User talk:Beamathan

Please, post new friendliness below this sentence. And this one. Also, this sentence. Thanks!

special exceptions for special users.

Calling other users retarted, as you did at Talk:Kosovo will get you a warning, and possibly a block. Don't do it again. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a joke. Beam 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beam, this really is a rude thing to say. Regardless of what you think of this editor, Brutaldeluxe is not incorrect in warning you that being abusive towards others can lead to a block. I hope you do not think this is a joke. Chillum 03:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rude? Sure. Truth? Yes. And he is a joke. Chillum, i've been here for years, I know exactly what's what. I've been on the admin boards and etc. No need for this coming from you. Beam

Let me put this another way. Personal attacks are against policy, they prevent productive debate and they damage neutrality. I know you have been around a long time, I have seen your good work. Nothing justifies belittling editors with comments like that. Don't call people retarded, don't call people a joke. Leave the name calling off of Wikipedia. I am attempting to get some level of civility at the Kosovo debates and I can't very well make special exceptions for special users. Chillum 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh beam, that's what happens when you call me a r-guy. You get flagged down. :) SILENT_KILLER/SPAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless SineBot. If I had known it was YOU socking it up I would have not had to have told you. You already knew! Beam 21:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special note - The user whom I mentioned was retarded has now been banned for retardation.'Beam 15:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, I always wanted to do more busy work on articles I'm not interested in! ;) Beam 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals and the encouraging of...

Hello. Please don't leave warnings such as this for vandals. Mostly they are trolling and this kind of thing is precisely the reaction they want and successfully receiving such a notice tends only to encourage more vandalism. Much better to adopt a detached tone. CIreland (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..... Beam 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tips? Something about not feeding? CIreland (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better if adopted a detached tone in your case too and said no more since you seem to be so hungry. CIreland (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:( Beam 04:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to know it all, I assume you know about WP:AIV. It's for obvious vandalism like the IP you wanted banned. We don't use WP:AN/I for those kinds of problems... and we don't ban IPs we block them. AniMate 08:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He'll be back. Beam 09:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing that my user page should be restored.

--McYel (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahhaha. Thanks, it's always good to add some humor to wikipedia. Beam 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the personal attack? Show me! Don't just make a big bad warning and leave, that's kind of passive-aggressive. Beam 17:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people "a joke" and "a retarded" is a personal attack; you can find them right here on your talk page. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, unless they are a joke, right? Or... in fact retarded (figuratively)? Perhaps if they weren't old comments, and haven't been seen by more admins than you I'd care what you think. I'm sure if you wanted, you could go find more admins who feel as you do, so don't consider it a challenge to make a POINT but c'mon... I've been here for a long time and when a SPADE acts like a SPADE than I'm going to call it a SPADE. But again, I appreciate the warning. Would you mind removing it, it seems you've taken me personally? Beam 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I insist that you remove it. You're out of line to make a warning for something that I have already been warned about. Beam 17:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry. I'm not going to remove my warning; you can, of course, do it and I shan't revert you, but in my opinion, your behaviour towards stonemason89 (and others) was not acceptable. And don't worry, I'm not going shopping for admins to block you; I'm not out to get you. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly feels like it. I'll let your actions stand until the completely useful and helpful AN/I report is concluded, unless I'm permabanned.... which, with the apparent political correctness so rampant, is a possibility. Beam 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I owe some sort of an apology; I had understood that the first "retarded" and "joke" thing were more recent. I hadn't realised that both of them date back to a year ago. If I had realised that, I wouldn't have started with a level 4im. I still think your behaviour was not acceptable (I'm referring to the "was banned for retardation" thing and the way you approached that vandal) and I would've warned you, but with a level 2 and not a 4im; so, if you wish, I'll go ahead and change the warning or, as said, I won't revert you if you remove it altogether. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Whatever man, you do what you do and I'll do what I do. You should be a little more careful in the future, although to me both warnings are insulting, you may as well call me retarded! It seems that other fellow who started the AN/I got what he wanted. Beam 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting revisions

