This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Armbrust (talk | contribs) at 05:42, 24 July 2012 (→User:Beeblebrox/EditCounterOptIn.js: THX). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:42, 24 July 2012 by Armbrust (talk | contribs) (→User:Beeblebrox/EditCounterOptIn.js: THX)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to my talk page
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.
Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.
 | This user is currently being considered for bureaucratship. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Beeblebrox. |
Pending changes question
Beeblebrox, I read this comment, and I have a question. Now that the "consensus" is to implement PC, is the Foundation willing to spend their money on developers to change the tool? Basically, my question is: if I want to change the draft policy in a way that would require altering the functionality of PC, is that ok? Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- (See here if you want more detail for the kinds of changes I'm thinking of.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact I believe that is the whole point of the way the closers set things up. We have four months to decide what changes we want, both to the policy and the tool itself, and then the developers will have one month to make any changes we request before the tool is put back into service. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Cool, Thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact I believe that is the whole point of the way the closers set things up. We have four months to decide what changes we want, both to the policy and the tool itself, and then the developers will have one month to make any changes we request before the tool is put back into service. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of It Is What It Is
The article It Is What It Is has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- None of these subjects has a page. This disambiguates nothing.
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I totally don't remember creating that page, but it looks like I created it as a redirect and somebody else made it a dab later. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of It Is What It Is for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article It Is What It Is is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/It Is What It Is until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Côte d'Ivoire / Ivory Coast: possible move review?
Hi, I am thinking of asking for a WP:Move review of your closure of the Côte d'Ivoire / Ivory Coast requested-move.
In your closing statement, you rejected out of hand the possibility of a "no consensus" outcome on the grounds that this would not be acceptable in your opinion. But a "no consensus" outcome is a perfectly valid and fairly common result of requested-move surveys, and you did not state any grounds for why it would (exceptionally) be unacceptable in this specific case.
Indeed, you yourself state in your closing statement that "there has never been a consensus on this issue", which strongly implies that this could have been your finding, if not for your immediately ruling it out right from the outset.
For this reason, I think a fresh look at the move discussion — this time with an outlook that is open to the possibility of a "no consensus" finding — might be helpful. I'm not calling into question your integrity or impartiality, but I do think you erred procedurally. If you took such a fresh look yourself, is there not a possibility that you might have a finding of "no consensus", particularly in view of your own statement that "there has never been a consensus on this issue"?
PS, I personally did not participate in the requested-move survey; here is a brief explanation: In my personal experience (looking at Quebec-related topics and associated news media) I have the impression of almost always encountering the term "Côte d'Ivoire" in both English and French. So my inclination based on personal experience would have been to oppose the move. On the other hand, the detailed statistics and the many contradictory claims made for them in the long discussions warranted careful consideration, which I unfortunately never found the time to undertake. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Impossible Beebs, seriously ...there was no way to move that article at all (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really have much more to say about the close except to be abundantly clear that Icame to this with no opinion or preffered outcome and I read every single word of the very long debate, twice, before doing the close. As to the specific points raised here, the statement about there never having been any consensus is clearly being taken out of context. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, but could you clarify why a "no consensus" finding was "not acceptable" in this specific instance? I do think it was a procedural error to eliminate it from the set of potential outcomes. I don't question your integrity, and realize it is a thankless task to tackle especially thorny RMs. PS, a secondary motivation would be to help the relatively new and untried move review framework become better known, and this might make a suitable test case in that regard. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- After so many lengthy discussions over a period of eight years it is not acceptable to still not be able to come to some sort of conclusion. Other geographic naming disputes like this have wound up before ArbCom and if this continues to be contested and argued about they will probably become involved in this situation as well, although the nationalism that plagued discussions about Ireland and Eastern Europe are thankfully not evident in this case. However,I did not consider that option to be off the table, Rather I came to the conclusion that after analyzing the various arguments there was a better case made for moving it than for retaining it where it was. My comments about how we might have had another no consensus result anyway were intended to clarify the I could see that if we went by sheer numbers there was yet again no clear result, but if we do what we are supposed to do and consider the arguments as opposed to who or how many are making them it didn't have to end that way yet again. I knew the minute I started looking at this that no matter how it was closed a sizable portion of participants would be upset, you have to accept that when closing something like this. It would have been easier to just look at how things were split and declare that once again consensus had eluded us, but I think this is the better result for Misplaced Pages's readers, the people we are supposed to be doing all for. