Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:53, 19 February 2015

Welcome to my talk page

Archives

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

I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.

I am an oversighter, but it is generally inadvisable to discuss oversight matters on-wiki. If you need to request oversight, following the process at WP:RFO is the best route to getting your request handled in a timely fashion, but you can email me if you prefer.

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

The unblockables

Excellent essay man, often when you meet them and try reporting them, the discussion will usually shift to the one reporting getting banned Loganmac (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Slate likes it too ... --evrik  19:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently. Maybe when I'm not an arb anymore I will share my own thoughts on the GGTF decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you integrate this essay , Misplaced Pages:No get out of jail free cards? --evrik  02:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent essay. I suggest letting the essay have its own talk page, where supports and opposes could be expressed; "what-to-do-about-its" could be worked out, etc. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've kept it this way because it's a user essay and hadn't seemed to attract much attention up until now (it's been there almost four years). I also keep it in my userspace because I wrote it to reflect my opinion. I have seen folks move their user essays out into project space, only to see them modified over time into compromised, waffling writing as everyone tried to make it conform to what they think. If this level of attention is anything more than a brief uptick because of the Slate thing I may at least give it a talk page though. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing this right but I'll add 2 cents. I'll be honest, I've always thought about editing but I saw your essay long ago when peeking through things. It was suggested I read it and was linked to a few 'problematic' editors who would be present in the space I would likely want to edit. It made me 'nope' the hell out and walk the other way. Just the overwhelming evidence that there is an 'upper class' of editor that makes it very clear Wiki cannot be 'edited by everyone' was very disappointing. To know that if in good faith I made an edit some person would just undo it and complain to an admin to have me banned just because of some procedural mistake. Or try to claim that I'm some single purpose account just because it's the only article I've edited(because it was the only one that caught my interest to fix). This and the flooded inbox of people complaining about obvious bias that admin have for editors who have been around a while. I'd think you'd hold a long time editor to a higher standard than a newbie, who doesn't even know if they're actually doing it the right way. I'm an idiot and I don't know how to sign it properly, sorry.65.29.77.61 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

While it is a problem, I am sorry to see that you feel it is such a problem that you don't want to edit. Not every area of Misplaced Pages is crammed full of pushy, arrogant users who are above the law. In fact I think the problem may have gotten at least a little bit better recently, with a few notable exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disregard that loser, he seems to have decided to make an actual account and be constructive. Though his edits completely suck and he doesn't know half of what he's doing. But spamming Random Article till you find something interesting to change can be ok. FlossumPossum (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, none of us knew what we were doing when we started out. I used to hit the random article button a lot more before I became an admin, you never know what weird thing you will find with it. It's the "gateway drug" of Misplaced Pages addiction. Next thing you know you'll be patrolling recent changes, and then requesting advanced permisssions and before you know it will be seven years from now and you'll have 33 pages of talk archives like I do... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Credits

Sure ! Usually, I always do this and that at the creation of the page. I'm sorry to have forget to do it before you asked !
Thanks for you essay. I hope that it will help us. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that so quickly! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

2015 already (well, here at least)

Hi Beeb. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and welcome back to the madhouse. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not quite back to normal as I am doing one last, particularly horrible arbcom case. I can't wait to take all this arbitration stuff back off my watchlist . Hope all is going well out there in the jungle. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello there! I need an administrator's assistance. I recently edited the article Oobi at Work and added a list of episodes with a source. However, a ClueBot reverted my edit. My username is new here on Misplaced Pages but I have been editing as an anonymous user until I realised I wanted to become a real user, so I am familiar with this kind of thing, but I would still like to know whether or not you think the list I added is wrongly done. I've seen some pages with all-out boxes for episodes, but some pages (like Didi and B.) listed them the way I did. Please give me any opinions! Derbundeskanzler (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that. ClueBot is designed to remove vandalism, and your edit doesn't look like that. I would suggest you report it at User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ban

Hi, an indefinite topic ban is too harsh. A definite ban of say 6 months would have sufficed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus, I'm afraid, was for an indefinite ban; I think I was the only editor who voted for a shorter tban. As such, it was out of Beeblebrox's hands. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Lukeno94 is of course correct, I merely closed the discussion and informed you of the result, it was not my decision and consensus was nearly unanimous. I would, however, add that indefinite does not mean infinite and if you follow the advice I gave on your talk page you could find the ban lifted in less than six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

