User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

Unblock

Hi Beeblebrox, I've unblocked JMC89 bot following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bot_removing_headings_.2F_comments_from_infoboxes.3B_Bot_creator_ignoring_requests_to_fix_the_problem - the offending task is now disabled pending resolution at WP:BON. If you strongly disagree feel free to reblock without WHEEL concerns (but please follow up at BON if you do). — xaosflux Talk 05:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record that's fine with me, it was as much to get the bot op to take it seriously as anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting access to deleted article

A request was sent my way for information on a startup. I replied to the person making the query they should start with Bloomberg, then Inc., the startupgrind, then wikipedia. Their response was an affirmative on the first three, but a zero on the wikipedia.

After confirming with my own search, I came up with the following: an AfD on the subject.

I am an academic editor (former prof), now in the e-business/digital business startup world, but I continue with the service editing that I did when I was at my last university. I would like access to the earlier article draft, and cannot seem to lay my hands on it. Can you send me a link? I want to see what the issues were.

Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no link, because the article was deleted, but if you are interested in trying to improve it I can WP:USERFY it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Please do USERFY, thank you. Will look for directions here to access. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Closure

You closed the following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ad_hominem_at_Talk:Donald_Trump on the premise that it was before boomerangs would ensue. For this to occur there must be a policy violation on my side. There is none, so I am completely befuddled as to what you are referring to. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

because you were making a big deal out of nothing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There was a policy violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ADHOMINEM followed by reverts of any attempts to follow routine procedure in such cases. To say it is a making a big deal out of nothing is to ignore the seeming credibility gained by smearing the dissenting party in a content dispute. I gave clear examples of the user ignoring my requests and references to policy, while he wrote an incorrect and derogatory message on the talk page. I would never have taken it to AN/I had he not requested I do so. This is a case where following the rules results in a win by the rule-breaker. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobody agrees with you that there was a violation there. Let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd

Ok, not to be rude, but wtf just happened?...? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#OVERLINKING and redirect problems Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hi Dear Admin

Please review my last report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents,

Sincerely, Modern Sciences Modern Sciences (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussions started by socks of banned users

While there's nothing wrong with removing unresponded discussions started by banned users, please don't remove discussions which were responded by users in good standing. In stead, please simply collapse them, with a comment that the OP is a sock of a banned user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure this falls within the realm of administrative discretion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply made

…regarding USERFYing Everipedia, see above, thank you. Fine with me to delete this entry after it catches your attention. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, it is now at User:Leprof 7272/Everipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your VPP closure

(Discussing this) - Could you create a phab ticket and perhaps put it in the section using {{Tracked}}. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This would be why my closure specified "whatever technical changes are needed to actually do it." I barely even know what you mean, and I'm afraid I don't really know how to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I see that JJMC89 did it. As a short explanation, it is kind of like a hub where developers discuss technical tasks (see WP:PHAB). Then, if something technical is requested in the task (sometimes, tasks are only for discussion) a patch is usually uploaded to mw:Gerrit. If there are no issues with the code, the patch is merged into the code and might take effect at a swat deployment. It's all very confusing and I still am learning new things, but I hope I gave a basic summary of it. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

IP editions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi please review this IP address editions. None of the Admins check this IP's editions. for example this one thank you. Modern Sciences (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you are asking. What is wrong with that edit, exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


What it is wrong with this edition that IP reverses it.

Modern Sciences (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

They explained their reasoning in their edit summary. If you disagree, the first step is to talk to them about it, not report them to an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI, this user has had issues with multiple people, and is the subject of an open ANI thread destined for inevitable archive. See also here where the IP does a fairly commendable job of trying to explain things through the fairly obvious English issues. And I'll just say you're not the first admin he has tried to get to intervene in his content disputes. TimothyJosephWood 21:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: what is wrong with this editionModern Sciences (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you able to read and understand the other user's edit summary when removing it? Because, again, they explained themselves and if you don't agree you should talk to them about it. Be sure to clearly express why you added it and why their stated reason for removing it was incorrect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some questions of a new blood :)

Hi , and thanks for your friendly wellcom. I am new to wiki , as a registered member, i just used to search topics in as an encyclopedia. But then i decided to do more as it is realy a valuble achaivment for all humankind. I will need plenty of time to learn the basics, but somthing has baffled me, somebody frequently rollsback a page , a usual one about a small town, the content wich was lost was just some information about cordination and natural conditions of the place, so i couldn't find a reason why somebody rolls it back evry time, then i searched about admins and the pre-requirements of becoming an admin, a high edit count!!! Then i guessed maybe the person doing this is just trying to rise his edition counts to look an active member, it seemed dangerus to me, as during such a process he may sacrifice valuable informations. Is that a real treat to wiki as i feel or not? If yes why it (high edit counts) is considered as a condition to become an admin , as it may encurage some immature personalities to harm the project. Thanks a lot . Elsid-h (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

What is expected of admins is experience. One measure of that is number of edits, but other factors are how long someone has been contributing, and much more importantly what they have actually been doing. You could have all kinds of experience, and still not be suited for administration. It's not for everyone and it requires a certain temperament and evidence of good judgement. So, just pumping up your edit count by reverting people is pretty unlikely to get you adminship.
It's hard to be any more specific about the exact edits you are referring to without a WP:DIFF or at least an idea of what article or articles you are talking about, but generally the right approach when you see edits you don't agree with is to try and discuss the matter with the other user or users involved. See WP:BRD for more about that. You'll find that most users are perfectly willing to explain why they did something if you just ask them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Last plea for help from you.

Blatant forum shopping. This is a content dispute, I'm not going to unilaterally ban anyone over it, and it's pretty ridiculous to repost an entire noticeboard thread on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am currently finding it very difficult to be an editor at Wikipedia and am saddened by the lack of support from Administrators. Therefore, this is the last plea I make to you before I give up on this site all together. I posted this on the Wikpedia:Administrator's notice and have been given no help at all :

"I have requested for Piriczki (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) to be banned previously and he has been warned but yet continues to edit disruptively. As stated before, he has no regard for facts or citations of verifiable sources. Every time I ask him to provide a source for his edits he replies with "Fake news, very unfair" or "Unfair" without justifying his claims of me posting fake news. As suggested by Wikipedia Administrators, I have complained on this page before and am doing so again, I have tried to discuss it personally with him on his talk page but he has refused to comply and deleted my requests for him to behave in an orderly fashion. I am the only one who is actually willing to discuss this issue as he does not wish to do so. He also shows signs of editing page to suit his liking and shows a tremendous amount of bias when it comes to edits. His talk page too is full of complaints from other users. I further state that he has also removed the warning from Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) from his talk page. I say that I have not engaged in edit warring with him as I have been warned not to do so again but he continues to try and undermine all that is good here at Wikipedia. I further state that on the current page we are having a dispute over, List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I have cited verifiable sources for all my edits like the RIAA and he has failed to do so on multiple occasions and claims that I am posting fake news. I sincerely request that someone look into this situation carefully and have him banned as he is completely and utterly non-compliant with other users and does what he wishes without giving any justification for his actions. Thank You.

