Jump to content

User talk:Beeblebrox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Carter (talk | contribs) at 17:30, 31 January 2018 (→John Carter continuing to do what he (should have?) received a final warning for: Regarding my recent activity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sennecaster 174 0 0 100 17:20, 25 December 2024 4 days, 6 hoursno report
Hog Farm 2 173 14 12 93 02:47, 22 December 2024 0 days, 16 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
please stay in the top three tiers

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm 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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

User:NepalMyMotherland

Can he be unblocked. please answer in his talk page. He has been request ing form before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisingWorld (talk • contribs) 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. ThanksOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 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 (talk • contribs) 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

PLEASE MAKE FURTHER COMMENTS AT ANI, THANKS
moved to WP:ANI Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, 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]
I've put the two back that were listed as FL's, I'll hold off on the rest. But no, you can't speedy delete things based off an RFC! It's a valid rationale for testing the RFC at AFD (and, IMO, some of these are deletable), but not for unilateral speedy deletion. Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you’re getting that logic. We had a policy discussion that ended in a very clear consensus that Wikipedia should not have any of the articles in this category. WP:CON and WP:NOTBURO clearly both apply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's look at it from another angle. You shouldn't be speedy-deleting articles based on an RFC that you started. Let an uninvolved administrator deal with it. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that the recent "decision" deleted two featured lists, and I obviously missed the memo where this project was informed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please do something about this or I will start a thread at WP:ANI regarding the matter.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And SERIOUSLY, declining a super-polite request to restore a list to user space? Seriously? Seriously? I don't think that's what Jimbo had in mind when admins were created. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple. 1 -- you're involved. You started the RFC, you've got no business using admin tools to enforce it. 2- Speedy deletion is a very regimented process. "An RFC closed that we shouldn't have this" is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, or for mass deletion of various articles of different quality, content, and relevance. And, no, I don't see a "clear" consensus there at all. I see one leaning that ways, but that consensus was achieved on the VP, which is not the place where deletion is determined. The process is tagging all of the articles, and having an AFD, and seeing if that limited consensus there can hold up under the wider scrutiny of a series of AFDs. Courcelles (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a novel interpretation of the involved admin policy. I could easily see your point if I had closed the RFC, but from my perspective, I opened this can of worms, so when we had a clear consnesus and a close, I felt it was my responsibility to the extremely boring work of actually removing the 400+ pages that the community decided should not be hosted here. I’m sorry we’re so at odds here, but I feel like we need to escalate this past my talk page as I am just not buying any of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you couldn't honour the original request, to refuse such that is frankly bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mass deletion of airline destination articles based on an RFC. --Jetstreamer Talk 22:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This could be very bad news.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I opened my own tread at the same time, and have merged the two, let’s continue this discussion there please. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, and I just opened one at WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The original request, i.e. the provision of the content of the NZ destinations, is there any genuine reason you wouldn't do that? The material is not controversial, the request was made in good faith, it seems completely bizarre that you would turn it down. If you reject the request again, I'll take it WP:REFUND and we'll look more closely at your admin actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration/userfication of pages is usually done with the expectation that the page will be improved in hopes of returning it to mainspace at a later date. That being the case, I am usually very willing to do so, but if the community has just said they don’t think these articles belong in mainspace it just doens’t make sense, good faith request or not. If I’m wrong about this whole thing, all the pages will be restored so I don’t see much point in continuing to discuss this one in particular. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good faith request

Considering the comments here, ANI, and AN, could you please begin restoring the article on airline destinations? I don't think there has been any support registered for deletion and it would definitely display an act of good faith in the process if you began restoring the articles per WP:NOTBURO. I understand you have stated you want the process to run to completion but I hope you can see that it will not end in favor of deletion. I think an act of good faith now would have the effect of ending the discussion which is beneficial for everyone to avoid an unnecessary conflict. ending that discussion would allow a more fruitful discussion on policy rather than user conduct which is more beneficial. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the articles, there were circa 600 redirects to the articles. These were deleted by AnomieBOT III on January 28 and 29. These will likely have to be restored as well, so sorry. :( — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appears all this is  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter continuing to do what he (should have?) received a final warning for