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you got my e-mail ... after so many RM's that failed, it takes a super super argument to overcome what is obviously the original consensus, and this discussion did not have it ... default must be to close without moving when the original consensus is in place (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that there was an "original consensus." There were what,like five previous RMs, none of which resulted in a decision one way or the other, and if you look at the move logs you will see a ridiculous number of page moves and the kind of wheel warring that gets people desysopped these days. I don't see any obvious consensus in that chaos. I'm not sure my close was exactly conventional, but I am confident that it was the right decision for Misplaced Pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think sometimes you just have to call them like you see em. I would argue that there is a consensus, which is to keep the article where it is, and there was not a consensus to move it. Having survived so many RMs, with no new arguments or data brought to the table by those wanting to move, it is very strange to have a finding to move.--KarlB (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- After so many lengthy discussions over a period of eight years it is not acceptable to still not be able to come to some sort of conclusion. Other geographic naming disputes like this have wound up before ArbCom and if this continues to be contested and argued about they will probably become involved in this situation as well, although the nationalism that plagued discussions about Ireland and Eastern Europe are thankfully not evident in this case. However,I did not consider that option to be off the table, Rather I came to the conclusion that after analyzing the various arguments there was a better case made for moving it than for retaining it where it was. My comments about how we might have had another no consensus result anyway were intended to clarify the I could see that if we went by sheer numbers there was yet again no clear result, but if we do what we are supposed to do and consider the arguments as opposed to who or how many are making them it didn't have to end that way yet again. I knew the minute I started looking at this that no matter how it was closed a sizable portion of participants would be upset, you have to accept that when closing something like this. It would have been easier to just look at how things were split and declare that once again consensus had eluded us, but I think this is the better result for Misplaced Pages's readers, the people we are supposed to be doing all for. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Kudus for stepping up to the plate and protecting for a couple days to hope for some better dialog. I'd begged for the same sort of thing (though for a week) at Sophie Lefèvre today but no one at wp:rpp would accept it :-(. Fyunck(click) (talk)
Move review for Côte d'Ivoire
An editor has asked for a Move review of Côte d'Ivoire. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Laurent (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would also like to know what is happening with all the other pages that now have Côte d'Ivoire in their titles, are you saying that these pages are now quite okay to have that discrepancy? In previous requests for move they were asked to deal with this holistically, not on the sake of a single item, and not once have they bothered, they have just banged on about the one article. To me, this consistency is important in an encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have said nothing of the kind. I closed one requested move. I do not recall there being any significant discussion of what to do with the other articles. I agree woth you that consistency is important, But it may be best to save any such discussion until after the move review is completed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Irish Warden
Why am I treated like a criminal, not you but why should I be treated with suspicion by doing thing good? Here is the story: 1. My page is a template given to me by another user who replied to my help request. 2. My signature is like that (spent nearly a day trying to work it out) because I saw other peoples and looked up online how to create a good one. 3. I did read all the guidelines thoroughly and did read stuff like anti-vandal and the patrol section. Different users said to user twinkle so I did some anti-vandal manually which was suggested by a user until twinkle activated. It really isn't hard to use twinkle and[REDACTED] if you read the instructions and guidelines.
Technically I could report Egg Centric for not assuming good faith as I find it offensive that someone things I am 'dodgy'. Regards, TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, as I admonished Egg on his talk page he has seriously failed to assume good faith in this case. However if he is letting it drop I would advise you to do the same and just get back to constructive editing. There is a cultural problem here, which I have gallen victim to myself on occaission. The problem is that sheer number of people who actually do come here with exactly the sort of bad intentions Egg insiuated you may have leads to a climate of suspiscion and sometimes outright paranoia. Add to that the fact that the type pf people drawn to this type of work are often creative and imaginitive and you can see how we have wound up in this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree there is one bad thing about Misplaced Pages which I have encountered: you get about 10 people telling you off then going on to horass you for doing one thing wrong. I was even threatened with a block for badly giving 2 warnings incorrectly. One IP put gay pimp onto an article I RV for vandalism, and said they should use more suttle words, that was apparently control trolling. Then I deleted an incorrect image correctly which showed no image but random letters but apparently that is wrong. Eggcentric is now like put sanctions on me even though they aren't an admin, I have to not interact with others for 1000 edits. I don't like this and as you said I am going to carry on constructive editing. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ivory Coast
Could you restore the indefinite move (sysop)-protection to the page Ivory Coast? Thank you. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I could have sworn I already did that, but sure enough it is not there.
Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Pending changes discussion
Just wondering: did you intend to make this revert? isaacl (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did not. sometimes when I'm using my iPad I bump the rollback button when trying to look at a diff. I actually noticed I had done so but my connection is a bit slow today and I thought I had stopped it before it went live. Obviously that was a flawed assumption. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Monopoly on Violence
Hello again,
The Monopoly on Violence page has been massively rewritten by one person without discussion. I have reverted it to the instance before this persons first massive rewrite, however I feel the page needs to be protected from further edits till a discussion is actually had on the issue of the translation of the word 'Gewalt' (German: 'violence').
What do you recommend? Talonxpool (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- What I recommend is that you leave a message on that user's talk page inviting them to discuss the matter on the artile's talk page. Protection is not used preemptively and it is certainly not used to give one side an advantage in a content dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Tammie Wilson, additional information
Greetings Beeblebrox: I have questions about my edit of the Tammie Wilson page. What specifically were "the way you chose to interpret the content in those sources" that violated the neutrality spirit? I felt that I accurately represented the intent and effects of the policies that Tammie has perused. The only "interpretation" I can find in my writing is the statement that smoke is toxic (which many researchers support me on.) Tammie Wilson has been very public in her support of the explicit idea that people should not be cited or fined for producing any amount of smoke, or for burning any fuel they can find to heat their home. She is a politician and is on record with these views many times. I just want to add this information to her page. Please let me know what you feel is interpretation in my article, so I can edit it and re-post. Please realize that Ms Wilson has stated some very unusual positions, and I just want to record these. Also, realize that "neutrality" is not an accurate description of any writing that may come from Ms Wilson herself. AKMcCloud (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)AKMcCloud
- "Tammie Wilson has fought hard for the right of Fairbanks North Star Borough residence to burn anything they want in any way they want in order to heat their home, and produce unlimited amounts of toxic smoke." is certainly the worst of it. The way it is written implies strongly that she supports this position because she wants more toxic smoke in Fairbanks. Abetter approach would be something like "Tammie Wilson supports Borough residents being able to use any fuel they wish in any quantity they wish for heating their homes. Opponents argue that this will produce large amounts of toxic smoke." The same basic information is presented, but wothout the implication that her support is based on the desire to produce smoke. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The problem I have with your proposed edit is, weather or not burning any fuel in any way they wish will make toxic smoke is not a debatable point. Burning wet wood or wet coal (or tires, or pig manure, all of which has been burned in home heating appliances in Fairbanks recently) in a home stove will make lots of smoke, but your version seems to say only the opponents think it will make lots of smoke. The debate is weather people should be allowed to make as much smoke as they want, or weather there should be a limit on how much smoke one could make. Ms Wilson is on public record saying there should be no governmental regulation limiting the amount of smoke a resident makes when heating their home. How about "Tammie Wilson supports Borough residents being able to use any fuel they wish in any quantity they wish for heating their homes, regardless of how much PM2.5 fine particulate pollution is produced. Opponents argue that there should be some reasonable limits on how much toxic smoke a resident may produce, due to the financial and health related effects such smoke has on neighbors and the community at large" ?? AKMcCloud (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What a clusterfuck of a day so far (it is Friday the 13th, right?). I am getting really, really, really pissed off at having to largely rely on my phone for this, as I don't have a desk job and my laptop would get in the way. I came across the latest mess that someone dumped in our laps, the monstrous WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL violation that is Cheryll Heinze. Unfortunately, they did pick someone who is notable, though nowhere near as notable as many others who served only one term in the Alaska House, or nowhere near as notable as her husband, or nowhere near as notable as her famous cousins, Hoyt Axton and David Boren. I spent all morning in between actual work, like 5 or 10 minutes at a time, typing comments on Talk:Cheryll Heinze, only to see my Internet app fail right before I was finished, losing all that work in the process. I've been wanting to put my fist through something for the past 3 hours. I'm not sure I'm gonna have time to redo it before all these people stop caring and move on to the next lost cause. If you didn't catch the ADN story, she was mentioned as having had a peripheral connection to Bill Allen and the Alaska political corruption probe, so that may be of interest if you're still attempting to maintain that article.
Anyway, on to Tammie Wilson: I dunno if I would consider that a good faith edit. I believe "political silly season" is the preferred term on here for describing such a thing. First off, observe the ongoing hit piece edits to Bob Lynn. I reported it to the BLP noticeboard and it was reverted. Now, the same editor is trying a slightly different tact, attempting to portray Lynn as a proponent of sharia law. The blog used as a source also mentions Carl Gatto, who was painted with that brush within the blogosphere at the same time as others were mourning his recent death. Second, air quality has been a political issue in Fairbanks for at least 40 years or better. I've found references to Tom Snapp using his position as editor of the All-Alaska Weekly to agitate on the issue from years before I moved here, and I've been in and around this town like forever. PM 2.5 is just the latest manifestation of that. In fact, the divergence of opinion on air quality issues was a pivotal factor in the 2009 mayoral contest between Wilson and Luke Hopkins. Ironically, both Lynn and Wilson were relative newcomers to Alaska when they joined the legislature, and both definitely express political views which could be characterized as polarizing. There could be comparisons between that fact and the ongoing battle between Tea Party factions and the old guard within the Republican Party of Alaska. The ADN carried a front page story on that very subject earlier this week, which I didn't have time to read.
