User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Hangon

What on earth are you up to? I am not sure where you come from - but hey I think thats a bit odd to put that up for Afd - I really think that shows a lack of agf and a bit hasty - it has been up for about 5 mintutes? SatuSuro 03:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And as you are so incredibly anonymous - if you are going to keep this - at least put it at the Australian afd if you are so keen - why on earth didnt you simply allow a prod - what makes such a difference? SatuSuro 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think where I come from (somewhere in the vicinity of Beetlegeuse) is really relevant. I don't get why you think I didn't assume good faith, I haven't accused you of vandalism or anything, just questioned the notability of this article, and the discussion is at AfD anyway, I welcome your remarks there. And please, calm down, it's just a Wikipedia article, it's not the end of the world for either of us one way or the other. And speaking of WP:AGF, there's a big fat accusation of bad faith in your remark. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is some level of irritation from me, what would you expect? - it was up for about two minutes and I havent even had a chance to put in the extra couple of references which would radically diminish any need for an afd anyway. the relevance would be quite clear - but you still havent put into the australian afd list yet seeing you are so keen. If there had been agf - a prod would have been sufficient and it could have been easily dealt with - i think you might take your context a little too seriously as well. If I ever seek to check new arts (1) popups - whow many edits - I as a practice never would throw an afd at a user around for a while - that I consider is something to be a little too hasty and out of context - if you peruse the general history of the Australian afd's over the last year or so - almost all are for fly bys and red links - the general practice at australian afd is for really stupid articles to end up there - I do not in view of what I had planned to add to the article would have even considered putting it up if i thought that it would lack WP:N - god i need you at the WP Indonesia project - you could cleanup about 2,000 articles for me like that with that level of enthusiasm - SatuSuro 03:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you could go ahead and make those improvements you were planning on now instead of ranting at me. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Half your luck :) I have to get off for my daughter to take her somewhere, I will be back later today perth wa time - hey we're all bozos on this bus :) SatuSuro 03:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be we are all Zaphods on this bus SatuSuro 07:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I love a happy ending. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you actually listen to all the tapes from the late Douglas Adams's original and recycled radio shows - the importance of improbability is very very very important - and should never be under-rated - and so like WP:DUCK not all non notable quarries are actually non notable quarries SatuSuro 07:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

KylieX2008

Any editor who continues to blatantly vandalize any article should be blocked. I have the right to request anyone to be blocked for that specific reason. It is not a threat! Additionally, I am not a child, I am an adult and I will not be spoken (by anyone) in the tone/fashion. I find that to be very disrespectful and uncivil. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I for one did not see any "blatant vandalism", all I saw was two editors having a rather mundane content dispute. You didn't "request" that they be blocked, you said they would be blocked, as if you could block them. Even if you were an administrator, it would not be appropriate for you to block someone you were personally involved in a dispute with. Again, the proper way to solve these types of problems is to discuss it on the article's talk page. Wikipedia works by consensus, you can't just decide your version of events is the right one and threaten to block anyone who says otherwise. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of you 'feel of how I should have handled the situation, the situation is being handled. The vandalism is blatant because several editors (not just the anon IP user you are speaking of) have added the information and several editors have removed it because it has nothing to do with the tour. That is blatant vandalism...adding information to an article that has already been proven false several time. Do your research or else you come off looking like a jackass. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well gosh, thanks for the lesson in civility. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

username

{{adminhelp}} So, I'm pretty sure that I created the account User:Beeblebrox just before I created this account. (It is the correct spelling of the name), but I forgot what the password was or whatever and just created another account. I've been doing this long enough now that I'd like to turn the other account into a doppleganger, but since the account exists, even though it has 0 contributions, I don't know if I'd be crossing some sort of line by just redirecting it here. I guess technically it already is a doppleganger just sitting there really... So anyway, can I do that, can you help, etc. Thanks for your time. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm investigating. Hang on. KrakatoaKatie 07:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - had to step away for a moment. User:Beeblebrox has no edits at all and nothing in the logs, including the account creation date, so it was probably created before the MediaWiki software was logging creation dates. That means it was created earlier than 2005 (or so). Since it has no edits and nothing in the logs, go to WP:USURP and a bureaucrat should be able to change you into a Beeblebrox. Let me know how it turns out! :-) KrakatoaKatie 07:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I've never actually talked to the 'crats before. Thanks so much for your help, we'll see on or around September 1st. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a cigar

