). Also, and if you would respond on your talkpage to this, would it be a good idea for me to create a new account that can't be traced back to my original for a fresh start? I don't want to cause any more disruption than I have already, so if you think that's a good idea or if I should do something else, let me know. I wasn't behind either account that was listed on my main talkpage, but I can understand why you would think I was. This isn't me evading my block, I just wanted to give you full disclosure; I'll post this at Mr.Z-man's talk page as well, then I'll log out for good. I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and sockpuppet with an account this similar to my original. My apologies once again. Paragon of Arctic Winter Night (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee and RTV

I disagree with even this . There is still an open sock puppet investigation and there is still a matter of apparent proxies he used to harass users with zero acknowledgment that he's done anything wrong.. I don't really think any kind of courtesy should be extended to him.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My search for the road of least drama does not always succeed. This seemed a good way to just be done with it, but if you have other plans, be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Clark (designer)

Hi Beeblebrox. Thanks for pointing that out. It should have been an A7. In my haste I didn't notice that the nominator had mistagged the nomination. I should have been paying more attention. Thanks for letting me know. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

After the beating I took over just nominating such articles, I'd hate to see it happen to someone else who was after all only acting in good faith. A7 works just fine in this case though. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hari Shankar Tiwari

Thanks for bringing to my notice the surreptitious deletions on this article. mukerjee (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Francis Pollara (2nd nomination)

Let's not salt this. If userfied to its author, I am willing to work with him in trimming the article to remove fluff and promotion, and in cleaning it up with him and explaining how it might eventually be returned if notability can be (eventually) properly sourced.. as no doubtthe author is feeling a common newcomer's angst. At the very least the author might gain a better understanding of how Misplaced Pages works, and at the most we might gain a suitable article. I'd be sure to keep you in the loop and get your input. Schmidt, 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was just thinking that I would not make any further comment in the current debate and when this AfD concludes I would unwatch this page. This is my second go-round with this article, and that's as far as I usually like to take these things. If you think you can actually get it up to par go for it, but don't feel obligated to keep me updated. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Snake Mountain (television)

As you are not opposed to a redirect, please undelete so that we can merge the sourced content. Thank you. Best, --A Nobody 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The only content cited to a source was one sentence which is still viewable at the AfD and apparently you have access to the book it came from anyway, so I don't think I'll be doing that for you today. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This article unquestionably has potential due to its high-level of notability and verifiability. Thus, it would be much appreciated if you undeleted it so that we can improve it further or make the most of what is there for thinking how to merge and add content elsewhere. Thank you for reconsidering! Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was to delete the article. Therefore, the article has been deleted. If you feel strongly that this was an error on my part, I'm sure you know where WP:DRV is by now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping that this reasonable request will be fulfilled without needlessly starting another discussion elsewhere as there was clearly no consensus to delete it:

The nominator was okay with a merge by saying "it should be merged" and as for it being a "minor" part of MOTU, that is not factually correct. It is the main headquarters of the villains and appears as a playset, a game, in the cartoon, in comic books, etc.

The first delete claimed it was "entirely" original research. When I added a source, this claim was no longer true.

This one again was refuted as the claim of there not being a "single" source was addressed by adding a source. It passes WP:V because it is verifiably through dozens of published books and WP:N because of both these multiple sources and the practical reality that it is a major setting adaptaed into toys, games, etc. Calling it trivial is subjective as to myself and others it is non-trivial but a memorable aspect of childhood and a major setting from a major fictional universe and toy franchise.

As for the final delete, as it mentions being covered elsewhere, it provides no reason why we would not redirect there, nor any reason why would not WP:PRESERVE the edit history.