Link to his talk page : User talk:Piriczki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Page we are currently having a dispute over : List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk page of the page we are having a dispute over : Talk:List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)"

These are the replies I have in turn been given :

"We generally don't ban people when they're actually correct. And especially not due to reports that contain multiple factual inaccuracies. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)"

"Actually, Piriczki has stated multiple reliable sources on the talk page, and you've ignored him completely and changed the article to an incorrect state through your misunderstanding of the source you used (you used a RIAA link which shows total all time sales of an album, not those for a particular year, 1992 in this case). I've changed the article in line with the reliable sources that Piriczki showed. As well as those claims being incorrect, I don't see his talkpage being "full of complaints" nor any "tremendous amounts of bias" in his edits. In other words, practially all of your complaint is incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)"


My complaint was subsequently shut down for the second time on the Administrators page after that. I would also like to say that : 1) Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was absolutely in the wrong and there was profound bias from his side, 2) Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has never once stated reliable sources on the talk page, you can see this for yourself, 3) I have no "misunderstanding" of any source I user and I have not ignored him at all, in fact, I have tried discussing it with him on his talk page and he has deleted the section I created and 4) There are complaints on his talk page(which you can again see for yourself), although he has deleted a lot of them as well as deleting the warning you gave him the last time he engaged in edit warring and he has also deleted the two notifications I sent on his talk page informing him that there was a discussion about him on the Administrators noticeboard.

I ask you for the first and last time to please look into this matter as I really want to help improve this great site but I am finding it impossible to do so with these two users and their malicious lies. Please do something.

The source of the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard where you can find all the required links :

== Request for ban of user {{Userlinks|Piriczki}} ==

We generally don't ban people when they're actually correct. And especially not due to reports that contain multiple factual inaccuracies. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have requested for Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be banned previously and he has been warned but yet continues to edit disruptively. As stated before, he has no regard for facts or citations of verifiable sources. Every time I ask him to provide a source for his edits he replies with "Fake news, very unfair" or "Unfair" without justifying his claims of me posting fake news. As suggested by Wikipedia Administrators, I have complained on this page before and am doing so again, I have tried to discuss it personally with him on his talk page but he has refused to comply and deleted my requests for him to behave in an orderly fashion. I am the only one who is actually willing to discuss this issue as he does not wish to do so. He also shows signs of editing page to suit his liking and shows a tremendous amount of bias when it comes to edits. His talk page too is full of complaints from other users. I further state that he has also removed the warning from Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from his talk page. I say that I have not engaged in edit warring with him as I have been warned not to do so again but he continues to try and undermine all that is good here at Wikipedia. I further state that on the current page we are having a dispute over, List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I have cited verifiable sources for all my edits like the RIAA and he has failed to do so on multiple occasions and claims that I am posting fake news. I sincerely request that someone look into this situation carefully and have him banned as he is completely and utterly non-compliant with other users and does what he wishes without giving any justification for his actions. Thank You.

Link to his talk page : User talk:Piriczki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Page we are currently having a dispute over : List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk page of the page we are having a dispute over : Talk:List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Lord NnNn (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Actually, Piriczki has stated multiple reliable sources on the talk page, and you've ignored him completely and changed the article to an incorrect state through your misunderstanding of the source you used (you used a RIAA link which shows total all time sales of an album, not those for a particular year, 1992 in this case). I've changed the article in line with the reliable sources that Piriczki showed. As well as those claims being incorrect, I don't see his talkpage being "full of complaints" nor any "tremendous amounts of bias" in his edits. In other words, practially all of your complaint is incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Lord NnNn (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got email :)

Hey there! Sorry for writing in English. I just sent you an email about your participation in the Training Modules pilot testing. Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay...so editing wikipedia *has* gotten a lot easier since I was last active....

[[1]] Over a thousand edits...all of them for the same purpose. This has gotta be a bot.

BTW: Is this kosher? I can't think of anything wrong with it off the top of my head but it does seem a bit odd...--*Kat* (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:AWB, they are using a tool that allows users to make mass corrections to grammar or syntax, etc. You can see when users are using most automated tools in their edit summaries, for example if you look at some of their recent talk page edits you can see that they were using WP:TWINKLE, which you can activate for yourself from your preferences. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-block request

Hi Beeblebrox,

Last year, Hassan Rebell was blocked by JzG per WP:NOTHERE because of his politically motivated hateful edits targeting a minority ethnic group. You gave a last chance him by reducing his block last year. However, he continues exactly (even worse) the same behaviour when logged out to escape an another block. Vanjagenije has suggested me to contact with you for re-block, since you are the one who reduced his block 1. For more detailed info and explanations, please take a look at this. Bests, 46.221.212.92 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged at least once in each of the three previous attempts to get this user blocked, I was already well aware of this. The thing is, going around to individual admins with what appears to be a fairly complicated and involved explanation of why someone should be blocked is usually not a good approach. I reviewed an unblock request over a year ago, that does not obligate me to be permanently connected to this case, which frankly I don't remember at all. I imagine it's getting a little old to keep getting told to ask somewhere else, but I really think a complicated request like this belongs at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems complicated but if one reads it thoroughly, he/she will see that it is not that complicated. The problem is simple: An user who was once blocked per NOTHERE, continues exactly the same behaviour when logged out via dynamic IPS and proxies (not to be blocked again). Is it allowed or not? Is there a WP policy for such situations? If not, i prefer to discuss it on village pump by offering a new proposal, since the main problem is lacking of proper policy for such cases. 46.221.173.103 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
No, that would not be allowed and would be grounds for blocking of the IPs and the account. While the problem may be simple, sifting through the evidence and making a determination on whether it is all the same user is not. I would again suggest WP:ANI or possibly WP:SPI since you are alleging the user is using multiple identities. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I already submitted a SPI on 9 January and provided dozens of evidences. Despite the checkuser also agreed that the IPS belong to Hassan Rebell/Lrednuas Senoroc, he did not re-blocked him 1. 46.221.168.163 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I took a quick look here and this is what I see:

  • I think you are mistaken that anyone acting as a checkuser publicly confirmed any IPs as being used by a named account. Checkuesrs don't do that, ever, and the account is too stale for a reliable check anyway. They might agree based on behavioral evidence but CU data is considered confidential.
  • As you were told at that SPI, blocking IPs that are not actively disrupting the project is not done.
  • As this user apparently uses a wide variety of IPs, blocking them one by one wouldn't work anyway.
  • The Hassan Rebell account hasn't edited in over a year, so blocking it won't do anything either regardless of whether these IP edits are them or not.
  • I should think that after you've asked in five different places for a block and been told no again and again that you might start to get the idea that blocking probably isn't the right solution here.
  • All that being the case, if you can show persistent disruption to specific articles by these IPs, you can request protection for them instead of asking admins to block IPs that made one edit a few months ago. I suggest you focus your efforts in that direction. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. His account is stale but he is active. And no, blocking this vandal would be a very good solution, since it will stopped or altered the ip disruption. Being ip sock of a banned editor is not the same with unblocked one, you know it. And for blocking one account for sockpuppetry or disruptive edits, the CU is not necessary, there is a WP: DUCK policy for such cases. And you are right, since he uses plenty of ip ranges, range block will not help. And again, this guy was banned per NOTHERE but continues exactly the same behaviour via IPS. If he had used an account, he would have been banned 100 times. But no one can do anything now. Is it fair? No. The main problem is WP policies regarding ips. WP policies fail in dealing with such professional vandals. I will take it to village pump when have a time and will propose new policies regarding ips and logged-out editings. Thank you for your quick feedbacks. Cheers, 46.221.168.163 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

C.f. a

Recent conversation. Just FYI, saw your latest discussion. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 08:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

UAA AFC/Draft/Sandbox reason

Which consensus? That has been there for quite a while. I added Draft and sandbox since they are basically the same as AFC, but that option has been in the template since at least 2012. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Both reflect a consnesus that this is not a real exemption to the username policy. Not going to name names but this was basically something one particular admin decided for themselves and over time it just crept into standard practice. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd say over five years of using it in practice makes it de facto policy. Perhaps it needs to be discussed somewhere. I actually agree with it (if they are only editing sandboxes, AFC, and Drafts, they should be warned, not immediately blocked). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, it was already discussed, twice. It isn't forbidden to be lenient on this, but conseus both times was that it is not a hard-and-fast exemption to the policy and should not be institutionalized as though it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

collecting hats

File:Maruti Temple.jpg
Near Lonar Lake

Hello, if you visit my profile page, you would realise that I am aperson who tries to maintain his privacy. I am certainly not a person who tries to show off :) While I was editing Lonar, i came across this image. As you can see, there are no further details at all. The only reason we know that it is from Lonar town, is that it was included in that article, in appropriate section, and its title. "Maruti" is a god, and temple is, well a temple. It is like, coming across an image by the name "jesus church". I hope this gives you an idea why i requested authorisation to rename image files. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I see your point, since that image is not hosted on the English Wikipedia. I can see you have edited some at Commons, but just in case this is not clear to you: user rights are granted by individual projects and do not transfer over to other projects, so you would need the equivalent user right at Commons in order to rename this file or any other file hosted there.
We only grant the file mover right to users who have demonstrated a need for it, by successfully requesting that files hosted here be moved to better titles. As I said, you have literally no edits to the file or file talk namespaces, so there is literally nothing for an administrator to review when considering such a request. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thanks for the reply. And i apologise for duplicating this to the other page. I am a little confused. So, the point is, i need to rename files on wikimedia commons. How can i get authorisation for that? Currently, i have come across many images which are vaguely named. This is the only reason why i made the request. So that i can rename the files on commons. I also want you to know that i am not trying to collect hats :)
by the way, did you see Parbhani, Lonar, Lonar crater lake, and Buldhana district? It will give you an idea about the problems i am currently facing. I contribute only in two categories. Second being cities and towns from India, and the most important category for me is the articles related to JFK and his assassination. I created the articles QKENCHANT, a (still) top secret project by CIA from 50s, and John J. Hicks. I am a serious contributor, and not a hat collector.
what should i do regarding the image name issue? Thanks, and sorry again. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Albicelestes

I would like to help Wikipedia as it is my favorite website for getting any kind of informations Albicelestes (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 Not done It's my favorite too. However, I'm not seeing any evidence in your editing that you are doing the sort of editing that this tool would help you with, and your request does nothing to indicate you understand what it is for and how to use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:BeeblebroxIt's just a request. I do not need to write a poem about anti vandalism and filtering edits. i am here in wikipedia before the creating of your account and do not have to explain my understand and how to?!..Peace!Albicelestes (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears you are correct, technically your account is a few weeks older than mine. And if we assigned permisssions based solely on how long ago you registered an account I suppose I would have no choice but to bow to your two or three weeks of having an account that I, sadly, do not have.
Luckily, that's not the case. Nobody has asked you to writ a poem but you seem to be saying "I've been here a while, give this to me, whatever it is, I can't be bothered to explain why." This response is actually substantially less compelling than your original request and has only served to reassure me that my decision was the correct one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you around?

Hi Beeblebox, I wanted to ask your opinion on something. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ask away. I should be around a bit longer tonight. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Great. Over on the Donald Trump page, I deleted what appeared to be redundant material. An editor went off on me on the talk page. I'm not a big fan of ANI, but this is an Arb Com sanctioned page, and this editor's response seems over the top to me. I thought I'd show you some diffs, maybe you could give me an opinion? It seems like disruption to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
From a quick look, it appears to be a fairly mundane content dispute. The other users involved could maybe use a refresher on assuming good faith but I don't think it rises to the level of something that would warrant invoking the arbcom sanctions, unless there'e more to it than just that last thread on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. There have been some issues with that one fellow in the recent past. He's roiled the talk page a bit. I don't think I did anything wrong and I think it should be handled as just content negotiation. But his comments seemed over the top. I mean, it's a minor deletion of redundant material. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:DRN might be able to help calm things down and keep the discussion focused on content. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll look into that. If you've the time, keep an eye out every now and then. I'm not editing anymore tonight. Hopefully tomorrow cooler heads will prevail. Thanks, Beeblebox, I appreciate it. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-requested block

Greetings. I would like to take a break from Wikipedia, as I feel I'm habitually on here too often, am getting a bit stressed outwith editing and need to make space for other activities in real life. In the past, WikiBreaks have proved futile for me, as when I WikiBreak my account, I almost always find myself editing while logged out or using my alt account to request that an admin lift the WikiBreak. So I'm requesting you block my account per this.

