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.

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

Want to tell me what you think of me as an administrator? Go right ahead! Wikipedia:Administrator review/Beeblebrox is live and any and all feedback is appreciated.

Review Recommend phase

When did you want to move into that? Steven Walling at work 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure yet. As you can see from the talk page, I'm having a bit of difficulty getting answers to pertinent questions, we keep getting derailed by some rather odd objections. My thought was maybe in about a week, and then we keep it open for a month or so in oder to get the broadest possible sample. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about answering every objection. It's good for people to voice their opinions about it, but it doesn't mean you should stall the process moving forward. It went the same with the reworking of the RFC into specific questions. If you would like some help promoting the final phase of comment, let me know. Steven Walling at work 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, it seems clear it is only a tiny minority that object to the current phase since dozens of users have participated without objection. I would like to make as big of a deal as possible about phase three since I think it will be the phase most likely to give us an indication of what to do next. I'll let you know as soon as we have the timing worked out. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD fracas

Beeblebrox:

Thank you for the very constructive suggestion in the AfD debate regarding Argentine people of European descent. It's the only way forward from here, because this new article can't be there without the previous one's edit history. Let me assure you I made no such move (nor did I think it was quite ready to be moved when it happened),

Please go ahead and delete it, as you suggested, and I'll move the revised edition in its place. The revisions Pablozeta and I worked on are thoroughly referenced, with no one having the color of his skin assigned to him/her, and with nothing but the history of how these people got there, from where, in what numbers, and with what other influences, including an overview of some of the changes and contributions to the nation's culture. The compilation of Argentina's communities is complete but for one entry, and this would be it.

Let me know if there's anything you feel needs attention.

My Regards, Sherlock4000 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this moved ahead without me, my watchlist is lit up with related page moves and deletions. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Alaska Airports

Hi Beeblebrox, since it seems you have expressed a small interest in Alaska Airports -- I hope you don't mind if I ask for your help. Since the merger of Frontier Flying Service, Era Aviation, and Hageland Aviation Services becoming Era Alaska, Alaska Airports are VERY outdated. Here is what needs to be done:

• Updating the Era Alaska destination list to reflect all cities listed here.
• Updating every airport in that list and making sure that if they have Frontier Flying Service, Era Aviation, or Hageland Aviation, or a combination, it is replaced with Era Alaska to show for the merger.
• Many of the Airports in Era Alaska's destination list are not in the proper table format, that all needs to be fixed.
• All of Era Alaska's routes need to be updated using current schedules found here. Many are very outdated, still displaying information from before the airlines merged.

It's a lot of work, and I cannot do it on my own. I would love any extra help I could get. If you have any questions on anything I mentioned, or are in a state of utter confusion, just ask me. All the best, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to pitch in in a while. At the moment babysitting the pending changes RFC is taking a lot of my wiki-time. I may feel more energetic about it next week after we enter phase 3. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Webcams_(Website) and Deleted the Webcams_(Website) article

The Webcams_Website article was deleted and its AFD discussion terminated. Usually AFDs are closed when a consensus is reached, I understand, but shouldn't there be a voting process instead of using various weak arguments to reach this sort of radical decision? For instance, the initial cause which started the Webcams_(Website) article AFD was: Non notable website, most of the various references are for the facts throughout the article and not actually related to the subject ^Talk 16:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC).

• In the AFD there is no sign whatsoever about the arguments discussed – Keep - this article, only those against it. Not to mention that personal opinions were used regarding various subjects/authorities or awards: XBIZ is a component of a public relationa/promotion business; its awards are not subject-independent Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC) ; hundreds of thousands of porn websitesBeeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC). I can't see impartiality being used in deciding to delete the Webcams_(Website) article, or any strong, irrefutable arguments above all else.

• Personal opinions (There are literally hundreds of thousands of porn websites out there, very, very few of them can be considered notable.), such as the erroneous labeling of Webcams.com as any other porn site have nothing to do with the AFD's motivation. On what grounds is this theory based? I consider this to be a really superficial argument which only points out the nature of the decision to delete the Webcams_(Website) article. Not to mention that I feel a light discriminating tone is being used when discussing this article, solely because it is part of the adult niche.