Even if we dicount the keep vote that did provide an argument, we still have three keep arguments that do provide rationales with only an equal number of deletes that are either refuted or do not offer any reason not to keep the edit history under a redirect. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is so typical of how you operate. You initially asked that I restore the article so that you could merge the sourced content. That was all that you asked in that request. When that request was denied based on there being only one sentence of sourced content, you suddenly come up with a bunch of other reasons that are not in fact the reason you initially stated for wanting this undeleted, including your own childhood memories. I had the unlicensed rip-off hand-me-down version myself, I think my grandmother got it from someone she worked with and it sucked compared to the real deal, although it was very nice of her to get it and give it to me. Does that mean we should have an article about that too? Please don't actually answer that. Take it to DRV or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion was one of the more obvious cases of what should be a "no consensus" close that I have seen in a while, but rather than call you on that, I thought it better to start off being polite and just nicely ask that it be undeleted and redirected and that we make the most of whatever we can for the time being. When that reasonable request was rebuffed, then it became necessary to point out that there was no consensus to delete, because the subject is unquestionably notable and verifiable per the available sources, which means it is improveable, and because it is not a hoax or libelous, there is no actual need to delete it. I shouldn't have to start a DRV on something like that. I would much rather give someone a chance, if not a few chances, to do the right thing as a courtesy to a colleague first. As we are not on a timeline, I'll allow you a day or so to reconsider before starting a DRV (besides, American Idol will be on momentarily...). And again, if you hopefully do reconsider, I would certainly appreciate it. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A.N. asked my opinion, and I think the best way to resolve this is by a compromise. Since it is well established at the RS noticeboard in many discussions that the facts of a plot can be taken from the work itself, even if it was not well sourced enough to show notability ,there is no reason to prevent restoring the history and changing to a redirect. And even if you think it actually unsourced even so, there is no rule against having unsourced content in undisplayed versions of an article, or behind a redirect. We would not do it for copyvio or libel, but this is nothing of the sort. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how that would be a compromise. However normally when someone asks me for a copy of a deleted article I do provide it, so User:A Nobody/Snake Mountain is my solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like a copy of my deleted article, Treatment of lung cancer

I would like a copy of my article, treatment of lung cancer. Thank you. Immunize (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the log, this was deleted as unambiguous copyright infringement. As such I can't provide you with a copy of it. We can't have copyright violations anywhere on Misplaced Pages, even in user space. If you think the initial finding was incorrect, you should discuss the matter with the deleting admin User:TimVickers. If that doesn't work out you could pursue a deletion review, but if it really was a copyvio it's not going to be undeleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My plan for this article was to change the article enough that it was no longer a copyvio, and then move it into the article space. Immunize (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to change it so it's not a copyvio before posting it anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I see from your talk page that this has already been explained to you multiple times in the past. This is one of the most serious offenses you can make on Misplaced Pages as it exposes the project to legal risk, and it is one of the few things that is absolutely not negotiable. You need to understand and abide by it if you wish to continue contributing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jake9624

You recently blocked User:Jake9624 for 72hrs for persistent vandalism. Wouldn't an indef block be more appropriate for what seems to be (from the point of a humble rollbacker) a vandalism only account. Thanks! Acather96 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally I like to give them a chance to learn from their mistakes. Their editing history is very brief, so "persistent" may be an overstatement. One single future act of vandalism after this block expires would certainly be sufficient to merit an indef block. Usually, they just go away when blocked, but some return to vandalize again, and every once in a while we are lucky enough to actually get through to a vandal and they reform and become good contributors. If I have to issue two blocks instead of one to find out which of these three paths they will take I think it's worth the effort. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here, have a cheeseburger:

Acather96 (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Acather96 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was actually just thinking of making bacon cheeseburgers for lunch since I happen to have everything on hand for once. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SeaWorld parks

Thank you for the full protect. Things have been getting hectic, not just the content dispute, but also IPs adding the name of the trainer, something consensus has said is inappropriate. This handles both issues. Thanks again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Alan Lipman protection

Hello,

I am writing regarding the blocking of the page "Alan Lipman".

This page has contributions from multiple scholars and contributors, over an extensive period.

As of several days ago, an individual by the name of Bender235 began to post items stating that this was an autobiography and a violation of copyright law.

I am the author of the page, and am not Dr. Lipman, do not know him, and am not even a man:> and I am an attorney specializing in international law and human rights, peacekeeping, and scientific/intellectual property, I responded with rather extensive notes addressing and allaying his concerns. (I have never been called a "vandal" before and my mother would be very disappointed).