Was Spike milligans joke with peter sellers (or versa vice) long before Ouglas Adams even dreamt of Zaphod - in this case have a parrot for your new head - and keep your fingers well away from that beak it can clean cut :) - SatuSuro 08:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Biter.JPG

Met just before photographing at non other than Stathams Quarry (sic)

Question on appropriate behaviour

Just have a look at this talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amarnath_land_transfer_controversy) I was wondering if you think I was out of line. I stated in my edit (and often times otherwise) "Use discussion facility before changing and unchanging, as well as redirecting." I did the same in saying I was requesting a lock (which is ultimately out of my hand anyways. But did I do the right thing in my response? Often times those involved in the debate (I can imagine those vilifying me are from the Indian side) get too emotional (see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amarnath_land_transfer_controversy#NPOV_Status.3D (which I also just realised he made the more 'productive' edit after his name-calling).

ps- Just as a heads up, I'm running this text by another admin too. Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, firstly I am not an administrator, but I am interested in dispute resolution and I will help you as best I can. I would say that, for the most part, you have been very patient and calm in the face of some very rude and obnoxious behavior. You are quite correct that we should seek consensus and only add sourced material to articles, especially when there obvious controversy. The only thing I think I would done differently is your remarks on the section relating to the article's protection. I would have just let those remarks lie there in their bald incivility and not replied at all. You didn't actually do anything wrong or incivil as far as I can see, but there are always problems when there are articles with national or regional pride on the line. Just keep a cool head and don't rise to their baiting. If you find yourself getting really frustrated, there are millions of other articles to look at and edit. When I find myself in a situation like this, I find it very helpful to go do something else for a while, either on Wikipedia or in "the real world". I hope this helps. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

adopter

do u know if ur allowed to have more than one adopter --Daisy404 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would ask on the adopt a user project page about that. If you just need a little help right away you can just type {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will usually show up to help right away. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update...

...I will be throwing pies again! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Karthik Kumar N G (Vishwa)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Karthik Kumar N G (Vishwa), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karthik Kumar N G (Vishwa). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TerriersFan (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Current date and time

Wikipedia:Current date and time was created because I couldn't find a simple page with the whole date and time on it. The little clock in the corner doesn't give enough info. Every time the page is loaded, it will update the date and time on it. It is funny that something so small can cause so much work. It wasn't meant as a joke either. I don't want to have to load Wikipedia:Magic words and scroll all the way down to the date section and then figure out the date and time. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 03:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Antarctica university

Someone has been mis-spending their youth an awful lot creating the Antarctica University website. The clinchers for me were: the "giving" page and the list of trustees which, strangely, matches the characters in Glengarry Glen Ross. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Right as you were deleting it, I was looking at their "official" website. It smelled awfully hoaxy, then I noticed a reference to THX1138 and I knew it had to be. I suspect it will end up needing to be create-protected in the end. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• See also the "endangered aborigines" on the home page. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can't imagine what would posses someone to put all that effort into a website for an organization that doesn't exist. If the site was at least really funny, that would be one thing...Beeblbrox (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

'90210' move

Hey. Wanted to know if all the links that still feature the old title are supposed to automatically update? I've been changing some. Is there a time limit for the redirect thing (i.e. -- a point in which the old link will no longer work)? Were you planning on changing these links? --James26 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a bot that is supposed to handle most of that, but it sometimes doesn't get everything. I'll probably double check it in a day or so. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about? What links? There are no links in my talk page!! Open your eyes and think!!--navy.blue 84 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• You created the page Navy.blue84:Example in article space and said it was your talk page. You seem to be having a bit of trouble getting going at Wikipedia, click here to learn about getting a mentor to help you along. And there's no need to be rude. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• And I don't know what it is you're trying to do with the links in your signature, but you've got that all screwed up too. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am working on it. You could have put more in your post then what you did. There is no links in my signature.--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone looking at this page can see that the (seriously screwed up) signature at the top of this section is not the same as the one you just left. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am new here and working on it. I hope this works.--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your current signature seems to be working just fine. If you ever need help, just put a message on your talk page with {{helpme}} at the top of it and someone will come help you, usually right away. Good Luck! Beeblbrox (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete my page. I am editing it. I was in the midest of making a change when you put the delete junk there. You need to give people some time to make edits.--Navy blue84 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

