User talk:Just Step Sideways

Welcome to my talk page

I prefer to keep conversations in one place in order to make it easier to follow them. Therefore, if I have begun a conversation with you elsewhere, that is where I would prefer you reply and is probably where I will reply to you.

If you would rather communicate by email, it will expedite matters if you leave a note here to inform me you have sent an email.

If you want to know why I deleted or protected a page, or why I blocked a user please check My admin log first before posting a message here.

Do you actually want to be blocked? I'll consider your request iff you meet my criteria, Click here to see them.

please stay in the top three tiers

Hmm

Dude ... am I on drugs? When we moved to the new skin, I seem to have lost my "warn" tab. I've looked everywhere ... it was damned handy, especially with the block notices now in it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're using Twinkle right? It's should be under the "TW" tab. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah, if I had a TW tab... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok that's screwy. I'm one of those smug Macintosh users who almost never needs to do this, but have you tried bypassing the browser cache? That will often fix little bugs like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried that. Ok, thanks to AzaToth, I have now removed all the TW configs from my .js and added it using Gadgets instead ... yay, I now have a TW menu (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:45g

Just noticed your comment over on 45g's talk page. I disagree with you about whether or not the removal of block notices is allowed. WP:BLANKING doesn't list them as an exception, and pretty much every discussion I've read and/or participated in on the topic has ended with the consensus being that removal of the notice itself is fine. --Onorem♠Dil 13:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read that and you are right, it's only declined unblock notices. My main point in either event was that there was a multi-party edit war brewing over something that really wasn't worth it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi, this is Smartse. I asked to be blocked til July 1st but I'm not quite sure why because my exams are done now. Any chance that you could unblock me? Cheers 86.7.19.159 (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have very carefully read User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking_requirements (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "This is to prevent you from appealing the block since you requested it in the first place, so don't ask if you are not serious."? If so then don't worry. I blocked myself in a rush and didn't really think about when I wanted to be unblocked. Just thought that it couldn't help asking. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question

You asked why you lost. I have some ideas. However, I don't know how to e-mail you. I'm a bit of an idiot. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Left hand column of this page, the "email this user" button, or you could just tell me right here. Point of fact: I really don't feel like I "lost" as I was only volunteering to do some extra work anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am such an idiot. I don't see it. Anyway, the censored, public version of my intended message is that more people have to know you. I never heard of you. Some people are known in a negative way. Maybe a sanctioned ArbCom canvassing, like a template notice of an election, may help? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but 111 users did oppose, and I don't know the reason for a single one of them. That's the problem as I see it. I figured those who never heard of me made up the 119 users who went neutral. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nwar24

I was alerted to this from Wikipedia:Administrator review/King of Hearts. The reason I blocked him so quickly was not just because of spam/advertising, but also for sockpuppetry; it is very likely that Madeinusacertified is the same user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I had to figure that out for myself because you didn't note it in the block log. Since I had already unblocked him I left an admonishment on his talk page, my guess is this is the last we'll be hearing from them since the page they wanted to create is protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was just passing by and thought I'd drop in. I didn't DO anything, except notify KoH, which I thought was reasonable. If it has given offence, I wholeheartedly apologise. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no offense taken at all. Sorry I didn't note it in the block log. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You and your mob are bullying me under guise of mentoring, what a farce

The reason why I first got really upset was being discussed in the same item as "cults". Which was unfounded and unsubstantiated and there has been no apology. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, whatever, I don't really care what you have to say at this point. You can make your case at WP:ANI if you want, but any further posts by you here will be removed without being read. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI + B9HH

Aye, that was pretty much what I thought. I figured since I'd been hasty enough to !vote, then revert myself, I should take some time to consider. It does look to me to be very poor - saying nothing, then commenting once it's obvious the next step is the community saying "screw the RfC, let's just block". TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I really did try to communicate with him, but he won't listen to anything that is even remotely critical and he just pours out gibberish in response. This sudden interest in the RFC appears to be an 11th hour delaying tactic now that he finally realizes he has exhausted the communities rather long measure of patience with his antics. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Afd

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReVamp; somehow this article has no comments except for first-time commenters, and established editors like you are nowhere to be found. I don't think there's a chance in the world this band is notable right now; maybe I'm wrong, but I would at least like some "valid" votes at this AFD. Thanks. Note, you are the third (and final) editor who I've notified about this. I just wanted some other eyes, because the possible SOCK votes are discouraging. — Timneu22 · talk 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(responded at afd) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Past help

Hi you were kind enough to help me with the addition of the creative commons license that I need to add to my web pages in order to port that information over to Wikipedia, it was July 17th and 18th 09. I have added a note to the articles that simply states

• This page incorporates text taken from Rivington Pike, Rivington, Lancashire

My original pages had been updated so I then updated wikipedia ran out of room and openned another creative commons site to port link to my first. Regrettably another user has got the impression that I have mirrored wikipedia rather than allowed my site to go to creative commons on wikipedia. I don't know if you will recall my site was published in 1996 anf later formed the a number of wikipedia articles about Rivington. Would it be a good idea do think if you were to recall the conversations from logs.