I think it was understandable that he had a concern, as he was acting from incomplete inmformation, although there was extensive commenatry from other scholars and contributors on this. In any event, I wrote several explanatory notes, to which Bender unfortunately did not respond, given case and docket demands, making this quite difficult. You can see the series of attempts to communicate this information and the lack of response.

Today, I left the following, hoping to finally address these apparent concerns with utter clarity:

"Hello. I wrote this. I am not Dr. Lipman. I do not know him, nor have I ever even met him. I am not even a man

I am an attorney, working as a part of a consortium of scientists, attorneys, and academicians to establish a complete record of researchers and research centers in civil science, civil right, international law, scientific law and intellectual property/record keeping in science, and legal and economic innovation in regional and collective security and peacekeeping.

My work includes creating, reviewing and monitoring research and biographical information regarding significant figures in international and comparative law, security, violence, and peacekeeping, and civil rights. This is daily work that brings my training in national and international law, civil science, intellectual property and copyright, and violence to the fore. As a result, we have met :>

BTW, I see, I think that you are in Thuringia. I have been frequently there, as well as to Heidelberg, for collabporative work with Max Planck Inst. and Friedrich Schiller Jena. regarding the Carl Zeiss Foundation/Abbe Institute. A wonderful place, to which I have returned many times.

Very exciting and stimulating interaction between law, social and behavioral sciences, economics there--I remember exciting conversation with Dr. Lingelbach on civil right, and a fascinating discussion with Dr. Ruhland on data mining. The interdisciplinary approach between science, law, economics, and civil/social right that is the heart and passion of my work.

It has also allowed me to discover the beautiful Saale Valley--the Romanticist House, Schiller's house!--a beautiful area. I intend to return soon.

On this entry, I have written it. It is my work! Please be so kind as to recognize it as such, as I spill my coffee in the morning correcting this and I enjoy my coffee!

You seem quite dedicated and I am impressed by this. To save us both more spilled coffee and time, which unfortunately is very sparse, I give you this effort again, so that it will be entirely clear:

A.

1) Go to www.gcsv.org/index.htm

2) Open the code for the site.

3) Scroll to:

4) Next, scroll to:

As you can see, it says "From Misplaced Pages." Twice.

I know without question that my Misplaced Pages citation existed before the GCSV cite of it, as it is exactly my job to monitor such sites.

But, even though the proof is before your eyes, let us say you still endure, with Thuringian stoicism! :>

>Next, go to Dr. Lipman's other professional site--found so simply using Google:

1) Go to www.linkedin.com/dralanjlipman

2) Scroll down past the picture of Dr. Lipman at the White House to the Biography:

3) Read: Dr. Alan J. Lipman’s Summary

"Dr. Alan J. Lipman is the licensed clinical psychologist as well as a Juris Doctor from Georgetown Law Center, in clinical practice in Washington, DC, known for his appearances on MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, NBC Evening News, Court TV, and the BBC. Dr. Lipman is an expert in the areas of violence, violent behavior, crime, and terrorism, as well as in the general areas of psychology and psychotherapy. In the area of terrorism, he has been a prominent commentator on the causes and effects of terrorism, the psychology of terrorists, and on public fear. Dr. Lipman combines his legal expertise with his clinical knowledge, a powerful combination in these areas..

Dr. Lipman is a frequent commentator on crime and violence, including the causes of murder; school shootings; family homicide; terrorism; white collar crime and workplace/community violence.

Accomplishments

Dr. Lipman has served as a professor at Georgetown University, The George Washington University, and Rutgers University, and has also held positions at The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Yale Psychiatric Institute. At Georgetown, he founded both the Center for the Study of Violence and the Georgetown Youth Violence Summit. He also served as Co-Chairman of the Academic Advisory Council of the White House Campaign Against Youth Violence, initiated at a White House summit during the Clinton Administration, as a consultant on the effects of September 11, 2001 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to the U.S. Department of State. He lectures both nationally and internationally on violence.