When you say that you have changed your mind, do you mean you no longer want anything renamed or that you would now like to be renamed to Beeblebrox (rather than have that as a doppleganger)? WJBscribe (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I meant that I would like to be renamed "Beeblebrox" and I guess keep "Beeblbrox" as doppleganger. Sorry about the vagueness. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, done. You should be able to recreate Beeblbrox via this link - let me know if you have difficulties and I will do it for you. WJBscribe (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I recreated "Beeblbrox" and it seems to automatically redirect user and talk pages here, so, if that's what is supposed to happen, I think we're done. Thanks so much, it's good to have two heads again! Beeblbrox (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You are a nerd. I bet you play World of Warcraft and wear glasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.132.246 (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for coming out from under your bridge, but there aren't any billy goats to eat here just now. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kia ora!

I just wanted to thank you for helping with A Greensill's article. Kia ora! WahineToa (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protest

You labeled me "personal attack" and then denialed that truth. Then you admitted it and label me "attack", again. I hoped you withdrew it. Hhttp://xiaonei.com/activate.do?id=237001796&vc=6661373280 校内网 - 登录owever, now you escape it with saying I was non-sense and didn't give me a reason. I'm not satisfied with this. I'm waiting for your reply till now. --虞海 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, here's my reply. I think you are having a very hard time understanding some of Wikipedia's core policies and you may benefit from the help of a mentor. Click here for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• You didn't answer me any question with throwing me a guide-link. That means I need to say all my problem again maybe with less result. Also, there's no evidence I misunderstood Wikipedia rule: it's a false accuse. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I already explained about that, and since you decided to get the talk page moved into your user space, the whole discussion is here. I already explained that it was an automated message and that I hadn't intended to use the term "personal attack". If that's not good enough for you, you are free to pursue dispute resolution, I suggest you start here. My personal advice to you, however, is once again to not make a "tempest in a teacup" and just let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. I dis not protest the 2nd paragraph which alert me the page has been marked as "speedy deletion". And I need these kind of alert. I protested for the 1st paragraph which accused me "make personal attacks". I knew it was an automated message from its tone. And I thought you used an Speedy deletion with personal attacks model. I think there must be many speedy deletion templates for every reason and I don't think you should use the attacks reason template. However, since you said you hadn't intended to use the term "personal attack", I'll let it go. But before that I want you to answer me a question: why after that you still accuse me of "attack" (without "personal")? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ([[User talk:虞海

• As I and others have tried to point out, the article used the term "cultural genocide" without citing any sources that used this term. One should not throw around a word like "genocide", be it cultural or otherwise, unless one can prove a genocide has occurred. Therefore, I considered the page to be an attack page, that is, a page that made unfounded inflammatory accusations intended to disparage, in this case, the Government of India. It is not an accusation directed at you but rather at the article itself, and since it was speedily deleted, it seems that at least one administrator agreed with my reasoning. I would like to stress that I am a firm believer in universal rights for all human beings, but Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. There is a project to improve coverage of human rights issues at Wikipedia, click here for more information. I hope this clarifies matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

SF Team

I still waiting your answer on my talk MasterYodaSR (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nur Atikah Nabilah

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nur Atikah Nabilah, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Troikoalogo (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo Request

I saw that you checked out and updated a new article I created today about YouTube celebrity and dancer Corey Vidal. In the Discussion page, it is requested an image of him be uploaded to the article to improve the quality, but I am unable to do so because of the newness of my account.

