Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 14 September 2012 (→A barnstar for you!: back at you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page

Archives

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

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

If you would rather communicate by email, it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email.

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

Rasmussen Reports

Beeblebrox, I'm not at all familiar with Misplaced Pages administration, so perhaps you could explain to me why you closed this discussion. I don't see consensus. I thought we were making good progress before Naapple declared "This conversation has gone on long enough," and, "The End." --Nstrauss (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress? If by that you mean it was becoming progressively more obvious that nobody agreed with you that the content belonged in the lead section, I would agree. Of you meant you were getting close to getting agreeement that it did belong I would say you have a case of selective deafness. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read that thread. There were only 4 participants, including me. From the very start Naapple flagrantly violated WP:AGF and was very uncivil. Orange Mike only came in at the very, very end and did not explain his view. The last participant was Safehaven86. Although he and I had our differences we were clearly moving toward a common understanding.

The discussion lasted for only 8 days before you closed it, and the page has not been particularly active. Why not give others the opportunity to weigh in for, say, a couple more months before closing? --Nstrauss (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of months pf debate over one sentence in the article lead? Why? Why could this possibly be so very important to you? You may want to examine your own motivations for wanting thos so bad. Beeblebrox (talk)

I don't understand, are you accusing me of editing in bad faith? I demonstrated good faith by explaining in detail my motives in the discussion thread. It seems that you never read the thread before closing it. Please do so. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I merely asked you to honestly ask yourself why you are so fixated on the idea that the content be right on the lead section. Of course I read the entire conversation before performing a close. A close I stand behind 100%. I did not say you were acting in bad faith, but I did say you were having a problem listening. Re-opening the discussion would make it take longer to reach the same result again, but if you want to keep beating a dead horse I suggest you seek dispute resolution. I'll thank you to stop badgering me about it as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've opened a new AN/I discussion here. Sorry to keep pestering you on this issue; I wish there was a less painful way to do this. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: speedy deletion

Hi! Thank you for clarifying. I may have made similar mistakes a few times more. However, I will be more cautious. Cheers!--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion has a lot of little details like that, it takes a while to get them all down. Even some admins don't know all the ins and outs of the criteria. One good way to be sure is that every time you have nominated something go to WP:CSD and double check to be sure there isn't some detail you overlooked or were not aware of. It takes a bit more time but eventually you will be able to nominate articles with total confidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What about this one? I tagged it with notEnglish. Is that ok? Even the title is in some other language. SO it was difficult to ensure if this existed in other Wikimedia projects.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that was an article in Thai about white-tailed deer, so it was deleted as WP:CSD#A10. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records

Thanks for locking the CBS Records article. This incarnation of CBS Records is not related to the former CBS Records entities which changed their names to Columbia Records regarding the label and Sony Music Entertainment regarding the company. In 1988, CBS sold CBS Records to the Sony Corporation and CBS gave Sony only a temporary license on the CBS name which forced the name changes and eventually allowed CBS's parent company CBS Corporation to form a new CBS Records in 2006. The dispute has to do with the insertion of too much material which actually belong in either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking to get involved in the actual content dispute, just shutting down the edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please re-lock the CBS Records article as Norton changed it back BEFORE the dispute was settled. I have a compromise solution of creating a new article called "CBS Records International" regarding the international arm of the former CBS Records (now Sony Music) that was founded in 1962. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton is at it again. Please take action. I've already report this in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Russ. Is there a way to keep the CBS Records article a DAB page permanently? Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just reading your post at AN. It reads like an announcement of intent to edit war. Frankly I think the both of you should walk away from this issue and let users who haven't been warring over it sort it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How do we start a WP:ARBCOM case regarding CBS Records? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:A/G for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi, Beeblebrox. Would you be willing to take a look at this discussion and voice your opinions about it there? We are trying to come up with a resolution. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Speedy Gonzalez!

