Jump to content

User talk:Just Step Sideways

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Murrayturtle (talk | contribs) at 14:04, 16 October 2015 (→Found you !). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

please stay in the top three tiers

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 (gvarnum@wikimedia.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]

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 19 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]

By the way, I noticed that the editor adding photos posted one of the "Whale Wall" in downtown Anchorage. I remember a similar photo being deleted because it violated copyright of the artist. Here is a link to the discussion, plus there is more in the talk archive: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whale_Wall_Anchorage.JPG I don't know much about copyright of images, but thought I should mention it in case it is problems. Zaereth (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should've checked who put that image there, I know you would know if it was Redoubt or not, I just never realized you could actually see it from anywhere near Anchorage. Images of public art are a bit of a grey area, I never know which way a deletion discussion is going to go on an image of it. I don't think anyone really knows the right answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened to be at the right place at the right time to see it erupt once, but that was many years ago, before cell phones and a fancy camera was one that developed its own film. I'm not too worried about the mural myself, but just recalled the past discussion. I'm sure if its a problem someone'll bring it up on commons. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last deletion discussion on Commons involving something I uploaded was a big schmozz. I developed the impression that all one has to do is request that something be deleted and it will be deleted, regardless of what anyone has to say. I was going to say something about the photos in the article, too, but figured I'd wait until those editors were done. I may have to break down and go find my Anchorage photos and upload a few. The photos still give the article too much of a touristy feel, there's a serious lack of photos depicting streetscapes and outlying areas, the locomotive photo gives no indication that it depicts Anchorage while the photo it replaced most certainly is of Anchorage (and, amazing coincidence, depicts a side of Anchorage that tourists normally don't see). What else? Untold hundreds of Iditarod photos have been uploaded to Commons, yet instead we have a photo depicting the Alaska Wild? "The neighborhood of South Addison"? Articles like these are constantly in danger of resembling advertising for the local CVB, so the tone of the photos is one thing I pay particular attention to, even if it means having to "gore someone's sacred cow" in the process. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree at all. Personally, I rarely upload photos unless I see a need for one, say ... perhaps some text where a photo would help people visualize what it's talking about. (In some cases, if I couldn't find text for a photo I'd just write it myself.) I think the article is too touristy as well. My grandparents came here before WWII, and I've been dusting off and going through some of their old books and photos, hoping to improve upon the history a little, at some point in the future. However, I agree that articles shouldn't be a repository for photos, and have brought it up on other articles like moose, iridescence or Japanese swordsmithing. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this in a different direction, now that you brought that up: I was able to obtain a copy of Fond Memories of Anchorage Pioneers recently. Love the Byron Birdsall painting on the cover, showing the "Oyster Loaf Fountain", later Woolworths and now the gift shop, plus the wireless station where Peratrovich Park is now. Oh yeah, Eckmann's Furniture, too? Before I go on and on, pp. 92–93 mentions my relatives, though I should disclose that they had nothing to do with my immediate family coming to Alaska. My grandmother's cousin, Lloyd W. Hines (1911–1991), came to Anchorage in 1935. In his early years there, he was Sydney Laurence's next-door neighbor at the Anchorage Hotel. He was a pioneering optometrist and later a pioneering real estate developer in Anchorage. Until Anchorage's most recent shift in affluence and related gentrification, his home at the western end of Bryn Mawr off of Wesleyan was one of Anchorage's few scattered mansions (sadly, when new houses in the million-dollar range started sprouting up all over the Hillside, it was deemed an anachronism and subsequently demolished and replaced with a condo development). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen that one. I found a book called (something like) A Pictorial History of Anchorage (sorry, I'm not at home right now) which is filled with lots of great photos going way back. There are several others too, plus an original Collected Works of Robert Service to boot. I recently found a box full of newspapers and magazines from the week after the '64 Quake, which are fascinating. Oh, and a book on the Battle of Kiska, which was the largest naval battle ever fought against no enemy. (Turns out, the Japanese had pulled out two weeks earlier.) Unfortunately, summer has been a mad rush to prepare for winter, from break-up until the first snow, so I haven't had time to look over everything properly yet. Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was published by the local Pioneers of Alaska igloo in 1996. One interesting story: Jack Anderson told of being a second mate on the SS Nenana and encountering Rosemary Kennedy several times as a passenger. The back cover has an aerial photo dated summer 1949; like most aerial photos of that era, it looks eastward along Fourth and Fifth avenues from near the Knik Arm shoreline. At center foreground, I see the "Inlet Hotel" at 4th and K. Not to be confused with the Inlet Inn, which is seen at the right edge of the photo, which was called the Roosevelt Hotel back then. A few years prior, it was called the Lind–Dudley Hotel. Bruce Kendall, someone I also have familial ties to but is not of relation that I'm aware of, owned that hotel at various points in time under all three names (the last time would have been decades ago — he was retired from the hotel business by the time it wound up as a for-profit version of Housing First until it was finally condemned a few years ago). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:OluwaCurtis