1

Talk:Gordon B. Hinkley

Re:this edit of yours from 23:03, 16 January 2015‎ — The auto archive was working just fine: if you look at the talk page history, at 17:33, 15 September 2014‎, User:Lowercase sigmabot III properly archived the talk page, but on 18:03, 16 January 2015,‎ User:Mormography mistakenly reverted the bot. Unfortunatly your manual edit on 23:03, 16 January 2015‎ has created significant duplication between Archive 2 & 3. I have added the archive bot info back to the talk page, as that should be non-controversial, but I am loth to trim down the material in Archive 3 that is a duplicate for what is found in Archive 2, given I am trying to avoid another barrage of accusations against me about my actions on that article & it's talk page. Given that you are the person that created that manual archive, would you be willing to remove the duplicate info in Archive 3? * 16:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's messed up. I'll take a look at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Idea

Hello Beeblebrox, Ever since the infamous (for most people who know of it it is infamous) #GamerGate I payed more attention to feminism due to the fact 'the other side' consists of feminists (I payed attention before, but more local (Europe based)). Since then I've delved more deeper into it, and together with the news of today/yesterday (people trying to get an organisation to remove the invite to Baldwin (the actor who coined the term GamerGate)) including the near-libellous expressions of Kotaku's EiC Totillo etc, the 'porn charity' which got heavily attacked etc I really get the impression #GamerGate is just a culture war ('moderation' apparently also tries to be forced into comics, metal (the music), etc). Would it be a problem if I used my Sandbox page as an model to attempt to figure out if such a thing what I think it is is reported on by RSes as such, and whether it's possible to make such an article according to the Wiki-standards? Also, if it proves to be possible and can be done according to all standards, can it then be moved out to the regular Wiki (with possible tie-in links to the related portals)? Regards MicBenSte (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly you are asking if it would be ok to draft a new article in your userspace sandbox. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that so long as you keep in mind that many policies , WP:BLP in particular, apply every bit as much in userspace as they do in articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

1234567890Number‎'s self-given awards

Aside from the service awards (which you've deleted), they've also given themselves like 20 barnstars. Could/should anything be done about those? I feel that they lessen the value of earning one--I could have User:Origamian give me a dozen, but they'd be meaningless. Origamite 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• If they want to waste their time doing that, then let them, as long as it doesn't spill over elsewhere. The last barnstar seems to have come from January 2013, so I don't see the massive drama myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)

• As long as it doesn't spill over, I guess you're right-but it's a bit more recent, they gave the other account one in November. Origamite 20:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a massive drama and if they object I'm willing to let it drop, but I have removed all the unearned awards and replaced them with a message about what Misplaced Pages is and how awards are supposed to work. My real concern here is that this appears to be a user more concerned with their stats and their shiny awards than in actually doing anything to help the encyclopedia. That is an attitude that should be discouraged. I would note that I became aware of this because of a request at WP:PERM for advanced permissions so it isn't just giving themselves unearned stuff, they are now asking others as well. Luckily I used real tools to check their edits, so the request was declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be so lacking in AGF, but I would appreciate some guidance regarding the history at WP:LTA/BF101. A user who fiddles around in user space and puffs up an LTA report just might be a problem. Also see this comment on the LTA talk, which I removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Austin & Ally Season 3

I was looking through Disney Channel stuff and noticed that the table for the season three episodes of Austin & Ally is messed up. I wouldn't know where to start looking. - Amaury (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be an error introduced by a recent edit. Looks like someone else already fixed it, which is good because I have no clue about table formatting. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Augustine Volcano

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that's warranted just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect

How about this one? --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Greetings, the edit request function of the "view source" tab of https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision doesn't appear to be working properly for me, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would it please be possible to have a statement currently saddled in my talk page be edited in? Thank you for your time and patience. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason you can't edit that page is because it is semi protected, which prevents edits from users who are not yet autoconfirmed. The reason, crazy as it may seem, is that there are apparently people creating accounts for no other purpose than to comment on that proposed decision. But wait, what's this, you seem to have admitted on your talk page that you are such a person an that you already have a another Misplaced Pages account. Editing project space with a single-purpose alternate account is not permitted so I guess the answer is going to have to be no. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gordon B. Hinckley

The instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection seem to indicate that, if you were requesting an change to the page protection status on a page already address, it should come to the admin who did it first. So I believe contacting you is the appropriate action. However, if I'm supposed to take this to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, I apologize. Just let me know and I will do that.