• Hi, as →User:Память← was confirmed as a sock of the BANNED →User:Rinpoche← per SPI result, I requested for it to be speedily deleted per WP:DENY as indicated by the CU admin. Subsequently, it was indeed deleted but a newbie who was clueless about WP:DENY just went to re-tagged the user page. Could you help to delete it? Thanks and best. --Dave 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hello again~! Please disregard the above, Boing! said Zebedee just beat you to it... and I bet he watches this page~! Cheerio~! --Dave 16:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on the Ken Sibanda page

This is not possible. I am merely raising the fact that Altfish80 is a sock puppet that was created to attack the page. Thanks, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "this is not possible" but I was posting on your talk at the same time.please see my messages there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan

If you haven't seen the post at ANI please take a look. Any objection to me indefinitely blocking him now? IMHO I think I can do this on my own without community approval, but... Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Had a look, replied there, short answer is it has npthing to do with the terms established at the RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI case

Hi Beeb. It appears that User talk:94.12.133.144 may have resumed editing immediately after coming of his IP block. I am tempted to reblock, but I would like your input on this. You may find his recent editing history particularly interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I actually declined one of those speedy nominations yeaterday without putting it together. When I see an IP edit its just a string of random numbers to me. Seems likely to me, but User:Acroterion may have more info as the blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

RAN

Something you told to Richard Arthur Norton apparently gave him a very wrong impression of what consensus is. See Talk:CBS Records#Disambiguation page vs. CBS Records article, specifically this comment by RAN: "However we set time limits for debate and decision making here at Misplaced Pages. An administrator gave us three days of lock down to come up with consensus." You've mentioned it to him on ANI, and I appreciate that you did, but could you tell him directly? He still just does not get it.--SGCM (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#lead:_conservative_leaning_or_independent,User_talk:Beeblebrox#Rasmussen_Reports". Thank you! EarwigBot  21:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

suckpupeteer

Not seen that before. A valuable addition to the language! pablo 23:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I stronly prefer it to the term "sockmaster" which I think plays into the sockpupeteers image of themselves as a clever genius circumventing WP with their brilliant plan. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your Misplaced Pages help...

Daviddaved 00:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Userfy a deleted article

Is there any way you can userfy Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Huá to me? I know it's an old delete but just thought I try. —  AjaxSmack  02:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Now at User:AjaxSmack/Huá Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think there's anything worth salvaging but I couldn't remember. —  AjaxSmack  05:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CBS Records". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Ramil_Safarov

Hi Beeblebrox, I wasn't aware that there was already a discussion going on at AN, must have missed that one completely. Would you mind me merging the thread you closed at ANI into the AN discussion? The 1RR proposal would have to get admin approval anyway so why not have a subsection at the relevant AN discussion. De728631 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you merged them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection on Goodreads article

Hi! I noticed you put an edit block on the Goodreads article because it was turning into a revision war, and I'm glad you noticed it so soon. I was actually just looking for the process of reporting a revision war. I just wanted to ask if it's possible for you to either revert to my previous copy of the article or to remove the controversy section entirely. I'd originally added it because the controversy had gotten some coverage and it resulted in the changing of several of the rules on the site as far as reviews go. I'd like to keep it in there in as neutral a fashion as possible, but if it's going to just cause drama then I'd just as soon not have it at all. In any case, the current article revision lacks reliable sources and looks to be biased towards the side of the side of the sites that are against the negative reviewers. I don't really have an opinion either way, but I would like it to be more neutral than what it currently is like. Could you compare the two versions and make a decision as to whether it should be changed to my version or otherwise deleted? The current article state is atrocious.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the short answer is probably not. Per WP:PREFER, protection usually means just protecting whatever version is currently on the page. (for a more lighthearted description of the same issue see the wrong version at Meta. Admins do not make rulings in content disputes and have no special authority over article content. What is needed is for a consensus to be established as to how the article will deal with these issues. If you don't feel the two of you can work that out a thord opinion is a good first step in informal dispute resolution. I see you have already tried to engage the other user in discussion, hopefully that along woth the protection will help resolve the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• The biggest problem so far is that the other user, although well intentioned, is new and unaware of how notability of persons is established and neutrality. I'd really, really appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the conversation between the two of us. I would prefer that we not have to go to dispute resolution but I doubt that we will be seeing eye to eye on this so I'm also going to put in for a third opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

One question added after your vote

Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re Penyulap

I'm not able to post on Penyulap's talk, but please see this. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC).