Earlier this month John Carter (talk · contribs) was blocked by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) for explicitly violating my interaction ban with him (which you implemented here). Following the block, Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) and Softlavender (talk · contribs) commented that he should receive a final warning for skirt[ing] the IBAN—including commenting in ANI threads directly below Hijiri while not actually mentioning Hijiri's name and repeatedly stealth-violating the IBan while ostensibly appearing not to technically (in the very strictest sense), and Kudpung (talk · contribs) closed the thread and didn't quite issue the exact final warning that was requested (as he didn't mention the stealth violations). Kudpung referred to "consensus", but everyone who commented specifically mentioned the stealth violations, which is why I think the post-block final warning probably should have mentioned these, but... Anyway, this is why I didn't seek any enforcement when he showed up on WT:BIBLE shortly after me, and has been opening alternating threads with me for the last few weeks, having previously not edited there in almost a year (in one of the hounding incidents that led to the IBAN; he hadn't otherwise edited the page since May 2016). (See the timeline here).

Just now, he posted this right below my saying something to the same effect (he pointed out that there are Orthodox bibles, I that there's a Jewish bible, both making the basic point that the OP's "Catholic vs. Protestant" dichotomy is flawed), in the first thread this year opened by someone other than me and him.

(And for what it's worth, I should probably disclose publicly that I did notice him commenting on the title of a page when I had just changed said title less than one day earlier, when he had not otherwise edited the page in nine years.[3])