Here's Beeblebrox discussing in another AFD (Closing the Black Golden Globe winners AFD): I read every word of every AFD I close. If it's not overly obvious from that, I go back through and re-read it, usually focusing on debated statements to see if they are effectively refuted or not Beeblebrox. I believe you have not treated Webcams_(Website) AFD as serious as you yourself claim to usually do.

• In 2009 at XBIZ Webcams.com was one of the ten nominees in the Live Video Chat of the Year category, which happens to be totally relevant regarding the profile of the website and its importance in this adult videochat niche. Here comes Jac16888 with:1 of 20 nominees... Jac16888^Talk 00:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC). This proves the low level of attention paid when reading and evaluating the article and its sources/references. Objectivity clearly missing once again.
• The RabbitReviews.com reference was completely omitted during this shallow evaluation as well. Not only that I find the deletion of the Webcams_Website unfair, but I also consider this decision was taken expeditiously and frivolously. And here's another example: And that is a truly spectacular WP:RS failure (as are most online posts bylined "Mephistopheles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

I strongly believe you should take a second look at the debate page after examining the issues discussed here. I consider that the page should be undeleted, so that we don't have to reach deletion review. Makeet (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My closing statement is a reflection of the fact that the consensus at this AFD, as I saw it, was that the sources used were of poor quality and did not demonstrate sufficient notability for the subject. If you think this [1] is the sort of thing we should be using to research our articles I'm afraid you have grossly misunderstood what Wikipedia does and does not consider a reliable source. Internet porn reviewing sites are not professional journalistic entities with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Many of the other sources were used to verify information in the article but did not actually mention the subject of the article and are therefore not relevant as far as notability is concerned. Therefore I do not see any compelling reason to overturn this deletion.

Again, like it's predecessors you are in an enormous confusion.

First. fact that the consensus at this AFD, as I saw it, was that the sources used were of poor quality and did not demonstrate sufficient notability for the subject. Not was any consensus on AFD page, and nobody do not want to analyze all my sources and to look at my entire article, to read my explanation where I describe the structure of my Webcams_(Website) article.

If you think this [11] is the sort of thing we should be using to research our articles I'm afraid you have grossly misunderstood what Wikipedia does and does not consider a reliable source That article are only a part, from a section of my article, and again you don't want to look at entire project, it's only a one part of an entire.

• You told me i'm in a misunderstood? But you, who come like a judge of a Inquisition and take a decision only from a point of view, more than that, you consider consensus some personal opinions, you...YOU in what king of misunderstood you are? Why don't delete the XBIZ_Award article, why don't delete the RabbitsReviews? All my sources used in my article are structured by sections, every section with his own sources.
• At the final, I ask you again to take a look at Webcams_(Website) and to undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeet (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not making a lot of sense right now, and you are making some rather unpleasant accusations. The answer is still no as you have not presented any cogent reason to overturn the decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the XBIZ page yet, but you are right that the Rabbit Reviews page suffers from the same problem. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Makeet: In order for a topic to be notable, it has to be covered by third-party reliable sources and the coverage has to be in-depth. Now, I'm not sure what qualifies as reliable for this topic space, but WP:WikiProject Pornography keeps a list of sources and explains which ones are reliable, which ones aren't and in which situations. This will help you get started. I'm an inclusionist, so if there's anyway I can help, please let me know. You can ask questions at my talk page. If you have questions regarding which sites are reliable, you can ask at the aforementioned WikiProject or at the Reliable sources noticeboard. However, if you post any links to porn sites to my talk page or at the Reliable sources noticeboard, please do everyone the courtesy of including a "NSFW" warning in your post. Good luck!