Hmm, I've searched my own talk archives from that period and didn't find anything. Looks like I posted a few templates to your talk page along with this [1] remark. That's all I can find on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rovington is referencing Rivington articles to his own personal website. I have looked at it and his Rivington Pike page contains text that I have edited into the Wikipedia article in the last week or so. In spite of his protestations I thought this was inadmissable as a verifiable scource. I am no expert but I don't expect to see what I have written when attempting to verify a reference.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox doesn't care about the facts; he's an administrator, they make the facts up to suit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch hammer, that hurts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I ought to have said that too many make up the facts to suit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it would be good if somebody checked it out. He thinks it's ok because he's stuck a label on it.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you guess what I think? Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but a lady can't put it in print:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I don't know why you felt the need to come here and needle me about something I have only marginal involvement with. I thought we had developed an understanding that we don't like each other very much and would just avoid each other but apparently I was mistaken. Feel free to fuck off and don't post to my page again. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking me. You have at least partially restored my faith in the administrators here. Hopefully more will start using some sort of basic standards for evidence, as on the receiving end, that was a very unpleasant sequence of events. WavePart (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. As I mentioned, climate change article have of late become a toxic environment to edit in, and lots of users have been rightfully blocked as a result, it seems you were collateral damage. I hope you won't let this put you off the idea of continuing to edit here, there are over three million other articles out there to edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanding WP coverage for Britannica readers

Many readers, with years of experience in reading Encyclopædia Britannica, might be frustrated when coming to Wikipedia and seeing the differences. I have recommended to also consider Scholarpedia, for users who expected the traditional expert essays that Britannica has contained for decades. Of course, some of those EB essays contained rather shocking opinions, but it was better to allow experts the freedom of over-analyzing the facts, rather than not allow experts to offer perspective in complex fields, such as Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, which maintained a standard format for over 2,600 years. Numerous scholars have had trouble with Wikipedia, so perhaps some changes can be made to avoid future disputes, such as happened with B9. I am sorry that you had so much trouble in confronting his style, which may have resulted from him knowing too much about the Britannica treatises and less about WP:MOS. As long as your "suffering" leads to better practices in the future, consider it not just an isolated incident that seemed to waste your limited time now. Again, perhaps the first response should be to mention "Scholarpedia" if a similar confrontation arises. I have predicted WP to total over 9 million articles before reaching a "steady state" where deletions offset new articles, perhaps in year 2045 (see: WP:Modelling Wikipedia extended growth), so there is a lot of time to adapt and expand our policies here. I and other people are recommending huge changes in Wikipedia structure, so beware "This isn't (yet) your grandchildren's WP". Certainly, we will also see "auto-translators" between article languages, so the future is still wide open. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you grossly misunderstand what happened with B9, and I don't recall claiming that I have suffered, rather that articles on Tibetan Buddhism have. You may suggest any changes you like, but beware yourself that consensus based decision making is the very heart of Wikipedia, and if your ideas do not have support from the community they will not be implemented. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• So far, I am still reading Britannica about these concepts, and much of what B9 wrote is stated there, so I am glad you were not the one trying to keep Britannica ideas out of WP. The nondualism, and moral relativism, of Buddhism might be more complex than some wanted to admit, so I advise to take the Buddhist approach of delaying further judgment, perhaps another 6 months. I am glad that B9 was not overly angry during departure. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Which version of Britannica are you reading? I have access to the current, online version, and I'm not seeing any similarity between B9's muddled, mumbling, archaic, mid-1980s, pseudo-pomo writing style and the clear and easy to read encyclopedia articles hosted on their servers. B9 has a problem understanding the concept of clarity, which is very strange considering there is nothing easier to understand. Be clear. Where is the difficulty here? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that B9's farts smell like sweet perfume and we should be digging through his shit for the fine golden nuggets to add to our coffee. His disdain for the reader and editor alike is pathetic, and he was given multiple chances to change or apologize. He's welcome to come back any time he has a change of heart, but with an ego his size, it may take several lifetimes. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacobsen v. Katzer

Thanks for slowing things down on this page. I would appreciate advice on how to proceed. Should the NPOV issues be primarily discussed on the article talk page or one of the noticeboards? Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say whichever conversation has the most participation would be best, and the participants in the other discussions should be encouraged to move over so it's all in one place. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That'd be the article page. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Adminship ban

I was a bit offended by your comments about me. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, feel free to participate in the discussion at WP:ANI. I don't believe I have said anything not supported by the facts. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be offended - it takes a strong constitution to run for RfA, even for someone who is fully qualified. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

BWilkins is right I'm afraid Gobbleswoggler. For better or for worse, if you're going to be upset by what people might say about you at RfA, then don't go there. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)