User talk:Just Step Sideways: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 159: Line 159:
:::::Indeed.--'''[[User:Jetstreamer|Jetstreamer]]''' ''{{sup|[[User talk:Jetstreamer#top|Talk]]}}'' 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::Indeed.--'''[[User:Jetstreamer|Jetstreamer]]''' ''{{sup|[[User talk:Jetstreamer#top|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. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 22:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to go through and restore these. Please do not continue these deletions without a valid policy rationale. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox#top|talk]]) 22:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:08, 28 January 2018

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

please stay in the top three tiers

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)[reply]

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

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) [reply]

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)[reply]
For the record, I added the reply as it seemed non controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Knowledgekid87, and sorry for not checking whether you're online or not, Beeblebrox. BytEfLUSh Talk 05:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded AnetodeLaser brainWorm 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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No worries. Thanks all! DonIago (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can he be unblocked. please answer in his talk page. He has been request ing form before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisingWorld (talkcontribs) 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] 
 Already done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey, hum, yes you are quite correct. My bad. I will speak with them. Just Chilling (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the nice message Beeble

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

For advice of editing

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

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)[reply]

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. ThanksOnBeyondZebraxTALK 21:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 09:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Air New Zealand Destinations

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)[reply]

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 [1]) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody informed about this discussion at the corresponding project, namely WT:AIRLINE.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s easily refuted by the message I left there within moments of opening the discussion [2] It was plainly visible there for the entire 26 days the discussion was open. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]