Beeblebrox: I sassed that that you were a hoopy frood? Deleting our porn articles? If you it again, I shall read you Vogon poetry. See if I don't! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Aw, Belguim man. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Early close

It was my intention to comment under yours but the RfA had closed. I can not see how, "placing the request", compelled you to such a strong conclusion. There are remnants of concern which fester, where none were necessary. Personally, I would check your candor, against your own POV, and reconcile differences which bring you to state such a thing. My76Strat (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't parse any meaning out of "check your candor, against your own POV" or "there are remnants of concern which fester, where none were necessary." From what I can gather from your remarks you believe I over reacted by characterizing the request not to be subject to a snow close as arrogant. RFA is by definition a bit of an exception to WP:NPA in that we are in fact commenting on an editor and our impression of them as opposed to article content, policy, etc. I perceived the request as arrogant, given that this was their fourth RFA they shouldn't have even run if there was any chance of it becoming a snow close. That's how I feel about it. Would you have me lie? What good would that do Dusti? Doesn't he, and every RFA candidate, deserve our honest criticism? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hoax query

Hiya,

Regarding that recent hoax, which I won't name and draw any attention to - do you think any further action might be necessary...if you know what I mean? I emailed OS about it...I was slightly concerned. Sorry to be cryptic, but I think you'll know what I mean - and I use your talk for probably fastest way to mention it. You can email me, or whatever (especially if you haven't the faintest idea what I am blathering about). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually deleted as a result of another OS report on it. What I was able to glean from a translation of the original text was pretty silly actually, so I didn't feel OS was needed. I'm watching it though. I don't see your message in the OTRS queue so I'm assuming someone else has already replied to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

*shrug* - [Ticket#2011031610021822] Zoetermeermoord (POSSIBLY URGENT)‏ - only response was you.  Chzz  ►  04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that was you. Sorry, after a while they all look the same, and it was already out of my queue when I wrote that reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. As long as it has been handled, that's fine. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Phase three

Responded on my talk. Steven Walling at work 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

feeling the love

....quiet there...Perhaps it doesn't need closing, it is a very complicated discussion and issues are being raised and acted on and refined as we can and let it develop naturally as it flows without specific closure, as in. - address and tweak the issues raised like, the what is a reviewers responsibility and what it a reviewer actually supposed to do - and what is a reviewers legal responsibility, and what is the ongoing scope of the tool, clarify those issues and then after third phase feedback then format a final keep or reject with the updated guidelines and scope. The final keep or reject will need closure but will be a simple consensus closure that anyone experienced and uninvolved will be able or willing to close. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes RfC

Please see my reply at User talk:Kaldari#PC RFC questions. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my further response at User talk:Kaldari#PC RFC questions. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I had mentioned you here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

As a courtesy, I wanted to mention that I quoted you in an AN/I here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of French flush-cut saw

The article French flush-cut saw has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly referenced stub article about a tool that does not pass WP:VERIFY.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onthegogo (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Aw man, that was my first ever article! Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of RFA review

I'll see if I can whip up some phase 2 eye candy. In the meantime, I'd appreciate your response on this, seeing that it's what you modeled the phase 3 process on. You might also be interested in commenting on this in the interest of moving Chzz's proposal forward. Thanks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(replied at those pages Beeblebrox (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Task force

Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

request for copy of deleted article

Beeblebrox -

Yesterday, I created a stub of an article on Skyline (musical group). It was speedily deleted. I would appreciate it if you could email me a copy of the article (mailto:paulmlieberman@alum.mit.edu) (or usify it, though I've never worked with a usified article). I think this group has an important place in the history of newgrass, and establishes connections among several important musicians. I'll work on making the article worth having in Wikipedia before I reinsert it.

Bloody Viking (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it has not been deleted. It was nominated but the nomination was actually declined. I've just undone the redirect and added a source, but it will probably need more if it is to be kept in the long term. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA

HiBbeeb. You might be interested in this. If you think it's crap, don't hesitate to say so on its talk page. There are also some links to some others. --Kudpung (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Heya :o) You seem like an intelligent, resourceful and insightful kind of person. At the minute we seem to have quite a few self-nominated little working parties, many of whom are focussing on different aspects of the whole RfA and Adminship process-wossname, and each of which seems to be working relatively well within their own group.