Please be more careful about accepting revisions, such as this edit, which is clearly not appropriate content for an article (simple trivia and non-notable). — Huntster (t @ c) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is happening already and it is not good. The simple act of reviewing may put the reviewer himself in trouble. This should not happen. Before the PC system was implemented a user could simply ignore an edit and nobody would be the wiser about his inaction. Meanwhile the edit would remain in the article. Under the PC system however a reviewer has to actively approve the change for the edit to register. Doing so makes the reviewer responsible for the edit and subject to criticism. I think that unless the reviewer failed badly, such as registering a vandal edit, noone should second-guess or reprimand the reviewer for his actions. Otherwise we will create a climate of fear and few people will risk reviewing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentioned stores, who am I to say that store isn't notable in that town? That is up to the editors of that particular article. I did my job as a reviewer. Beam 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. If someone doesn't like this edit or they think it is trivial they can simply revert it. This is a collaborative wiki after all. The criticism or blame game should not enter into this equation. Let's make reviewing as painless (and blameless) as possible. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My points exactly! I'd accept the reversion as well. Beam 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsourced ("largest and most popular"?) and rather POV in nature. Even if you thought the topic of the edit was okay, if you see material like this, please take the time to reword into an acceptable form, or just remove altogether. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how do I know it's not the largest and most popular? You seem not to understand the job of reviewer. Go look it up, I'll still be here. Beam 01:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the reviewer level should not be used as yet another excuse for people (or admins) to dump on other people. The task of a reviewer should be to test the plausibility of an edit. Nothing more. If another reviewer disagrees, then let him undo the edit but without dumping on the previous reviewer. Otherwise the amount of bickering and arguments involved will destroy the PC system. This way we preserve the editing status quo ante. It should not be the task of a reviewer to become an edit corrector or critic. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! However, if I feel confident in my knowledge of a topic, I certainly go beyond the job of a reviewer, towards that of an editor. Beam 12:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Normal editing should proceed as usual. An editor should be able to add any info they see fit as has always been the case. What I am trying here to do is minimise the grief associated with post-edit acceptance warnings to reviewers which I find unnecessary and counterproductive. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Right, I'm with you. And if I can ever comment somewhere to that effect, let me know. I really hope this becomes permanent, and expanded to all protected pages that it is applicable, as well as all BLP. Beam 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks :). I will for sure let you know. By the way sorry for the intrusion on your talk page but I thought this was a topic worth discussing. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi need some advice

I just added the results of a report to the web page about the Niagara Health Systems. I think it got removed shortly after i put it up. I'm not sure why.

I'm not deeply involved in the health system, I just use it when I'm sick. The report has been big news in the local newspapapers for several months. There was an article in my city's newspaper today about it. It seemed odd that a page about the Niagara Health Systems didn't have any references to reports about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.54.70 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review on Underoath

Why in the world would you accept an absurd edit such as this? • GunMetal Angel 06:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't offensive. Beam 10:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an obviously false addition. Maybe you don't know a whole lot about Underoath, I don't know. Perhaps I'm nagging on you for nothing in particular and for that I apologize. • GunMetal Angel 02:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If I did have knowledge of the band I would have stepped into my editor shoes, however I don't, and remained in my reviewer shoes. Please do not ever hesitate to approach me with any issues with my editing. I'm an asshole, but I'm a friendly, pro-wikipedia, asshole. Beam 02:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further review questions

Why did you accept this edit, which not only removed reliable sources, but added unsourced claims to a BLP? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't quite understand what a Biography (the B in BoLP) is do you? It's certainly not an article about a reality TV show. Beam 08:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Authority issue

Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [1], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit review acceptance

Please note that I have reverted your acceptance of this edit. The IP removed sources and added unsourced personal information such as religion that should never be accepted without meeting the requirements of WP:BLPCAT. The edit you accepted was the exact type of edit that led to the article being pending-changes protected in the first place. Please ensure you do not accept edits that add unsourced information to BLPs. Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"citation needed"

Hi, the correct way to add a "citation needed" tag is with this construction: {{subst:cn}} For example^{[citation needed]} — if you look at the source you will see that it was immediately expanded to include the date. Zero^talk 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It wasn't the date that wasn't supported. It was the opinion of relative treatment which I don't think was covered. It was actually two opinions I think. Beam 03:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the example, I just meant that when you type {{subst:cn}} into an article, the software immediately expands it to include the date. In my example above, I entered {{subst:cn}} but as soon as I saved the edit wikipedia converted it to the full form {{Citation needed| date=July 2013}}. Of course you can use the full form directly if you like typing. Zero^talk 03:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]