I'd like my main account and my two alternate accounts, Linguist111 (away) and Linguist111 (testing), blocked until 00:00 BST on 1 May (which means six weeks, beginning from Monday), with email and TPA disabled. Out of habit, I may forget that my accounts are blocked and edit while logged out. To prevent this from happening, I'd like my IP, 80.189.56.105, which is static and unshared (all edits were made by me), also blocked with email and TPA disabled. In a moment, I'll add to this message while logged out, to confirm 80.189.56.105 is my IP. Thank you in advance. Linguisttalk|contribs 21:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This is me, Linguist111, editing under the IP 80.189.56.105, to confirm this is my IP address and that all this IP's edits were made by me. 80.189.56.105 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Ypu do appear to meet my basic requirements for self-requested blocks. Because this is a hard block, I usually ask the user to sleep on it, and if they haven't changed their minds by the next day I go ahead and do it. The only wrinkle is your IP. I trust that it was you that made those edits, and that this has been your IP for some time, but geolocate says it is in fact a dynamic IP, so it could be re-assigned between now and May and some third party would be blocked with no means of on-wiki appeal, so I may need to leave TP access open there. If you like I can watchlist it and if you find yourself asking for the block lifted I'll remind you that you asked for it and won't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'm fine with that. I'll leave a note on my IP's talk page, reminding myself not to request an unblock. Linguisttalk|contribs 22:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I have left a note on my IP's talk and am ready to be blocked now. Thank you and see you in 6 weeks! Linguisttalk|contribs 12:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

autopatrolled

Hi Beeblebrox . I hope everything is ok for you

Can I get this , I hope you help me

Thank you Kurdistantolive (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please go throught he normal request process at WP:PERM, once again keeping in mind that this user right actually does nothing for the user it is granted to and is only designed to lighten the load for new page patrollers. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Now can I get this . I need just you help me ,thank you Kurdistantolive (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 Not done If you insist on doing this here instead of following the normal procedure, fine. Your articles are of a fairly low quality and some of them appear to be sourced to some websites tha do not meet the definition of reliable sources, so no. Again, this doesn't actually do anything for you anyway, so there's no point in making sucha big deal about it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok . I am good agent , as you like Beeblebrox Kurdistantolive (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Photos

Can I know about how to upload a picture on a Wikipedia page? Pr2152000 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If it is your own work and eligible for a feee license, you should upload it at Wikimedia Commons. Your username and login information from here is valid there as well, so you basically already have an account there. You can just press the "upload file" link on the left hand side of the page and it will guide you through the process. It's a bit more complicated if the image is non-free. You can use the "upload file" link , on the left side of the page here on Wikipedia, but you will need to be able to provide a fair use rationale as part of the process, or the image may be deleted.
Once you have uploaded it's pretty easy to add it to articles, you just link it as you would an article title. You can adjust the size, placement, and caption as well. Most images are in thumbnail format. For example, if you look up at the top of this page there is a graphic of the "Hierarchy of disagreement" which is placed there by this [[image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|left|thumb|please stay in the top three tiers]]. That's the image name, followed by the placement, size, and caption, all within double brackets like any other wiki link. There's a lot more information on this at WP:IMAGE. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If it is not my work? If I need to add a cover pic to the soundtrack of a movie what should be done? Pr2152000 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Page issues

Can I know the reason for page issues on the page Kaatru Veliyidai (soundtrack)?? All the citations are clearly stated by me. I also request you to add a cover pic to the page as I am unable to do so Pr2152000 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the tag at the top of the page, it was put there by a user who observed that there were no sources. Once you add sources you can remove it, which I have just done.
To upload a cover image, you would need to find one online, download it to your computer or other device, and then upload it here using the "upload file" link over in the left hand column. Album covers are a pretty common upload and the process will guide you though what you need to do once you have the image. (more details and pointers to other resources in my reply) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Gee For

FYI, G4 on User:KarmaChameleon/sandbox 2, as clearly created per only edit summary to circumvent impending deletion. TimothyJosephWood 20:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Narey mind. TimothyJosephWood 20:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollbacker?

User TheGracefulSlick whom you gave rollback rights seem to use it not in a proper way. As a foreground, user has a locked page from discussion (that's why I'm writing it to you), second, user rollbacks template {{neutrality}} along with adding misleading information which is currently disputed with links to official documents stating not what The Guardian says. I will gladly participate in discussion with this user but what was done is inacceptable. Where can I dispute the rights of rollbacker you gave to this user? — Alex Khimich (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me Alex Khimich but if you really wanted to discuss you could have simply pinged me to your talk page, not here. My talk page is locked due to constant vandalism and harassment. I rolled back your edits to return to the last point the article was stable so you may discuss. You failed to address several concerns other editors brought up which is why you are currently at ANI.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, you actually aren't supposed to use rollback for anything but vandalism, so they actually do have a point (this is why I've always preferred WP:TWINKLE's rollback tool, which is more versitale), but this one little incident isn't egregious enough to even consider just revoking it. I would add that the reporting user was clearly engaging in edit warring which is not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Zaphod,
Kindly take a look at the comments that I posted on the request page for rollback. I am not sure if you are getting notifications of pings.
Also, the concerns expressed in previous section (the section above this one) by user TheGracefulSlick is exactly what I was talking about in the request. I will not be like a monkey with Tommy Gun in his hands. I know where my towel is. —usernamekiran[talk] 18:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine.
I will request after many days from now when I will have enough experience. But would you please take a look at my contribution history, and then reply to me on the request for permissions page? Please? —usernamekiran[talk] 21:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed a full section on a school

Hi their, I am talking to you regarding an edit i made, i made an edit on Laisterdyke Leadership Academy, i restored some sections, three to be precise i know that one for the students was not sourced so i shouldn't have done that one that was my fault, and the current principal i showed you a source and you kept that i thank you. However you removed the entire Faculty section as it was unsourced i produced a source showing the current headteacher and since the section is on just headteachers their is no need to remove it. You might say that the administration has no matter on wikipedia but i disagree with you, i am the executive spokesperson for the Schools LPG divison and 3/4 of parents want all this information to be online so they can know the history of the school and i also believe this idea. For the matter that it was unsourced i can provide multiple sources showing that everybody was part of the faculty at one point in time.