This being the case, and bearing in mind that quite a few people obviously feel that the RfA/Admin thing needs a really thorough overhaul, it seems to me to be an intelligent thing to do for someone (I'm suggesting you!) to keep an eye on what every group is doing, with a view to putting the whole lot together, at the end, and integrating all the good ideas into a really good total-overhaul package. This would enable each group to stay focussed on its own chosen aspect, which would very probably be more productive, but still be working in a 'kinda-together' way for the greater good of the whole thing. What do you think? Pesky (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I could take on organizing such a thing right at the moment. We are approaching a critical moment at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 right now that is taking up most of the time and patience I have for trying to run a complicated policy discussion. However this seems like something that would fall under the umbrella of the semi-dormant Administrator project. Maybe it could be used as a central location for this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

An administrator blocked a user, and the block has already expired. However, the administrator thinks now this block should be eliminated from the user's block log.

1. Does the administaror have any technical legal way to eliminiate the block from the user's block log?
2. Can an oversighter do that instead of the administrator?

Thank you in advance. Eliko (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Redacting a log entry is only done is certain very specific circumstances. It is explicitly not allowed to be used to remove the record of a poorly considered action. The more usual approach is to block the user again for only one minute, and note the retraction or refutation of the previous block in the log at that time. This makes it clear that the block was an error while maintaining transparency. Unless there is also a privacy issue involved as well this is what should probably happen in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

1. By "certain very specific circumstances" - do you mean: circumstances involving "a privacy issue"? i.e. Are there other such circumstances?
2. How about the option of striking out the "block" in the block log?
3. Does WP have articles dealing with such issues?

Eliko (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy section is Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction. Basically there has to be something extremely improper in the log entry. I don't believe there is any technical means of striking out a log entry, which is why brief re-blocks are usually used to correct the log. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Thank you for the link and for the clarification.
2. Re a "strike-out": from a technical point of view, striking out an enrty in a history page - is possible, isn't it? So, from a technical point of view (rather than from a legal point of view), why is there any difference - between striking out an enrty in a history page - and striking out an enrty in other revision logs?
3. In my opinion, a re-block - is a very clumsy/strange way for stating something about previous blocks.
4. I understand why eliminating an entry from a block log - is usually forbidden: WP must maintain transparency, and the community must review all block log - fully, including improper blocks. However, this only explains why admins are not allowed to eliminate (nor to strike out) a block entry - added to the block log by another admin, but I can't figure out why this "other admin themself" who has added the block entry to the block log - is not allowed to eliminate (or strike out) this entry - nor can they ask a oversighter to do that, when this admin themself (who has added the block entry to the block log) thinks - that the elimination (or the strike-out) is justified - and that leaving the block entry in the user's block log may unjustifiably harm the user's record.

Eliko (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Since this other admin you speak of is apparently unaware of some important policies and in need of some guidance, I think we should drop the hypothetical pretext of this conversation and you should tell me who they are so I can assist them directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Spartacus

Hi Beeblebrox, I've added a comment to your comment on Talk:Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Basically, can you cite the relevant sections of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that support your claim? As far as I understand - and I could be wrong - merely observing differences between what 2 sources (the show, historical) relate, without passing judgement on which of those sources is 'best' - counts as neither OR nor synthesis. All the best. Catiline63 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(replied at article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

RfA task force

The budding task force is here. When there are a few more names on the list I'll move the page to project space.--Kudpung (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reopening case, since it's been hanging for a few days now.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New User

Hi, this template was removed without an edit summary or talk page note by a new user. Can i replace the template? Pass a Method talk 21:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. With the exception of the WP:BLPPROD, a WP:PROD template may be removed from an article at any time by any user and cannot be re-added once removed. Articles for deletion is still a viable option but ti might be a better idea to discuss this on the article's talk page first. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Assitance Needed

Hi, you helped me once before by challenging content and I benefited from double referencing the subject material. Could you help me with the article Micheal Fitzgerald. I have worked hard to add references and validate 3rd party sources. It is part of an initiative I am involved which is to improve the motorsport articles on Wikipedia. The article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia.However particular users seem to be continually adding mischief citation requests and the like when articles of a similar nature and content have few if the bare minimum of references to begin with. Every time I further add references, further citation requests are added. I never imagined this article would take up so much of my time. I need to start working on other articles and contributions. I need help to understand if there is a mischief campaign. Thanks in advance. Hunterscarlett (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oranje

Hi, someone is fucking up the Dutch football squad page. Last good edit was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netherlands_national_football_team&oldid=421809548. Please revert to that version, I didn't succeed.