Would I be able to provide an image to you (free of copyrights and ready to be uploaded) that you could upload and add to the article? I've taken the liberty of uploading the image here: http://www.vaylin.com/CoreyVidalAt888.jpg

Vaylin (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Emily Lipari

You realize, I'm sure, that "asserts notability" is a CSD criteria and is unrelated to either PROD or AfD? You're entitled to remove the prod, of course. I just wanted to point out that, in your edit summary, you refuted an argument that was not made. Avruch ^T 23:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• My point, which I'll admit I did not make very clear, is that PROD is generally for uncontroversial deletions, and I could see reason to dispute your reasoning. I also didn't find your assertion that it should be deleted because it couldn't be maintained without adding BLP problems very convincing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

September, 2008

• This page was linked to the archive section of Daily Economic Indicators in Portal:Karachi. In my opinion, the history of daily economic indicators could be archived in that way. If there are any better options please do let me know.

nomi887 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean, but the page as it existed was not an encyclopedic article in any way, hence it's deletion. I don't understand why being linked to that portal would change any of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for telling me what to do. I wouldn't have noticed without you telling me.

Thank you very much for giving me suggestion, I did what you told me to do, erase the information that may relate to my real life, I feel welcome already, haha.

Aireii (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:RhoLyokoWarrior

I wasn't disagreeing with you about User:RhoLyokoWarrior. I wanted the page deleted, and I left your speedy tag in place. My concern was that someone else might say it didn't qualify for speedy deletion, and in that case there would have been an MfD to deal with it. --Eastmain (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you very much for saying that you feel I am obviously acting in the best interest of this project, I really appreciate that. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Wokai

A tag has been placed on Talk:Wokai, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Talk:Wokai|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bongomatic (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wokai

You wrote: "I would caution the nominator to restrict his nomination comments to the article itself and not the person who wrote it." In what way did I make comments on the author? Bongomatic (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was reffering to this: " The main contributor's edits to Wikipedia seem to be very narrow, so there is no track record ". It's not a personal attack or anything, but it has nothing really to do with the article itself, and seemed to imply that newbies contributions were less valuable to the project. If I have misunderstood your intentions, I apologize, but that is what it seems to be saying. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. What I meant is that an inference of COI would be reasonable (certainly it is my presumption), but if you feel that is not appropriate without more specific evidence in an AfD discussion, I accept that. Bongomatic (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• You may have a point about a potential COI problem, as is often the case when articles are repeatedly re-created by the same editor and when references are added that look good on the page but don't actually mention the article's subject explicitly. Perhaps a {{subst:uw-coi}} on the creator's talk page would appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"it's clear this is far from the first inappropriate page you have created"