Mrs Joan Law[1] Jen Mclintosh[2] Lisa Corrigan [3]

This shows the faculty were their at one point in time please add back this information as it is incredibly important to the school and the growth between parents and ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awais 1234567 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/district/district_bradford/district_lq/district_bfd_laisterdyke/8163759.Retiring_heads_are_off_to_a_flying_start/
  2. ^ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9120833.Laisterdyke_Business_and_Enterprise_College__put___1million_at_risk_/
  3. ^ https://bso.bradford.gov.uk/school/505246-laisterdyke-leadership-academy
Your reply actually explains a lot, in that it is clear you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedi is and how it works. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, this actually happens all the time. So here's a few points that may help clarify the situation for you:
  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is explicitly not a free web host or social media website where content is controlled by article subjects
  2. By that same token, what "3/4 of parents" of kids attending that specific school want is not relevant. Take a look at other articles on schools for some idea of how out of place it is to list the entire history of one specific position at the school. We aren't writing articles for the benefit of the school or the parents of kids who attend it but rather for a general audience. The school has its own website, linked in the infobox of the article, where it is free to document as much of its own history as desired.
  3. You have made it clear that you have a conflict of interest in regard to this subject and additionally are paid by said subject so frankly it would be best if you didn't edit the article at all and instead requested edits on the article's talk page so that they can be reviewed by uninvolved, neutral editors first. You should also disclose your connection at the article itself if you plan to propose more edits, the conflict of interest page linked above has more information on how to do that.
hope that clears a few things up for you, I'm also going to post our standard advice for persons with a conflict of interest on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)]
I understand your point of view and i thank you for the advice i have read all the information you have given me which is a big help so thank you for that too! I understand the conflict of interest bit so from here on out i wont be making any more edits on this page thank you. But i hope you do one last thing and put back up the faculty section as it can be sourced but other than that thank you a lot!

Re: Sk-gorka

under discussion in two other places already. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it certainly isn't my intention to wheel war here, so I won't touch his block, but it seems clear this user only edited Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, which usually merits a hard block. Andrevan@ 21:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that admins like yourself form back in the "cowboy days" may have done things differently 10-12 years ago, but I'm having trouble believing that an admin of your tenure genuinely doesn't know and understand that even a hard block doesn't involve revoking talk page and email access for no apparent reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That is my bad. I checked all the boxes without really paying attention. The part I meant to add was autoblocking the IP address and blocking registration. Andrevan@ 21:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I wanted to ask you and User:Widr, to advise me what I could do to give you both and the other admins patrolling Requests for permissions no issues with approving my request. I first requested it in August 2016 and since then have done a range of things, including taking the time to re-learn the basics and the tools of the trade, as well as changing the way I do edits as recommended by User:Widr. My goal is to be able to use and master STiki. Thanks for your time, greatly appreciated. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Widr kindly approved my request. Any advice you have under the sofa before I begin using my new found user right? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I was just looking as well and agree that you seem ready for it and have been doing good anti-vandalism work lately. Just make sure you don't ever edit war and only use rollback on vandalism and you'll be fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Words I will take to my grave :) Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dane

Hello Beeblebrox; in regards to your statement, It's not that opposes without rationales don't "seem" to count, they actually don't count., on this RfA to another editor: would you please review if this is exactly what you mean to say? The weight of !votes is decided by a closing crat - and while I know I have publicly stated that "I would consider straight [Support|Oppose]. ~~~~ entries with less weight" in an RfA closing, I would not weight them to absolute zero (although another crat could). I'd rather not draw attention to this in the middle of the active RfA - if on review you feel refactoring your comment slightly is appropriate I won't jump in on the conversation. Thank you for your attention on this matter. — xaosflux Talk 23:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've lightly refactored two of my comments. My own RFB was shot down, so maybe I'm not the one to ask, but when somebody comes into a discussion and openly declares their unwillingness to actually discuss anything that strikes me as exactly the sort of thing that can be safely ignored, but I'll grant that that is my opinion and not policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that is sufficient - and if I were closing I do indeed give significantly less weight to those type of comments as they don't provide significant input to the consensus building exercise that RfA is supposed to be, though the other 'crats may certainly operate somewhat differently. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 05:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Emily Temple-Wood

Hey Beebs, I saw that you recently move-protected Emily Temple-Wood. I'm wondering if you somehow conflicted with The ed17 (though there is some time gap between... maybe a tab left open for a bit?), since your edit summary suggests you were trying to do the same thing. I bring this up because it looks like you've shortened the edit protection that was in place from one month to two days; if you look through the page history you'll see this is probably not a great idea. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Erp, no that certainly is not what I was trying to do, I meant to add move protection and leave edit protection as it was. Thanks for the heads up, I'll fix it right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Archiving at WP:Editing restrictions

Hey Beeblebrox, why would you archive restrictions that are still in effect? How would anyone find them?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The archiving procedure was established here. The discussion was listed at WP:CENT while it was open. I posted notices on the talk page as I was going through and doing this and put pointers at the top of each section notifying users of the existence of the archive. If I've archived anything not meeting the standards for doing so please fel free to add it back to the main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
More evidence that I never know what's going on. It looks like your removal met the standard for archiving. However, the user has returned (using a different username), which I believe means I can move it back. Am I right? If so, do I need to remove it from the archive or just copy it back and also leave it in the archive. Forgive me, but where is the archive?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There's so many policy discussions lately that it's easy to miss one. The archive is at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive. If someone listed there has returned to active editing the procedure is to copy their entry back to the main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Heh, I miss lots of them, and yet I don't miss them. I decided that when you said "copy" you really meant "move", i.e., removing the entry from the archive and reinserting it in the main page. Hope that's right, but I can always undo the archive if it's not. I had no idea where to put it within the section, so I put it at the top as it's old, although now slightly updated with my note. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not the user you've blocked.

I am not IreneTandry you've blocked. I just try to start editing article at Wikipedia and you set autoblock at my account.

HenleeDiscette (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You obviously are exactly the person the autoblock was meant to stop, and as such you are now blocked directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the block of Silver Master. Sorry if I got testy at AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You were actually making that last post there while I was writing up the block, so I didn't see it until just after I did it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears to me that Silver Master is block evading using the IP 197.42.70.6, which geolocates to Egypt, and has onlt edited Silver Master's articles. See Silver Master's sport-related article creations for an indication that Silver Master is located in Egypt as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Black Kite already dealt with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Joel Ellis

I am trying to understand why the pages created by Joel Ellis were all deleted as if he never existed. (Joel Ellis, Cats in Boots, Ellis and Angel, Joey Angel) He is actually a musician that was a part of those actual groups and the pages were created by him. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:9:84B6:81C1:BB4C:D5D7:3D4F (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

An article being written by its subject is actually considered a negative factor. Autobiographies don't really belong in an encyclopedia. The issue here appears to have been notability. I can prove that I exist, and as it happens I have been in a few bands that got some press and I could prove they existed too. That doesn't mean that either I or the bands I was in were notable enough for an encyclopedia article. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Ellis that shows how the decision to delete the article was made, my role was simply to evaluate the consensus reached there and act appropriately. If the situation has changed in the last five years, you could always make a draft article and if it demonstrates notability better than the old deleted version it could be made into an article again. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

I'm not quite sure on how to deal with this. I tried to de-escalate but it clearly did not work. Thanks greatly for your help. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

They're reffering to this edit. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I find it's often best in a situation liek this to just not continue responding. You tried to smooth it out, but they clearly want to be angry about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Yeah, I know. For obvious reasons (Oversight, ArbCom,...) I wanted to check with you. It's sad :( Thanks anyways, have a nice day. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Inactivity of Wikipedia:Administrator review

Thanks for tagging it as "historical". BTW, what to do with Wikipedia:Administrator review/Header? --George Ho (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we particularly need to do anything with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Not even the blue button to create subpages? --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It is transcluded only onto the main page, which is marked as historical. I don't see a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Got it. Hopefully, it'll be not vandalized. --George Ho (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for an update, the abandoned process is discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits

Thanks for the heads up. I will exercise caution from here on out. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 03:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Silver Master page protection

Is there a policy-based reason for page protecting User talk:Silver Master? Does this page protection stop User:Silver Master from editing their own talk page?