You added a full protection to Gordon B. Hinckley set to expire on January 24th (1 week) due to a content dispute. The dispute has been discuses here since that time. However, the moment the full protection expired, one party immediately made the same change that led to the content dispute, completely ignoring the discussion and the consensus.

Therefore I'm requesting that you extend the full protection for whatever time you feel is appropriate. Clearly the content dispute continues.--- ARTEST4ECHO 13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Protection is really not something we want to do as it limits everyone's ability to edit, and I was very, very clear about blocks being issued if it resumed. therefore I have blocked them instead. Frankly I was tempted to go for an indef WP:NOTHERE block as all that user seems to do is edit war and make insulting, dismissive comments directed a t other users, and I don't believe they actually want to learn how to properly participate here, but maybe, just maybe this block will open their eyes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)g

Wow. Why the incivility above? Talk about dismissive comments directed at other users. Anyways it was interesting that ARTEST4ECHO was not blocked for reverting. You seem to prefer the state ARTEST4ECHO begged you to side with him above. It has become obvious to me now that suspending my edits was a mistake. Now the page is frozen in the Bold part of BRD. You seem to be believe that you were "very, very clear", but please clarify something for me. It has become clear to me that the disconnect on that page has to due the editors lack familiarity of the actual history. I now understand that what is occurring is an attempt to add some non NPOV to the sentences, which in assumption of good faith I will assume is unintentional. Now, please clarify will I be blocked if I add NPOV dispute to the section. Mormography (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're still not getting it. I do not care about "sides" in this dispute. I don't even really know what the sides are. It doesn't matter. Don't edit war. That's the one and only message I have tried to convey to you. It's really not that complicated. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

?? The question was will I be blocked for add something like a NPOV dispute to the page. I am having difficulty seeing an answer in the above. Apparently this all very clear to you, but obviously it is not to me. Once already I was blocked (and interesting enough others were not) under the assumption things were very clear, despite me declaring it was not clear to me. So if you refuse to answer directly the question, I will have to assume you are stating I will be blocked for any edit including adding a NPOV dispute.Mormography (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what, I don't really like to keep dealing with the same issue over and over again anyway. People tend to start taking things more personally on both sides of the coin. So, just count me out of it and do as you will. If other users feel there is edit warring going on they can just report it or ask for page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Be honest

How good did that feel?--Jezebel's Ponyo 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Good enough that I just made this to replace it. Note the bananas. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Everyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant, but your efforts were appreciated. --Jezebel's Ponyo 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bananas

You made we smile, - userbox with bananas and header. Thank you for the rare event between Kafka on AE and a friend gone, - did you know that I have a banana on my user page, but very small because it was deemed infuriating? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite and avoiding bans

I came to find this https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ryulong#e.27s_not_dead.2C_e.27s_just_restin.27

Which looks like a clear case of WP:MEAT and editing by proxy for an indefinetely banned editor. They both right out admit to emailing each other in case the editor needs something done. In particular, Hipocrite seems to be patrolling toku articles reverting everyone as if they owned the pages. This is against reaching a consensus.

If you could please point me to the specific board where I could raise this issue it would be appreaciated, thanks! Loganmac (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could take it up at WP:AN if you really want to. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on Arbcom, which is a messy, acrimonious, time-draining, soul crushing job. I was one of your biggest detractors going in and one of your biggest fans going out. Although we might have differed on this specific or that, I appreciate your honesty and needed toughness on the committee and thank you for your service to The Project. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you, that actually means a lot to me. And may I say that I have noticed you as a much-needed voice for moderation and reason at a certain other website. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Thank You

