Addihockey10 (talk | contribs) →Ban: new section |
|||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
==RevDel== |
==RevDel== |
||
*Would a RevDel be appropriate for this edit; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bli_Bli,_Queensland&diff=prev&oldid=392903234]? [[User:E. Fokker|E. Fokker]] ([[User talk:E. Fokker|talk]]) 01:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
*Would a RevDel be appropriate for this edit; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bli_Bli,_Queensland&diff=prev&oldid=392903234]? [[User:E. Fokker|E. Fokker]] ([[User talk:E. Fokker|talk]]) 01:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Ban == |
|||
Yes - I do agree. Thanks :) --<b><font color=red>[[User:ADH10|Addi]]</font><font color=blue>[[User:ADH10/T|hockey]]</font><font color=gold>[[Special:Contributions/Addihockey10|10]]</font><font color=purple><sup>[[Special:Emailuser/ADH10|e-mail]]</sup></b></font> 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:45, 26 October 2010
Generation X
Hi, Beeblebrox.
Thanks for protecting the Generation X page. The arguing back and forth was getting ridiculous. I left a message on the talk page. Do you mind either responding there or on my talk page?
Also, can you please fix the title of the reference I added? Number 14: by Timothy Smith. The title is The Seven Cries of Today's Teens: Hear Their Hearts, Make the Connection. Thomas Nelson. The first word is missing the "T." It accidentally got deleted when I was adding another source. I appreciate it. Have a good weekend. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Message added 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message added 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SHAYCARL REVIEW
I apologise in advance if i am sending you a message wrongly but i cant find a function to send you a mail etc. I was just asking could you review a deleted article called shaycarl?. Youtube is a huge organisation with millions of followers and this man is a very successful person there, with over 1.2 million subscribers spread through his 4 channels i think he is well known enough to have his page back. I am not forcing you to review it I am merely suggesting it. regards, sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.19.248 (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you are asking me in particular, but Shaycarl has been deleted nine times, so anyone wanting to recreate it should probably construct a subpage draft that has multiple reliable sources cited, the lack of which being the main reason the article was deleted so many times. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
PG2
Hi. Thanks for un-talk-blocking PG2. To avoid excess traffic at the noticebaord I'll ask here rather than there: can you say if PG2 was in fact tp blocked? His logs say:
* 2010-10-18T18:57:11 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Polargeo 2 (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (allowing talk page access to request unblock) * 2010-10-15T00:39:43 Hersfold (talk | contribs) blocked Polargeo 2 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{checkuserblock}} - Abusing multiple accounts / block evasion - User:Polargeo)
You can read the logs better than me. From that it looks to me like H just blocked the account, and PG2 had talk page access? (it is probably the range block casuing his inability to edit there, I'm guessing).
Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Although it is somehow not noted in the log, when I opened up the block options "allow user to edit their own talk page" was not checked. It is now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can confirm that. A bug, maybe. –xenotalk 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
lil help?
{{helpme}} I don't know where I went wrong, but I made a mess trying to cite the same source multiple times at Indian Hill, Ohio. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done Just missed the " / " at the end of the reference <ref name="Close to Home"/> CTJF83 chat 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ctjf83, you beat me to it! Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- How silly of me. Thanks for the fix. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ctjf83, you beat me to it! Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Chionoecetes bairdi
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
re-talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Communist Terrorism
Sorry I think you made the wrong call there. We have two IPs which were created simply to edit war on a single edit which had been disputed. The fact that one has gone way past 3rr kinda proves the point. --Snowded TALK 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Were their edits blatant vandalism? That wasn't indicated in your protection request and does not appear to be the case. I can't be taking sides in an edit war, and you passed 3RR yourself. If you prefer I could remove the protection and hand out some blocks... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't expect you to take sides and I'm relaxed about the page being frozen as it is generally in a mess. My point was that the New Jersey IP was created (in a few forms) just to insert the disputed text. That to me is vandalism and I broke my normal self imposed 2RR restriction to revert three times (so I didn't break 3RR, but yes I do know its not an entitlement). This (and a few other articles) are suffering from a small group of editors determined to state that genocide and terrorism are an essential consequence of communism. There have already been long term blocks, ANI reports and RfCs around this issue. The tactic of using single purpose IPs to avoid engagement on the talk page just makes it very difficult to make any sensible progress. Raising SPI reports, writing 3RR reports is tiresome to the point where editors trying to work with the evidence just give up. Personally I think any article which gets controversial should be semi-protected or put under the new review process. So I'm not protesting, I am flagging this as an example of a wider issue. --Snowded TALK 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- If this is a bigger problem then it needs to be