Seems unfortunate to me that the discussion has stopped, given the unfortunate imbroglio. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The settings and the reason are both recorded in the log. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Sorry, I missed something there, when I was looking. Hmm ... not really sure about "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked". They have made only a single edit to their talk page since the day they were blocked. It was polite, positive in tone, and moving forward. Policy is that it should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page. It's not clear there has been any abuse of the talk page ... though even if there has been, a single edit doesn't meet the criteria of continued. However, I also hadn't realized the length of the block ... so there's probably no point in debating it. Thanks again. Nfitz (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI topic closed/resolved

Hello! Thank you for showing me how to close a discussion! :) SnivyFan1995 = Gunnerfreak from Yohoho Puzzle Pirates 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

RaRaRasputin's block for canvassing

Just wondering what canvassing RaRaRasputin did that you blocked him for. He appeared to think that it was based on this edit. Is that the one he was blocked for? I'm not sure I even understand the edit. The "mmm" part might refer to his block indirectly, if so I could understand the canvasing part. But I have no idea what the "February 2015" part was about or the rest of it. Just trying to understand. -Obsidi (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed the edit, in which he is carefully not quite mentioning February 2015 Darayya chemical attack, a page covered by his topic ban. The block has just been extended to indefinite after an even more ridiculous unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. Thank you. -Obsidi (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

James Dale Ritchie

I thought you should know that it was confirmed today that James Dale Ritchie was in fact a serial killer. Police now say he killed 5. Most Alaskan websites have the story, ADN, KTUU, KTVA., etc. I believe you were working on an article, so I know you would appreciate getting this information. I am on a wiki break for work but I found a computer to send you this message. I hope you're well. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been all over the news. It was actually @DarthBotto: that was working on an article and I see it is now in mainspace. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox and Michaelh2001: Ah yes, what a development! It was a bit of a gamble to write a draft simply because of the murder weapon, but it's finally wrapped! There will be more like him, even in Anchorage, but I'm sure this particular case will end up on a bunch of true crime series before long. Thanks for remembering this, guys! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

RfA

I rather liked your comment here. If I were to nominate, would you consider co-nominating? I opposed the last RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe I would. I think more than enough time has passed for the majority of users to look past the old issues, he seems to have been doing good work without trouble for quite some time now. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let you know after conferring with the candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Miller's Reach Fire

Knowing your interest in things Alaska, I thought you might like to know I just created the article on Miller's Reach Fire that happened in 1996 about 30 miles north of Anchorage. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. sounds like a bad one. Funny how close it actually is to Anchorage, by road it's twice as far, until they build the Knik Arm Bridge, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Despite all the opposition, I would not be surprised to see it built. Expensive bridges have a habit of being built in Alaska. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Various

  1. Something for you to read. If you think I'm nuts don't hesitate to tell me.
  2. Are you going to Wikimania? I have 7 days left to decide whether or not I splash out $2,000 to go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Rather busy now, but I'll give it a read when I have time. Not going this year, applied for but didn't get a scholarship, but I have always heard that Montreal is a great city if that makes any difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy Aniversary!

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious
Four years!

and also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Bye for now

My life has taken an unexpected turn, and I simply don't have the time or energy for Wikipedia at the moment. I may be back at some future point, I really can't say what the future holds right now, but for the moment I am a user of Wikipedia but not a contributor.

That being the case, it would be awesome if somebody could set up auto archiving on my talk page. Set it up however seems best, I'll change it if needed if and when I am active again. Thanks.

Beeblebrox (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added bot archiving. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Take care Beebs. Love you man. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Eight years of adminship, today.

Wishing Beeblebrox a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Beeblebrox:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – LinguistunEinsuno 21:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request

Three years ago, you did an Arbcom block of an IP. Wondering whether an indef is appropriate, I've asked for this and one other IP-indef-block to be reviewed at WP:ARCA. Please don't take this as a complaint against your action; this is just growing out of a thread at WP:AN about indeffing IPs, and I wanted to see whether the block were still considered useful, but I knew that there wasn't a point in requesting an unblock from you because it was done by authority of Arbcom. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see some edits from you

If you'd come back a couple of weeks sooner, you could have run for ArbCom! :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh darn... what a disappointment... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Nice to see your talk page pop up on my watchlist again! :-) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 22:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Add me to the list of people were happy to see that you are active again. Welcome back.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Me too! Alex Shih (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Beeblebrox. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Please can you revisit this discussion? Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My administrative action was aimed at stopping the move-warring that was going on. I don’t see any reason to stop the AFD at this early stage. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, –Ammarpad (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Small Circle

Hello,

I'm trying to understand the deletion of the page I had created for a band called Small Circle for breaking A7. I am relatively new at editing Wikipedia, and this was the first brand new article I had created, so it is possible that I do not fully understand the criteria for deletion. However, Small Circle could be considered "notable" under the following criteria:

Small Circle have been the subject of several articles that I understand to be non-trivial as they contain more than "trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." These include several different songs which were debuted and reviewed by Stereogum[1] [2] , as well as the announcement of the band itself by The AV Club[3] , who went so far as to call them "the type of band that, for a certain sub-culture, could be considered a supergroup." The Fader also had an article about their debut album featuring a brief review, brief email interview, and release and tour information for the band.[4] Other websites such as Exclaim! also reviewed their album[5] , although I had not yet cited this specific review.

The band also contains two or more independently notable musicians. Cameron Boucher, Charlie Singer, and Adam Ackerman are all members of Sorority Noise, as well as Old Gray. Sean Hallock is the drummer for Rozwell Kid.

If you deleted the article for not having a "credible claim of significance or importance", I would be happy to work with you or take to any advice you have on improving this aspect of the article. Again, I've only been doing this for a few months and it is more than likely that this article was deleted due to me doing something wrong, I'm just trying to understand how I could potentially fix the article so it could be republished.