Thanks for handling all those CSDs I posted. I really hate doing that to a relatively new user but I honestly could not find even a very thin rational for keeping them. They were just empty shells with a name. There were a few others that had maybe a single event but no sources that I put maintenance tags on. But I gotta see SOMETHING besides a name and see also section. What I find particularly disturbing is that almost all of them had passed an NPP review without any kind of tag or notice. Anyway thanks again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, new page patrollers may have passed on this because WP:CSD#A3 actually does say that an article with just an infobox is not subject to that criterion. However, there wasn't actually any content in the infoboxes either, they were really just navboxes. There is some wiggle room there but I think the spirit of the criterion is that we shouldn't have articles that don't actually say anything and these certainly did not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For starting this RfC. Perhaps you could consider starting a similar RfC for the reviewer right. Biblioworm 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks also. I use a tablet for most of my wiki-editing, especially watchlist patrol, and rollbacks make it extremely convenient for mobile device editing. My rollback rights were recently revoked because I used them for what a certain admin considered questionable "abuse", ie. not strictly vandalism, but certainly unconstuctive edits that needed reverting. Your proposal would eliminate that, and make mobile editing much easier for me again. I hope this passes, but thanks for your proposal, whatever the outcome. If the Gadget proposal itself isn't accepted, perhaps the rollback restrictions will be eased anyway in consideration of mobile editors. - BilCat (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Appreciate your trust in granting me the pending changes right and I will do my best to use it correctly! EoRdE6 20:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hey Beeblebrox, I was just in the middle of saving a comment on this thread when you archived it, so my initial revision was not saved. I went ahead and added it to the archived discussion with an edit conflict notice. Is that alright? I know it's not really the norm, but this was something I felt strongly about; at the same time, commenting outside of the archive box might reignite the conflict, which is also something I don't want. Kurtis 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fine in the case of an edit conflict. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

for procedural reasons.

Alright, I was going to leave it at that, but I guess I'll dive in then.

Can you provide a somewhat more detailed reasoning, or link to your reasoning (if already posted elsewhere) for your action

21:33, 2 February 2015 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) unblocked TyTyMang

I was just looking at that together with an arbcom member, and now I'm wondering if the discretionary sanctions wording needs improving.(especially in light of the way you responded just now)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ever since my last software update I am experiencing an issue that makes copy/pasting diffs extremely difficult, so you'll excuse me if I just ask you to check my recent edits, where you will easily be able to see me explaining my reasoning at WP:AN, at the now-unblocked users talk page, and at the original blocking admins talkpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm also a little puzzled here, by two things. JzG's block may well have been wrong, may not have been. Not here to talk about that. But why did you undo a block that made no mention of being an Arbitration Enforcement block, or in any way related to ArbCom as "out of processs method for applying arbcom sanctions"? Also, why did you tell JzG that the proper way to use DS was to file at AE? You know that's never been a requirement for admins who wanted to impose a DS, the rules very explicitly state "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised"? Courcelles 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose in my zeal to forget about arbcom I may have erred in directing him to AE. However, the block was admitedly preemtive, and Jzg was making agreeing to a tban a condition of unblock. I don't believe that's how it is supposed to work. He seemed to be trying to apply his own personal DS when the committee has said that community based DS for gamergate is now superseded by arbcom DS. So using a block to arm-twist a user into voluntarily agreeing to it seems way out of process. If he had told him he already was tbanned and he better not violate it or he would be blocked that would be different, no? There was also an emerging consensus at AN that the block was flat out wrong to begin with, but I was trying to soften the blow (because I do believe Jzg was honestly trying to help in an area that needs admin help) but I guess that didn't work since "procedural reasons" is apparently some sort of trigger word for Kim, causing him to come of a prolonged editing break just to chastise me for daring to phrase it that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

And Kim, for the record, if you have a serious issue to discuss maybe next time don't use condescending, canned platitudes with smilies on them. Doesn't make one want to take your concerns seriously when that is how you express them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could assume that I was trying to just be nice and let you off lightly with some condescending, canned platitudes with some smilies on them.

In reality, I seriously don't want to see anyone use "Procedural Reasons" as an excuse ever again; ever. In the past, those words (or similar words to that effect) have often lead to big news articles about "Misplaced Pages messes up yet again". I do not want to read news articles like that. That's a reasonable wish, right? Do you really think I expressed that wish so impolitely?