• The pages I created or helped create that had objections were Sarha Palin's Pastor (which I was told should be two articles, one for each pastor), Ed Kalnins (one pastor, which was later redirected after restoration of Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon (the second pastor, which was later redirected to his church after Wasilla Bible Church was restored), Wasilla Assembly of God (which was deleted then restored by consent), Wasilla Bible Church (which was deleted then restored by consent), David Brickner AfD with unanimous KEEP from every opinion, and WP:Coatrack Deletions (moved after 3 DELETE votes, then 6 Move votes, then modifications, then 3 KEEP votes, all changed after modification of article, then was called a "Consensus" and moved before anyone else could change their "move" to "Keep"). Then a person who admits to being a Sarah Palin and James Dobson supporter deleted a line I put in about taxpayer payment for church commencement speakers 5 times in less than 2 days from Wasilla Assembly of God, and I asked for W3P. It is mathematically impossible to delete something 5 times in 2 days and not have 3 deletes in 24 hours, mathematically impossible. It was, in part, Wikipedia's definition of "consnsus", 5 times, inappropriate articles (all kept), and misc accusations of vandlaism (for inserting information, all of which ended up being kept in by consensus), which drove me to add the photos and create the Monkey Withccraft. When I asked for specification as to what a problem was, I never got any.
• I understand your problem with Monkey Witchcraft (did you open the pictures up?), but what are the numerous other inappropriate pages. Thnx. EricDiesel (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• I understand that reading the talk pages you might write "far from the first inappropriate article". I am already getting emails from friends reading Wikipedia asking why I am putting up with "libel", which I am not charging, but which is actually causing disruption in my life. If there is an error from reading inaccurate talk page accusations, is there a way to delete these unfriendly and false accusations so it does not further snowball? Thnx. EricDiesel (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• A number of highly experienced Wikipedia users and even administrators have posted some very strongly worded warnings to your page. Now, I am not an admin, so I can't see any deleted contributions, but it seems to me you have willfully ignored these warnings and continued to introduce pages you knew full well to be inappropriate, even going so far as to [1] message another user to see the junk page you created before it was deleted. I don't know or care what your political or religious beliefs are, Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, it one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, which are the core policies upon which this entire project is based. As for the "libel", which I don't see at all, see this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The strongly worded warnings all came as a result of numerous incorrect things. Many warnings repeated almost exactly what you wrote. That is my very point. A user with the name of a church was closed down when I reported that they were deleting information. A number of new users popped out of the woodwork, making requests at admin and other pages. The admins, and others, apparently read all the complaints, and wrote things like what you wrote. Citing someone's authority or experience does not make what they wrote correct. The more things like these appear, the more of a headache it is to edit, since I have to write things like this, defending "ghost" accusations. I wrote above "When I asked for specification as to what a problem was, I never got any", because I am spenging a lot of time defending against charges that are not based on anything if traced back. These were my very first articles at Wikipedia. I appreciate that you are taking time here, but your comment on my talk page just adds to the snowball. Thnx. EricDiesel (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the other editor in expectation of deletion by the people who have done hundreds or more deletions of my contributions (all of which are still up by consensus. I shuold not have to respond to litterally hundreds of deletions of the same material, which ends up being up by consensus, then have me be called a vandal as the commentary. EricDiesel (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The libel stuff, like vandal, plagirist, etc., disappeared somehow, or is on other editors talk pages that I have not responded to. EricDiesel (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really want to keep going around in circles about this, but the article on "Monkey Darwinism" was created in bad faith with no attempt at neutrality or factual accuracy. Judging by your remarks, it seems you made it solely because someone made you mad, not because you had discovered a topic in need of an encyclopedic entry. So, if you don't want to spend your wiki-time in these types of conflicts, act in good faith to improve the project, and leave your personal political and religious beliefs out of it, and you won't have these types of problems. And please don't make legal threats, such as accusations of libel. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You briefly wrote that my article belongs elswhere and I acknowleged that you were correct. Then you came back and added "it's clear this is far from the first inappropriate page you have created". I asked you to remove that remark or provide specification for it, as you may have been correct again. You have not responded. I ignored these kinds of comments previously, until they are now being cited as "arguments". Saying I am going around in circles is not responsive. Thnx. EricDiesel (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're right, a very dangerous situation has arisen here, in which you may feel tempted to dress up as a superhero and climb up a public building. I would urge you not to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the other hand, if you actually believe other editors are conspiring against you unfairly, you could always go to requests for comment and open a case on yourself, in order to get a consensus on this issue, if you really think it's necessary Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How did you know about my dress up like a superhero and climb a building problem? I havent been able to jump off a roof since I ruptured my L5-S1 disc, and two neural surguries to try to fix it (no kidding!). Even if not for the ruptured disc, I would never do it again, having just seen the new film, Man on a Wire. I could never compete with that real life World Trade Center high wire act. Also its a wonderful film and wonderful history. I apologize for my above comments and remarks, as they are wasting both our time and your comments were all clearly made in good faith. But given your superhero dress and building remark, I can not more strongly reccomend that you see Man on a Wire while it is still showing. EricDiesel (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Luckily for me, it is playing this week at a theatre near me, so maybe I'll just do that, and your apology is cheerfully accepted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't go see it, I will return and fill up your talk page with more of my verbose rants. EricDiesel (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Redirect

I do not understand why you would redirect a page about a fictional school that has sufficency with WP:N. Geez! RoryReloaded (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently we have very different views of what constitutes notability. Some sources would go a long way to establish your claim that it is notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on Religious Studies journal article

Thank you for helping with the efforts I made on the article on Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. I tried again to put this in a category entitled "Religious studies journals" (which I know does exist because journals such as Zygon are so classified). Let us hope that your good work in drawing this to the attention of the Wiki-projects that are relevant to this article will bear fruit! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think I got that all sorted now, I went to the article you mentioned and just copy/pasted the category tags. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2008 Summer Paralympics - Men's 200 metres T53

I didn`t undertand why you want this page to be deleted. I started it from scratch with the Official Results along with every other result page from Athletics at the 2008 Summer Paralympics. COuld you please explain it better and don't delete the pages I've been creating so that all the Paralympic Games results are complete. Thank you Saulopro (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• (replied on article talk page) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)