BTW, I do have a photo of Tammie Wilson, but like I said, I'm getting pretty far behind on the Commons end of things. I'm taking time away from work to use a real computer in order to send this off without losing it. It seems as if more messes and crises have come across my watchlist this week than I really have time for. WEIO is next week, so I'll have even less time to deal with any of it.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haven't had much time for this myself, been at Wikimania. In fact my flight home to Alaska got screwed up and I am writing this from Dulles Airport at five A.M. Fun. I do feel like we made some progress towards an acceptable way to express this information, but it would probably be better if we continued discussion at the talk page of her article. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- It could be worse. I've spent the better part of the past three days babysitting two grown adults, who make Dumb and Dumber look like Einstein and Hawking. Maybe there's a good reason why the tour companies deliberately steer their clients away from certain parts of town. Anyway, Tammie Wilson is aware that this "controversy" is occurring. Despite the negative opinions many seem to have of her, at least she's a smart enough politician to realize that this is a tar baby she shouldn't go near, inasfar as any personal involvement is concerned. I agree that this should be continued over there.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haven't had much time for this myself, been at Wikimania. In fact my flight home to Alaska got screwed up and I am writing this from Dulles Airport at five A.M. Fun. I do feel like we made some progress towards an acceptable way to express this information, but it would probably be better if we continued discussion at the talk page of her article. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Back to my original question, how is "Tammie Wilson supports Borough residents being able to use any fuel they wish in any quantity they wish for heating their homes, regardless of how much PM2.5 fine particulate pollution is produced." a misrepresentation of Ms Wilson's publicly stated views? Would you accept things better if I directly quoted her from FDNM or ADN articles? Her stance has always been that the clean air act should not apply to Alaska. 137.229.30.115 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to log in for the above comment. surprised it let me make it. AKMcCloud (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- A direct quote might be a good idea since we wpuld know we had got her position on the matter exactly right without putting our own spin on it, but whatever we do it should be directly supported by the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- How about "In the October, 2010 issue of The Woodshed, Tammie Wilson wrote "... it is a fundamental right of every person, and family, to heat their home, responsibly, with any natural resource available they can afford-- that the immediate need to keep warm ranks above a concern for appeasing the EPA." and the 2010 ballot proposition which Ms Wilson led the support for, Proposition A, text includes: "WHEREAS, the concern for air quality is subordinate to the need for warmth;" Opponents argue that breathing air free from toxic pollutants is more important then saving money on home heating. These people feel there should be some reasonable limits on how much toxic smoke a resident may produce, due to the financial and health related effects such smoke has on neighbors and the community at large" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKMcCloud (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Davedays
Please unSALT Davedays per Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 6. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
For being a badass |
| Beeblebrox, you hardrocking admin, your company was appreciated. Keep on rocking in the free world. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
RFC closure
I think your closure a tad ambiguous as those adding this content will now restore a section with just a few lines, unless you mean that the way it has already been added is the consensus you mean? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus seemed to favor including the material with clear attribution so that readers know where it came from. It is outside the remit of an RFC closer to give explicit instructions on the actual wording of the article, hence the ambiguity. All in all it seemed a fairly civil, thoughtful conversation (rather surprising for such a polictically charged issue actually) I imagine the exact details can be worked out through further discussion on the talkpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK thank you, given I just nominated the article for FA I do not want another silly edit war going on there :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus seemed to favor including the material with clear attribution so that readers know where it came from. It is outside the remit of an RFC closer to give explicit instructions on the actual wording of the article, hence the ambiguity. All in all it seemed a fairly civil, thoughtful conversation (rather surprising for such a polictically charged issue actually) I imagine the exact details can be worked out through further discussion on the talkpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing discussions, that were listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrator's noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust, B.Ed. The Undertaker 20–0 21:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
- Well thank you very much. Beeblebrox (talk)
Lord Huron