In this particular case, looking at this user's posting history, I have a really bad feeling they're a sock trying to stir up trouble. JzG probably spotted more details than I did, clearly.

Will you be keeping an eye on them, and reblock them at the first sign of trouble (if/when that does occur?)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC) p.s. Said canned platitudes happen to be cross-section summary of policy and essays. Don't like policy, guidelines and essays? Feel free to change them.

You've got mail!

Just wanted to check in and make sure you got my email. No reply is necessary... just wanted to make sure it went through :) Best — MusikAnimal 19:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been really lax about checking since I left arbcom. For the last year I had to review anywhwre from a dozen to fifty or more emails pretty much every day. Your mail did come through and I'vejst replied to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gearóid Morrissey

Hello, could you please restore the history of Gearóid Morrissey prior to it being deleted at AfD, as the person is now notable. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, sorry to pop up out of the blue. With regard to this, I am itching to change that "form" to "from". I'm not going to, though, as I am terrified that it would annoy you, breach 93 rules of etiquette and cause the internet to collapse. So I am just casually mentioning it in passing, putting my hands in my pockets, and walking away whistling. Have a lovely evening or whatever time you are currently experiencing. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You have NO idea how much better I feel now. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If it was in one of my comments I might have been incliced not to bother, but right in the RFC opening statement is no good. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I just wanted to apologise if I came across too harshly during the RfC. The most important thing we should all remember is that we are all Wikipedians, and that we are here to build the greatest encyclopaedia that the world has ever known.

Again, I apologise if I came off as rude or inconsiderate before.

Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

I've never seen it myself, but has someone ever tried to game the system and propose the same thing again more or less immediately after it has been closed? I assume such has happened before, but I've never seen it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You name it, chances are somebody has tried it at least once. There have been a few times over the years that I have seen a proposal get firmly rejected, and the user proposing it comes right back with a slightly different version of the same thing. Usually it seems based on misunderstanding that it is not the details but the underlying idea itself that the community doesn't approve of. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Couple Questions

Hello, I hope all is well. I have a few questions about a page I am trying to publish for Topher Mohr. I appreciate the tips on the formatting of the references and will update those to reflect accordingly. The question is with the material that was deemed potentially infringed, the meat of the page. The site it was compared to actually copied almost word for word from his published bio on his labels site. The label has sent wiki a clearance to use the content in the form needed, indemnifying them, as they are the content owners. Can this be corrected in any way manually? Lastly for the references, it had been warned about user blogs, would the Huffington Post fall into that category or be ok? I ask because we have had a heck of a time getting this page up and he has a fairly strong career to date. Again, I very much thank you for your help and tips, it is MUCH appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case the volunteer response team should have it and as I recall they usually post a tag on the talk page noting that permission has been released. They get a bit backogged sometimes so it may just be a matter of them getting to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Perhaps in a few days or so it will be clarified. Again, thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Does my topic ban prevent me from raising concerns over BLP violations against my person if they would be within the airspace of topics covered by my topic ban? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 02:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming by "BLP violations" you mean "personal attacks"? Engaging in needed dispute resolution is one of the standard exemptions to topic bans. Personally I would suggest you just ignore whatever it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I feel it would fall under BLP, as Wikipedians are covered by WP:BLP. Misplaced Pages is not allowed to have probably false information about individuals said in Misplaced Pages's voice. Nor are editors permitted to make slanderous or damaging comments concerning people. Now, while one could get some professional bloggers to quickly publish some hitpiece based on doctored logs, ArbitrationGate proved that, no, even if the BBC said that the sky is red, that doesn't make the sky red. But I digress. My main concerns are editors making false claims, and similarly false claims being said in Misplaced Pages's voice (i.e, not in quotation), concerning my person. Specifically, an attack on not only my race, but also my sexuality, and my status as non-neurotypical. If I understand correctly, I am permitted to try to settle disputes, but you didn't specify if it was just between editors or disputes in general. Could you clarify that please? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 05:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is all a little vague, which I assume is a result of you trying not to violate the tban. Seems like it might be a good idea to just email arbcom, or someone who is still on the committee, and give them the specifics of what the problem is and what you propose to do about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

