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.

I am an oversighter, but it is generally inadvisable to discuss oversight matters on-wiki. If you need to request oversight, following the process at WP:RFO is the best route to getting your request handled in a timely fashion, but you can email me if you prefer.

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

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you and keep up the work! Inomyabcs (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Straightoutofcomptonmovie.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Straightoutofcomptonmovie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People excluded from the British Throne listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect People excluded from the British Throne. Since you had some involvement with the People excluded from the British Throne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edits i made

Hi, I would like to ask you if you would be willing to delete or hide my previous wiki edits. Looking back on things I acted immaturely and now find the edits embarrassing. The pages these are on are Gorillaz demon days, gorillaz plastic beach, gorillaz debut. Not the ones from my current account marginallycool157, but the ones from 184.39.8.154, 74.235.32.75, 184.39.5.200, 192.182.173.92, 45.53.230.186, 162.247.201.120, 45.53.247.228, 74.235.32.159, 74.235.50.11, 184.39.11.82, 74.235.51.181, 104.240.179.121, 162.247.201.114, 184.39.10.151, kobe24ny. Yeah... I know, a mouthful isn't it? Anyways, i apologize for my past behavior and hope you will help me. Thanks! Marginallycool157 (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, been a bit busy in real life. Revision deletion is only done in certain circumstances. Being embarrassed, I'm afraid, is not one of them but I will take a look. when I get a moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autopertrolled

Hi beeb. are you absolutely sure about this? The guy doesn't even know how to patroll new pages yet! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some of his recent creations, and they all seemed ok, nothing speedy deleted recently. Since it's not a user right that actually does anything I guess I am fairly liberal in handing it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Need some eyes/advice

Since you blocked this editor as a sock, could you take a look at this edit by a "new" editor (who claims to be 15 years old) which restored the material that the sock had tried repeatedly to add to Panicker. It's also curious that I had commented on Talk:Panicker and on the sock's talk page and the "new" editor, who like the sock copied his user page from someone else, contacted me (out of thousands of editors) with this strange message, two days after the sock was blocked. Do I need to start an SPI? Voceditenore (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a bit much to chalk it all up to coincidence, I went ahead and blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block was wise. This morning I was about to start an SPI after discovering that not only had this "new" editor, Magicsan, re-added the material to Panicker that User:Mathew102 had tried to add (it was removed three times), he had edited at least two further articles which Mathew102 had edited. The clincher was that Magicsan had told me (with his very first edit here) that he was 15 year old new editor seeking advice on how to edit Wikipedia [1] and then yesterday he went to Seraphimblade's talk page asking for rollback and admin rights claiming that "ive been editing on wikipedia for about two years now(through multiple accounts)". I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had registered several other accounts between Mathew102's block on the 9th and his yesterday. However, given his incompetence, they'll become obvious soon enough. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to top it all off, the "article" Magicsan created, Chammandi (the movie), is a complete hoax with fake references and a fake movie poster. It was cobbled together by copying bits from other WP articles and then changing the words. I've PROD-ed it. I wasn't sure how blatant a hoax had to be for {{Db-hoax}}. This one isn't obvious until you read it carefully, do Google searches, and check the refs. Sigh! Voceditenore (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Laitinen

Hello Beeblebrox. I haven't spoken to you since February, but I am contacting you again today for the same reason as the last time. I feel that my experience level, as well as my number of mainspace and vandalism-related edits, has increased quite substantially since last applying for the reviewer permission. Let me know if you believe I am ready to be granted this permission, and if not, I know based on prior experience that your criteria will help me move in the proper direction. Thanks so much! Lord Laitinen (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redoubt

Hi Beeblebrox,

It's definitely Mt Redoubt, but you're right that it's just too faint to see in the photo. Pictures just never can match the eye. I tried, taking hundreds of photos of it since the last eruption, with big plumes of steam and ash billowing from it. From that height all you can really see is the tip, but coming down Rabbit Creek Rd you can see much more of it, being able to see farther over the horizon (weather permitting of course). Zaereth (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]