hi i saw you commented on the deleting of the article on this artist. i wrote a comment on the talk page saying why i think it should exist with some sources. can i make the article?Happy monsoon day 16:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can, but it would probably be deleted again in short order. The finding at the deletion discussion was unanimously in favor of deleting because the sources found either did not comstitute significant coverage or did not meet Misplaced Pages's definition of a reliable source. The sources you have linked on the talk page are at least partly the same sources that were on the article when the decision was made to delete it, so it does not appear that the problem that led to the deletion has been resolved. Talk pages should only exist if there is an accompanying article so that could be deleted at any second, but if you would like I could userfy the article for you and you could work on addressing these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- thank you for your considered opinion. i am going to read the information carefully and please dont do extra work. i feel bad now for making some veteran guys explain basic stuff to me. i will acquaint myself with the policies and take it a step at a time. when i have an example i may show it to people who are interested. my concept is such: perhaps its not notable now, but some of the current sources may be above the threshold when he is famous so the article could start now and just buidl it slowly and once it reaches a certani threshold it could be considered ok for thepublic. know what i mean? Happy monsoon day 16:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- by the way can i recover the article from before it was deleted; then i can see what was on it?Happy monsoon day 16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's certainly no need to apologize or feel bad, we were all new here at one time and I remember all too well how confusing Misplaced Pages's mazes of policies and guidelines can be for a newcomer. The userfication I mentioned above would entail restoring the article as it was just before it was deleted and then moving it into your user space. If it does turn out that this peson becomes more notable in the future you can use whatever new sources become available to improve the article and then it can be moved back into article space. i'll go ahead and do that userfication now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. It is at User:Happy monsoon day/Lord Huron. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's certainly no need to apologize or feel bad, we were all new here at one time and I remember all too well how confusing Misplaced Pages's mazes of policies and guidelines can be for a newcomer. The userfication I mentioned above would entail restoring the article as it was just before it was deleted and then moving it into your user space. If it does turn out that this peson becomes more notable in the future you can use whatever new sources become available to improve the article and then it can be moved back into article space. i'll go ahead and do that userfication now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Wise move
As an oversighter can you see the problem with copy/paste failing when people wish to send email? Some may not be users or computer literate and get quite frustrated. I don't think we need consensus to add a simple line that copy/paste won't work and the @ needs to be entered manually. If you have time could you add such a line? We can close the edit request then and if anyone whines, feel free to blame it all on me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually at the moment the discussion on Commons seems to be leaning in the direction of not doing that at all anymore and just taking the risk that we might have to delete a bit more spam. I think that is something we should consider here as well, but we would need to notify the affected user groups of any such discussion. That would include the functionaries and the arbitration committee at the very least, not sure who else uses the nospam gizmo. I think it is a conversation worth having though, possibly at some centralized location such as one of the village pumps. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- O've gone ahead and opened said discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Time to do away with "no spam email" gimmick?. Will attempt to notify effected parties as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)::You are correct. I may bring it up there. In the meantime I see no harm in adding a note about the error until a decision is made in this project. The OTRS one in commons was boldly edited to make copy/paste work and has not been reverted as far as I know. A change like that may need consensus here but a simple 'how to' statement added should not need consensus as it merely lets others know of the 'bug'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Such a note has been in the section about emailing oversight for some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)::You are correct. I may bring it up there. In the meantime I see no harm in adding a note about the error until a decision is made in this project. The OTRS one in commons was boldly edited to make copy/paste work and has not been reverted as far as I know. A change like that may need consensus here but a simple 'how to' statement added should not need consensus as it merely lets others know of the 'bug'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- O've gone ahead and opened said discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Time to do away with "no spam email" gimmick?. Will attempt to notify effected parties as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Buried a little though. I will resolve this section for now as it is at the pump. I had an edit conflict earlier and just pasted my post as it was before seeing yours here.
Resolvedin this section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Let the beating commence
The beatings will continue until morale improves! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good answer. I have to admit, I was a bit surprised to have survived that myself, especially given the misstep at the end where I didn't want to deal with failing the RFA in the middle (well, at the beginning) of the workweek, so suggested an early close (at exactly the percentage it eventually ended at, amusingly enough). I was kind of wondering if you were going to duck that as a can't-win question, but you did a good job covering all the nuances. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping to find a comment by me somewhere so I could just say "recuse"... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- *snicker*I looked before I asked. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping to find a comment by me somewhere so I could just say "recuse"... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Beeblebrox/EditCounterOptIn.js
Could you please opt-in to the Edit Counter tool, by creating User:Beeblebrox/EditCounterOptIn.js (with any content whatsoever). Thanks. Armbrust, B.Ed. The Undertaker 20–0 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, they didn't have that back in the dark ages when I ran at RFA so I never bothered. Done now though. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)