If you do propose eliminating the rollback user right again in a year or two, make it clear next time that you aren't proposing to replace it with Javascript. That seemed to cause a lot of confusion. Thanks for trying anyway. Gigs (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I had high hopes there but I guess now's not the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen

Hello Beeblebrox. First of all, could you be more specific on how my vandalism message is improper? I would like to have your opinion before I change my current warning system. Also, about how many edits reverting vandalism and warning vandals would you like to see before considering granting me the reviewer right? Please leave your response on my talk page, and let me know if any of my other current warnings are improper and how so. Thanks! Lord Laitinen (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lord Laitinen: I'm sorry I am contradicting your request to post this to your talk page but I, like many (if not most) users feel it is better to keep discussions in one place instead of fragmenting them. And as this is my talk page and I have both a note at the top of the page and an edit notice that explicitly mention this I am electing to reply here.

Regarding your "warning system," I question why you would even need that when we already have a perfectly good system that was developed over many years and has strong community support. Why reinvent the wheel? You can see the templates that pretty much everyone else uses by reviewing WP:UWT. The simplest way to use these is to go into your preferences and turn on WP:TWINKLE, an automated tool that helps you deal with vandals along with many other things.

As to number of reverts/warnings, for somebody with your level of experience probably just a few dozen or so, properly done would be very compelling. Quality is more important than quantity.

I wouldn't even worry too much about the reviewer right. It's only a very small part of what contributing here entails and if you just keep doing your best I'm sure you will find a future request will be successful. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your advice. I agree with you on the warning system, and I am placing a request for deletion on its page, and would appreciate if you could delete it soon, so that no other users who may see it will use the improper warning messages. Within the next few weeks or months, I should have attained two or three dozen more reverts/warnings, and, at that time, I will place a request on your talk page (since you were the one who provided criteria for me) for the reviewer permission. Lord Laitinen (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lord Laitinen: I hope your warning templates are rough drafts and not being used, "Such stubborn and impudent behavior has consequences here on Misplaced Pages, and you were given chances to improve" and "The consequence for doing this is usually a 24-hour block to test integrity. Please refrain from breaking this rule again" "to test integrity" ? Please consider re-wording these templates, (IMO) these templates are presumptuous, rude and bitey, at best. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 06:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am actually pretty surprised, but today alone I already have over two dozen edits related to reverting vandalism/disruption, warning users, and reporting users to administrators. I, like I said I would earlier, am now re-applying for the pending changes reviewer permission now. If you would like to see a few more vandalism-prevention edits, no problem, just let me know. Thanks! Lord Laitinen (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Another dozen and a half or so anti-vandalism edits since adding this message. Please get back to me as soon as you have time. Thanks again! Lord Laitinen (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you have also posted a new formal request I'll leave it for another admin to review, but I have to say your apparent impatience to get thsi user right does not fill me with confidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would prefer the term "persistence" over "impatience", but you're right about me wanting the permission soon. To be fair, I have done exactly what was asked of me since applying the first time, so, we'll see what happens. Thanks for your help! Lord Laitinen (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

hero

I was contemplating to give my daily prize to the infobox-hero mentioned in the Signpost, and you block them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately many of the infoboxes the created were no good, they appear to be running an unauthorized bot, and they won't talk to anyone. That didn't leave much choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No subject

You recently blocked Antotherreincarnationoftommythetroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a sock of TOMMYTHETROLL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, ///EuroCarGT 22:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you like poopy usernames?

Why did you make me change my username? Are you a five-year-old who is afraid that your mommy won't let you use Misplaced Pages if it contains the word "poop"? Or do you genuinely have nothing better to do with your life than force people tl change usernames? Or perhaps you somehow have the illusion that de-pooping my username was actually a worthwhile contribution that would benefit Misplaced Pages or its community? Or possibly you are a germaphobe, and seeing the word "poop" causes you an unsafe increase in heart rate or blood pressure? Or maybe you just look for reasons to make someone do something different than they want, just because it makes you feel like a big tough guy? I would be interested to know how my username came to your attention without me making edits or causing disputes. You must be searching for bad usernames out of some perverse desire to find someone who you can make feel bad about themselves.