Since he still didn't mention me by name, and the exact wording of Kudpung's earlier final warning didn't tell him that that still wasn't cool, I'll leave it up to you what the upper limit on action taken here should be, but I'd like to request that at the very least you issue another final warning that explicitly tells him that showing up to noticeboard discussions right after me is not cool.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's possible to read his comment as being a response to me, since I clumsily used "pre-Reformation Christian" to refer to pre-Reformation Western Christianity. He is riht on the substance, but I'm not able to correct myself now because doing so would be a borderline IBAN violation as it would carry the implication of having read his later comment. I had the same problem with the "list of verses" thing; I wound up having to email MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and request that he finish the job of fixing the title in my stead (which led to this). I am not sure if it is a coincidence that his recent stealth-violations can mostly be read as "Gotcha Hijiri; you missed a critical point in your recent comment". This is problematic because, the IBAN being mutual (as almost all IBANs are, even when the problem was one-way harassment), I am unable to correct myself having acknowledged that he was right (in the most recent case, adding the word "western" to my comment, and in the earlier case moving the page again to address the issue he raised). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (edited 23:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Pinging @Kudpung: since he’s up to speed on all this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, does Template:User not ping them? If so, apologies. I tried to ping everyone I named. (>.<) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should but echo notifications aren’t always reliable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply noting that I received the ping of my name here and that the Iban was a mutual one which prohibits discussion anywhere in Wikipedia. Also, although I will leave it to others whether to ping him, Doug Weller might have some relevant information to convey. And, in an off topic comment to him, which will almost certainly make no sense to anyone else, I have been told someone mentioned in an email I received moved to somewhere I don't know and is presumably out of the picture, and I get tired of being unduly influenced by anonymous emails anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responding to ping: I agree that the two diffs provided [4] [5] are deliberate continued needling of Hijiri and are stealth violations of the IBan, which for all practical purposes should have been only a one-way IBAN, since John Carter has throughout been the aggressor. This needling and this disruption and this continued saga perpetrated by John Carter has taken endless hours of the community's time, and he was given a final warning that an indefinite block could ensue if it continued. Since it obviously is continuing, I suggest either a very specifically worded final warning about such stealth violations and needling, and/or an immediate block of no less than two months' duration (up to indef). (By the way, I consider myself neutral in this discussion as I am fairly often not on Hijiri's side in any given wiki discussion.) Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Responding to the ping as well. First, let me apologize for the length of this comment. I'm trying to go into a bit of detail, given that I'm not bound by any IBANs.
For quite some time, I've been "stuck in the middle" of the issues with these two editors. I've engaged quite positively and occasionally in disagreements with both of these editors. I 'like' both of them in the sense that I've felt that they both contribute positively to discussions when they appear in them. I'm not an uninvolved editor, but I am, I believe, a wholly neutral one.
That being said, I have to reluctantly, but wholly endorse Hijiri's depiction of events here. Looking the diffs above, in addition to pushing at the boundaries of the IBAN, the actual contents of those edits seem designed to encourage Hijiri to respond. In fact, they seemed targeted to Hijiri himself, not just comments that your typical editor would respond to. Comments such as these which imply errors on Hijiri's part are the exact sort of thing Hijiri seems to sometimes feel driven to respond to. JC would, of course, know this, given their history. The comment on the article title ([6]) in particular seems egregious: JC started a thread about the article name immediately after Hijiri moved it to that name, then apparently completely lost interest in that discussion. "Coincidentally", Hijiri never participated in said discussion. I cannot, for the life of me imagine any reason why someone would start a discussion about an article's title immediately following a move to that title, then walk away from that discussion unless there were ulterior motives at play, especially considering JC's usual habit (like mine) of running such discussions out entirely.
JC recently came to my talk page to insinuate that I was acting as a meat puppet for Hijiri because I had -at least according to JC- recently started editing in a topic I previously hadn't edited in (bible-related topics). In fact, I've been editing bible, Christianity and Jesus related topics for several years now, including editing a number of such pages within a few hours of JC on multiple occasions, as far back as at least December of 2014.
Regarding the implied meat puppetry, Hijiri asked me off-wiki if I was willing to move the article again, to which I responded that I would take a look at the issue, and then made the edit Hijiri linked to. I don't think that agreeing to take a look at something and then follow my own best judgement (which is my response 100% of the time when I am emailed and asked to do something on-wiki, a response with which Hijiri is well acquainted and for which he has actually thanked me at least once) constitutes any sort of meat puppetry. One might argue that it constitutes canvassing, except Hijiri was not in conflict with JC at the time, and indeed, was in agreement with them. I don't see how canvassing could be said to be a problem in discussions in which there's no disagreement.
Given the history here, I don't think there's much use in another warning. JC is well aware already that pushing at the limits of their IBAN could get him indeffed. Since then, he has been fairly blatantly pushing at the limits of the IBAN. Further given the fact that JC has only 15 article-space edits in the past year, I don't see any real downside to an indef except for the loss of a few thoughtful and intelligent comments. And frankly, there are plenty of editors capable of providing those. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the allegation from MjolnirPants above that I was insinuating meatpuppetry, I call bullshit, and I regret to say that I think myself it is hard to see how one could arrive at that assumption. I started a thread at the Bible project talk page regarding an article which was at the time at the edit warring noticeboard, Authorship of the Bible. When I looked to see if there were any responses, I saw two new threads, and didn't see any reason not to respond to them. I also believe that, perhaps, this thread itself is perhaps an obvious violation of the mutual i-ban, particularly the fact of my being pinged. I had had earlier email correspondence with User:Doug Weller regarding possible prior violations of the i-ban, among other things, some of which may be germane to this discussion. I am on that basis pinging him. And on the matter of my recent activity, right now I am gathering together a listing of the various guests on Coast to Coast AM pursuant to a discussion on the talk page there. With roughly 10,000 guest appearances over the years, and no counter of guest appearances I can find, it will take a while to gather a list of the recurring guests which was the subject of discussion there.
John Carter (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-blocking request

Hi. I'm sorry to trouble you, I was wondering if you be willing to give my account and my static IP an indef. I'm done with this project and wish to remove any temptation to edit here again. I'm not particularly interested in going on a vandalizing spree. Thanks. Dolescum (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they couldn’t wait an hour for me to reply... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&oldid=823338156"