Thanks,

WellRehearsedWhale (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.stereogum.com/1958609/small-circle-mornings/premiere/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.stereogum.com/1938939/small-circle-sameness/premiere/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://news.avclub.com/small-circle-announces-its-arrival-with-please-don-t-t-1798245686. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ http://www.thefader.com/2017/08/07/small-circle-spinning-cyclical-sorority-noise. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ https://exclaim.ca/music/article/small_circle-cyclical. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
The article as written did not make a credible claim of significance. It basically said that the band existed, has released a single, and is working on an album. I think if you re-wrote it to emphasize some of the points you made in your remarks here, it would probably no longer qualify for speedy deletion. That being the case, I’m going to go ahead and restore it and tag it as being under construction, which should give you some time to make the needed adjustments. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishes

It's that time of the year, Beeb. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking you for all you do. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than wheare 😎

Thanks buddy, back at you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

And a Happy New Year. Thanks, Beeblebrox, for all you do around Wikipedia. I hope your holiday season is a joyous one and the coming year brings many days of happiness and wonder. (By the way, if you don't celebrate Christmas then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, Merry Makar Sankranti, Enlightening Bodhi Day, Merry Yule, Happy Tenno no tanjobi, or fill in whatever holiday is your preference.) Zaereth (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Beeblebrox. Hope the winter holidays are treating you well. I was wondering if I could ask you questions about ArbCom, and about ways to make Wikipedia:Editing restrictions more effective and easier to use? I hope to learn from your experience. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, ask away. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Poland article - planned POV attack at AN/I

Due to recent vandalism on AN/I, I'm unable to reply there ( I'm still not extended-confirmed, after 12 years - I edit a few times per year on average :D ). If you could be so kind to copy the following message there, I'd be thankful (not that the AN/I has anything to do with me, I just don't like being misunderstood as a Nazi supporter). BytEfLUSh Talk 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course blaming the Poles for Auschwitz is an awful, despicable thing to do, and I'd revert the Nazi apologist and submit the case to whatever board is appropriate. I agree, such edits are serious incidents, there's no doubt about it. However, the OP in this case mentions such an edit (singular) as something that happened on another Poland-related article, made by some other editor. That made them uncomfortable and on the look-out for more vandalism (fully understood, such vile things should not happen on WP). However, the edit that this AN/I is about is something different: Should it be mentioned that Poland is the largest EU net beneficiary or not? That's what I meant by content dispute. BytEfLUSh Talk 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I added the reply as it seemed non controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Knowledgekid87, and sorry for not checking whether you're online or not, Beeblebrox. BytEfLUSh Talk 05:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A snow close, perhaps?

Please see this post, and advise regarding the best way to close the AfD. Atsme📞📧 00:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn’t close it at all since you participated, but I can..... and  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Block of Galileoflat‎

Not trying to stir anything up here, but given that you recently blocked the user in question, I thought it might be pertinent that after I reported them at AIV earlier today my filing was declined on the grounds that it was a content dispute, as seen here. I don't know how kosher it is to tell one admin that another may have mishandled a situation, but wanted you to at least be aware of the situation. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • That's really a single-purpose disruptor, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It’s also pretty clearly the same user as User:Grandtheftauto1988 and User:98.110.168.4. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more. They show a pattern of making the same type of edits and never speaking to anyone no matter what. That being said, AIV is only for edits that are clear and obvious vandalism, so I can see the point of not handling at AIV. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Doniago, I have no problem with Beeblebrox's block, he knows the background, but it wasn't obvious vandalism, and as someone uninvolved who patrols AIV regularly, all I saw was a change in categories from a literary category to a medical category that without knowing the context, could have been argued on the talk page. Even if it was clear what the issue was, OR isn't vandalism, and isn't normally handled at AIV, so I think ANI would have been better. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks all! DonIago (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:NepalMyMotherland

Can he be unblocked. please answer in his talk page. He has been request ing form before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisingWorld (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 Already done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I had this on hold at UTRS because I was looking at User:ILikeNepal which, from the user contributions, looks a sock created for block evasion. I am not saying that it was particularly egregious, and may have resulted from a lack of knowledge of our policies, but it does need sorting. To avoid too many admins taking action in relation to this user do you want to run with this one? Just Chilling (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It was a soft block for the username, which explicitly allows the user to just create a new account. It might be worth informing them of the policy on multiple accounts, but it isn’t block evasion. I do apologize for acting on a ticket you had on hold though, somehow I didn’t notice at the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, hum, yes you are quite correct. My bad. I will speak with them. Just Chilling (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It runs in my mind that you're in Alaska, although I admit that I might be confusing you with the not-very-active-anymore RadioKAOS. If you aren't, or you don't wish to comment on your location, I understand of course.

How does one normally pronounce Valdez? vælˈdiːz and vəlˈdɛz are both given in the article's intro, but I'm not sure whether that means that vælˈdiːz is more common or that someone just decided to put it first. (This is how I've more commonly heard of the ship, as if it were the plural of "X-on val-D".) And I wondered if people always used those two vowel combinations and never mixed them, or if one could also hear vælˈdɛz and vəlˈdiːz.

So if you offer an opinion, that would be appreciated, and if you don't, that will be understood :-)

Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I do indeed live in Alaska, as does RK, and also Zaereth. I’m quite sure all of us would answer that it is the first one, if I understand correctly. Phonetically it would be Val-deez. Pronouncing it the other way would mark you as a tourist, I have never heard an Alaskan say it that way and now that you mention it I question why it is included int he article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The story I heard growing up (and don't quote me on this) is that the founder of the town was disliked by most of the locals, and to show their feelings they changed the pronunciation from the Spanish (short "e") to the Alaskan pronunciation we use today (long "e"). However, I have no way to verify this. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I did some checking, and find a lot of sources that describe the pronunciation, but here is one that gives a possible reason as to why: Out of the channel: the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound by John Keeble (page 8), "Valdez was not "settled" until 1898, and then mainly by Americans from the upper Midwest who had their own way of saying the word. It is suggested that since 1898 was the year of the Spanish American War, the current pronunciation was born of anti- Spanish sentiment." I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Recent years has been nominated for discussion

Category:Recent years, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the nice message Beeble

HospitalHistory (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

For advice of editing

How can i edit semi-protected page? Nangu karna (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, you can’t. What you should do instead was detailed in my reply to your request. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeking access to Wikitext of deleted article so I can improve it in userspace

Recently the article Post-grunge lit was deleted as non-notable, on the grounds that it was based on a single PhD dissertation. Since then I have found other sources. I would like to work on the article in my userspace or offline and improve it, so that if better, more reliable sources are found, then perhaps it can be restored. I have done this already with Cold weather cycling, which was deleted, and then I helped to improve it and re-put it on WP. I am seeking help in getting access to the Wikitext (with formatting and references) of the deleted article Post-grunge lit. ThanksOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 21:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. See User:OnBeyondZebrax/Post-grunge lit. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

.