Dr. Lipman is author on 15 publications in professional journals, and has been interviewed over 200 times by such publications and organizations as The Washington Post, the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, Agence France Press, U.S. News and World Report, USA Today, The National Post on violence, crime, and terrorism.

From Misplaced Pages."

Note the bottom:

"From Misplaced Pages".

Again.

But, you say, hanging on with inexplicably stubborn persistence, what about the cached version--before we have had the pleasure to meet?

I look it up:

"This is Google's cache of http://www.linkedin.com/in/dralanjlipman. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Feb 18, 2010 01:35:29 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more

Dr. Alan J. Lipman is the licensed clinical psychologist as well as a Juris Doctor from Georgetown Law Center, in clinical practice in Washington, DC, known for his appearances on MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, NBC Evening News, Court TV, and the BBC. Dr. Lipman is an expert in the areas of violence, violent behavior, crime, and terrorism, as well as in the general areas of psychology and psychotherapy. In the area of terrorism, he has been a prominent commentator on the causes and effects of terrorism, the psychology of terrorists, and on public fear. Dr. Lipman combines his legal expertise with his clinical knowledge, a powerful combination in these areas..

Dr. Lipman is a frequent commentator on crime and violence, including the causes of murder; school shootings; family homicide; terrorism; white collar crime and workplace/community violence.

Accomplishments

Dr. Lipman has served as a professor at Georgetown University, The George Washington University, and Rutgers University, and has also held positions at The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Yale Psychiatric Institute. At Georgetown, he founded both the Center for the Study of Violence and the Georgetown Youth Violence Summit. He also served as Co-Chairman of the Academic Advisory Council of the White House Campaign Against Youth Violence, initiated at a White House summit during the Clinton Administration, as a consultant on the effects of September 11, 2001 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to the U.S. Department of State. He lectures both nationally and internationally on violence.

Dr. Lipman is author on 15 publications in professional journals, and has been interviewed over 200 times by such publications and organizations as The Washington Post, the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, Agence France Press, U.S. News and World Report, USA Today, The National Post on violence, crime, and terrorism.

From Misplaced Pages."

From Misplaced Pages.

I would ask you to reread the information I gave to you regarding copyright law--which represents two years of international and national intellectual property!--and is the law on this, as any lawyer knows, but I know what it is to be a student. So I have skipped two lunches and a meeting to answer you, again--on your terms.

Now please in the fuiture let me save my coffee's precious and vital stimulation and warmth!

With regard and affection,

Maria

Best wishes in your studies,

Mariaf1984law@yahoo.com

I can say with right hand raised that I have never vandalized so much as a cherry blossom. I think it is difficult to change something when you provide information that responds to the information stated and it is responded to in the same way. It is interesting to engage in this, but I am running out of ways to respond, and the day is only so long. Please assist. Many thanks.

Maria64.134.69.162 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I can help out here. Firstly, where did you originally post this message? I don't see it on Bender's talk page or the article's talk page. The right place for this discussion would be Talk:Alan Lipman. One of Misplaced Pages's five pillars is that all content must be presented from a neutral point of view, and I think this is what concerns Bender. Misplaced Pages's copyright policy is somewhat stricter than most other websites, and takes some getting used to, but it seems clear to me that you are acting in good faith and I'm sure this can all be resolved. If you find yourself in an intractable dispute with another user, we have numerous forms of dispute resolution available. The simplest one is requesting a third opinion at WP:3O. It's not binding, but it can help. Another is requests for comment, which invites the community to comment so that a consensus may be reached on a given issue. And it's a good is idea to make your remarks brief, as in a lot briefer than the above posting, if you want them to be read and the salient points understood. Finally, may I suggest that you create an account? It's absolutely not required, but it's easier for both yourself and others to track your contributions, especially since it seems you have a dynamic ip address that changes frequently. So, to sum up, you should probably pursue some form of dispute resolution with Bender via Talk:Alan Lipman, I'll send him a message linking to this conversation as well, and you may find things go smoother if you create an account. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)