dealt with in a different manner than just a one-line request at RFPP. If the scope is as wide as you say at the very least an WP:RFC is called for to determine if some sort of sanctions need to be applied to these articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't expect you to take sides and I'm relaxed about the page being frozen as it is generally in a mess. My point was that the New Jersey IP was created (in a few forms) just to insert the disputed text. That to me is vandalism and I broke my normal self imposed 2RR restriction to revert three times (so I didn't break 3RR, but yes I do know its not an entitlement). This (and a few other articles) are suffering from a small group of editors determined to state that genocide and terrorism are an essential consequence of communism. There have already been long term blocks, ANI reports and RfCs around this issue. The tactic of using single purpose IPs to avoid engagement on the talk page just makes it very difficult to make any sensible progress. Raising SPI reports, writing 3RR reports is tiresome to the point where editors trying to work with the evidence just give up. Personally I think any article which gets controversial should be semi-protected or put under the new review process. So I'm not protesting, I am flagging this as an example of a wider issue. --Snowded TALK 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010
You think you could possibly create an article on this piece of legislation when you have time? It would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoFan (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm uncertain why you are asking me in particular about this as I have not really written a legislation article in the past. Have we met before? You can request an article at WP:RA. As a confirmed user you could also write it up yourself. It doesn't have to be perfect, just make sure you cite some reliable sources and it should be fine. A quick googling of this act revealed several possible sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I wasn't sure how to go about doing it, and was afraid that I would mess up. But I'll try to create an article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoFan (talk • contribs) 03:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Message added 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"Topic Banning for Dummies"?
Are the dummies to be topic banned those who cannot spell properly in their [1] edit summaries? I thort I wuld ask... LessHeard vanU (talk)
- Yeah, I seem to be having a problem with my keyboard, I keep getting a "p" when I press "o," and there is no way to edit a summary once you press enter. I guess I could make sure I preview my edit summaries as well as the actual edits. If I was really vain (and wanted to get in a lot of hot water) I suppose I could suppress it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. =)
So, am I doing good so far? =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- ...So far, the majority of your edits appear to have been turning your "status" on and off, but what actual edits you do have do not appear to be edit warring, so that's a good sign. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
User CreativeSoul7981
This is not a criticism, just an inquiry. I have no interest in the Generation X article or the dispute involving CreativeSoul7981, nor do I wish to defend CreativeSoul7981 or any other editor. I am only concerned about Wikipedia in general. Here's my inquiry: Do you think maybe you overstepped your bounds as an admin in blocking CreativeSoul7981? Perhaps I missed something and I would welcome being corrected. But in a quick look at the matter, CreativeSoul7981 did not violate 3RR (and I understand edit warring can occur without a 3RR vio). If there is a consensus in the dispute, it did not appear to me to be overwhelming. And finally, it seems to me that you expressed an opinion in the dispute; I'm not sure if your taking admin action by blocking CreativeSoul7981 involved some conflict of interest, but it did cross my mind. I also wonder if a warning before a block would have been appropriate. Again, maybe I've missed some things because I'm not involved with the article. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I admit I did hesitate because I had expressed a bit of an opinion on the talk page, but I think the block was justified. As you can see the talk page is very TLDR, but if you look closely you will see that in the past week I had repeatedly noted that everyone on the page could consider themselves warned for edit warring. CS is clinging to an "old" consensus and refusing to acknowledge that the current consensus does not favor his interpretation. On top of that he keeps making vague threats at the other users by telling them it is their "last warning," as if he has permission to edit war and they cannot revert anything he edits. It seems like a case where ego has overridden common sense. As I mentioned when I blocked him, he repeatedly acknowledged in his edit summaries that consensus was currently against his position, and yet he re-inserted the material anyway. He did this with his eyes wide open and with more than sufficient warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Message added 04:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Orphaned non-free image File:Dustbowie.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Dustbowie.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Revision Deletion request
Would you revision delete the edits by 173.14.47.193 (talk · contribs) at Oakland Christian School beginning from this edit? The IP's first edit to the article is constructive (the correction of one of the school colors from white to gold), though the subsequent edits contain BLP violating content. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1
Would you remind responding to this? I understand that it might be completely annoying but sometimes the principle makes things touchy.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- (replied at User talk:Mbz1 Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC))
RevDel
Ban
Yes - I do agree. Thanks :) --Addihockey10e-mail 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)