Someone changed entire article on Arjuna topic in single click by clicking Undo button, But when i did the same then wiki says-

"The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually."

Why? Please help me because when i manually changed Arjuna article then it took a lots of time(2 hours). Then i want to say that if wiki will say above problem then how can i change entire article in single click. Nangu karna (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The undo button can only undo the most recent edit. I would say the more important question is why the other user wholesale reverted you without explaining why as they should have and would ask @RA0808: to please do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I reverted the edit because it seemed to add a lot of WP:OR without citing others' interpretations of the texts. Apologies for the confusion Nangu karna my finger must have slipped before I typed the "OR" portion of "rv OR". RA0808 talkcontribs 21:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

IP to block

I wrote in AIV page as you suggested.Why don't they block the vandal?Thank you.LittleOx (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my initial reply to you, it doesn’t look like intentional vandalism. I would also note that you only waited three minutes after adding your report before asking this question. The noticeboard had a number of reports on it at that time, administrators have to review each report to see if it has merit, it takes time. The actual reply to your report is here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Manish Kumar Page

I would like to ask you to unlock the article as I will tone down the content which you think is promotional. The re-created version of the article will have a neutral tone and would hence like you to unlock it and allow it to be re-created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrugeshsingh (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m going to take a leap of faith here and unprotect it since it has been so long, but for the record, a big part of the problem with the previous versions is that in no way indicated why the subject was notable and had no sources to back up the content. So, neutral tone or not, it will need to overcome both of those obstacles as well or face being deleted and create-protected again. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Air New Zealand Destinations

PLEASE MAKE FURTHER COMMENTS AT ANI, THANKS
moved to WP:ANI Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Hi, Is it possible to have a copy of this deletion or can it be preserved in an archive somewhere. Is that possible or has it gone forever. I can't find it in the deletion log. Was a shame to see it not there after 10+ years of it being there. I contributed a lot to it over the years. Regards CHCBOY (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a long discussion that was closed with a consensus that we should not have these destination articles. So, while I am normally inclined to grant such requests I can’t see a reason to do so in this case. (It is in the deletion log, and I did provide the same link to the policy discussion when deleting it [2]) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Nobody informed about this discussion at the corresponding project, namely WT:AIRLINE.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That’s easily refuted by the message I left there within moments of opening the discussion [3] It was plainly visible there for the entire 26 days the discussion was open. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! You're involved here as you created the RFC, and a VP RFC is not grounds for speedy deletion. Please restore these pages and go through WP:AFD. Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to go through and restore these. Please do not continue these deletions without a valid policy rationale. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
So, a community policy decision with a clear consensus is no longer a valid policy rationale? Not buying that. If you start restoring these, we’re going to wind up at ANI, and I’d really rather not. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I've put the two back that were listed as FL's, I'll hold off on the rest. But no, you can't speedy delete things based off an RFC! It's a valid rationale for testing the RFC at AFD (and, IMO, some of these are deletable), but not for unilateral speedy deletion. Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where you’re getting that logic. We had a policy discussion that ended in a very clear consensus that Wikipedia should not have any of the articles in this category. WP:CON and WP:NOTBURO clearly both apply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let's look at it from another angle. You shouldn't be speedy-deleting articles based on an RFC that you started. Let an uninvolved administrator deal with it. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the recent "decision" deleted two featured lists, and I obviously missed the memo where this project was informed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone please do something about this or I will start a thread at WP:ANI regarding the matter.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) And SERIOUSLY, declining a super-polite request to restore a list to user space? Seriously? Seriously? I don't think that's what Jimbo had in mind when admins were created. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It's simple. 1 -- you're involved. You started the RFC, you've got no business using admin tools to enforce it. 2- Speedy deletion is a very regimented process. "An RFC closed that we shouldn't have this" is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, or for mass deletion of various articles of different quality, content, and relevance. And, no, I don't see a "clear" consensus there at all. I see one leaning that ways, but that consensus was achieved on the VP, which is not the place where deletion is determined. The process is tagging all of the articles, and having an AFD, and seeing if that limited consensus there can hold up under the wider scrutiny of a series of AFDs. Courcelles (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That’s a novel interpretation of the involved admin policy. I could easily see your point if I had closed the RFC, but from my perspective, I opened this can of worms, so when we had a clear consnesus and a close, I felt it was my responsibility to the extremely boring work of actually removing the 400+ pages that the community decided should not be hosted here. I’m sorry we’re so at odds here, but I feel like we need to escalate this past my talk page as I am just not buying any of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why you couldn't honour the original request, to refuse such that is frankly bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mass deletion of airline destination articles based on an RFC. --Jetstreamer Talk 22:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This could be very bad news.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I opened my own tread at the same time, and have merged the two, let’s continue this discussion there please. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
FFS, and I just opened one at WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


The original request, i.e. the provision of the content of the NZ destinations, is there any genuine reason you wouldn't do that? The material is not controversial, the request was made in good faith, it seems completely bizarre that you would turn it down. If you reject the request again, I'll take it WP:REFUND and we'll look more closely at your admin actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoration/userfication of pages is usually done with the expectation that the page will be improved in hopes of returning it to mainspace at a later date. That being the case, I am usually very willing to do so, but if the community has just said they don’t think these articles belong in mainspace it just doens’t make sense, good faith request or not. If I’m wrong about this whole thing, all the pages will be restored so I don’t see much point in continuing to discuss this one in particular. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good faith request

Considering the comments here, ANI, and AN, could you please begin restoring the article on airline destinations? I don't think there has been any support registered for deletion and it would definitely display an act of good faith in the process if you began restoring the articles per WP:NOTBURO. I understand you have stated you want the process to run to completion but I hope you can see that it will not end in favor of deletion. I think an act of good faith now would have the effect of ending the discussion which is beneficial for everyone to avoid an unnecessary conflict. ending that discussion would allow a more fruitful discussion on policy rather than user conduct which is more beneficial. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the articles, there were circa 600 redirects to the articles. These were deleted by AnomieBOT III on January 28 and 29. These will likely have to be restored as well, so sorry. :( — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I appears all this is  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-blocking request

Hi. I'm sorry to trouble you, I was wondering if you be willing to give my account and my static IP an indef. I'm done with this project and wish to remove any temptation to edit here again. I'm not particularly interested in going on a vandalizing spree. Thanks. Dolescum (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently they couldn’t wait an hour for me to reply... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways/Archive_38&oldid=1187291190"