AN

Hi. Disappointed to see you closed the discussion (request for moratorium) and suggested a RfC. Perhaps my opening statement wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking for a random admin to just declare "moratorium imposed", I was hoping there could be a bit of discussion by some uninvolved parties (admins and non-admins) and they could come to a consensus on whether a moratorium would be useful. The community has the authority to do this and AN is a central noticeboard, not an admin only area. To suggest a RfC, which would be along the lines of "well, we have this RfC over here where we can't get consensus, so I'd like to have a 30-day discussion (usually longer) to see if we shouldn't move these articles until we get a community consensus on the issue", is pretty ridiculous. Surely it's common sense, but try telling that to those involved. As for AN3, of course no one has technically edit warred (these are all experienced and intelligent editors), and a report there would just end in walls of text with no result. In addition, these editors just need a clear cut warning along the lines of "do this and you will be blocked, whatever your justification", something un-wikilawyerable, and they will stop. I'm WP:INVOLVED and unable to make these calls (plus, as you've noted at AN, it's not really something a single admin should be doing), and of course no uninvolved admins want to wade into the mess (can't blame them). Can you please repoen the AN discussion? P.S. – been meaning to say this for a while, but I thought your close of the Ivory Coast RM was excellent and tough break about the RfB. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, AN is explicitly not the place for settling content disputes. The discussion got very long very fast but the majority of it was the same already involved parties just continuing their argument. The remainder of the remarks were me and one other admin trying to explain that there is no mandate for us to do anything. Without a consensus, there is simply no basis for an admin to do anything here, and that conversation was clearly not helping.

Some thoughts on how to proceed:

• WP:DRN is usually a bit faster than RFC, maybe they could help.
• Or a time limited-RFC. I agree that thirty days is probably not warranted for such a discussion, but the RFC framework is not set in stone, it can be modified as the situation warrants.
• I am generally the last person on the world to suggest this, but this may even be that rare case where a poll is appropriate. Since the goal is not to resolve the content dispute but to calm things down so that it can be resolved, a time-limited poll (say five days or a week) to establish the moratorium would give admins the consensus that is needed to enforce any such moratorium, and the poll structure would hopefully discourage the involved parties from posting walls of text.

To be honest I wasn't going to formally close it, I pretty much marked it with {{NOTHERE}} and was ready to be done with it, but then I saw on my watchlist that LittleBen was going back in and posting, not new remarks at the bottom but modifications to remarks he already made that had already been replied to. Rather than have another argument with him it seemed best to just shut the whole thing down.

Oh, the Ivory Coast move. For me that served as a big reminder to keep it short and sweet when trying to explain a close. If you give too many details, people will jump all over them and look for the most sinister interpretation of them they can. It was funny actually, I was at a talk at Wikimania, less than a week later, where the presenter mentioned that nobody cites IAR anymore. Afterword several of us were discussing how he didn't get that admins use IAR all the time, we've just learned not to say so because it makes people go crazy. Thanks for your condolences on the RFB, but really, being told "you're too decisive we want someone more boring" is about the nicest rejection I've ever gotten. I obviously had not realized it, but if boring is what the community wants from crats I probably would not be a good one. I thought they wanted competence and a record of good judgement. Mu mistake. They want competence and no judgement, good or bad. What amused me is that I said right out that I would not answer what has long been the stupidest part of RFB: being asked to re-examine 10-15 old RFAs and say what you wpuld have done. A few people were really bothered by that, but then when 28bytes ran right after me, nobody tried that with him either. I basically count that as a win, we got a new crat and they weren't subjected to the usual hazing. Ok, you caught me just after getting up and clearly I am feeling a nit refelctive this morning and have now posted my own wall-o-text. Coffee time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Usertalk:Angel670

Talkback

Hi Beeblebrox, I replied to your suggestion a few days ago. Would you mind having a look and letting me know what you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devaraya (Telugu Film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This AfD removal

I'm a bit perplexed by this edit. Was that intended? AllyD (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ah! I guess not, seeing you've reverted. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Been editing with an iPad. When looking at a list of changes sometimes a lot of links are close together, all I meant to do was look at the diff but the iPad thought my finger was on the "rollback as vandalism" link. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I spent some time on holiday a fortnight ago with a (much cheaper) 7" slab for company and several times thought my fingers / the unresponsive little screen were on the brink of putting some grotesque tag onto an article. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you Beeblebrox for reading the riot act over Talk:Crimean Karaites. As one who was trying to figure out what the problem was from WP:DRN I gave up about half way down. Hasteur (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was about to give you one for shutting down that pointless DRN thread, I'll do that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)