Hello Beeblebrox,

How are you doing? Just to let you know that the pending change reviewer right you granted to the above editor has been rightfully revoked by Moonriddengirl for repeated violation of the copyright policy. With kind regards! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Wikicology. :) Since I'm pinged, I'll add that I don't imagine Beeblebrox would have had any way to know. Unfortunately, these issues sometimes don't come to light until later! I mean, we've had admins who displayed problems with this after their RFAs. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't imagine Beeblebrox would have had any way to know either. Sometimes ago, the editor asked me privately, if they should applied for user rights, I advised them to wait for at least 6 month before they applied but they went ahead to request for these rights and I was surprised to see that those rights were granted to the new editor but I waited for a day like yesterday. I've seen an admin who granted "Autopatrol right" to editors who only created disambiguation pages. Creating hundreds of disambiguation pages or stubs articles in my opinion is not an indication that the editor is familiar with the basic policies that guild content creation. Sometimes the rate at which admins grant user right on Wikipedia is alarming and worrisome. I feel user right shouldn't be granted to editors without proper examination of their contributions. Beeblebrox is one of the most trusted admins on Wikipedia and I don't think they've wrongly granted the PCR right to the editor but I only felt they should know since they recently granted the right to the editor. With kind regards! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with these low-level user rights is that they are as easily removed as they are granted. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester

When you reblocked RGloucester, you disabled autoblock. Just curious if that were intentional? The original block included autoblock, and I'd removed it because of confusion over the rationale (I took it to mean that he'd been compromised, so of course we wouldn't want to autoblock him), but you didn't restore the autoblock, and I wondered if you meant not to. Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Honestly, I didn't really think about it at the time, it just seemed clear to me that it was time for him to have his talk page revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-request for block

@Beeblebrox: I'm relatively new, but I feel I've made enough reasonably constructive contribs to meet your criteria. My research interests happen to focus on contentious historical topics, and editing/discussing the relevant articles is both addictive and distracting. I need to take a break from all this for a time. Please block me for 6 weeks.Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do appear to meet my criteria for such a block. I usually like to verify me last time before blocking, and to make sure the user knows about the Wikipedia:WikiBreak Enforcer, which you can do yourself and won't leave an entry in your block log. Let me know if you still want the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm still tempted to block anon contribs. As long as the reason for the block is clearly stated and there is a "blocked for wikibreak" template on my user page, I don't see a problem with having a block log entry. If there are still reasons why having such an entry is bad, let me know. thanks Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about a template, but of course I will note in the block log and on your talk page that it was self-requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK @Beeblebrox:, sounds good. I am extending the blocking period to about 3 months. So Block me from now 'til January 1, 2016 Thanks for your help!Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-creation of article previously deleted at AfD

Hey, Beeblebrox. The Louisville–West Virginia rivalry article was found to be non-notable and deleted pursuant to a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisville–West Virginia rivalry, which you closed. The article has been re-created, and I have placed a WP:G4 speedy deletion request template on it. Would you mind doing the honors? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback privileges you gave User:SheriffIsInTown

Have you considered my discussion with the editor before granting such privileges? You warned him that rollback should only be used to revert clear vandalism, but that's the very thing, the editor has been reverting edits in bulk with accusations of "vandalism" when only some, if any, of the edits were clear vandalism, while other ones were even corroborated by sources already existing in the article. Tendency to call just every disagreeable edit "vandalism" is dangerous. LjL (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "warning" you refer to is just part of the standard template message left for users newly granted the right. The thing with these very low-level user rights is that they are as easy revoke as they are to grant, so if there is a problem it can be quickly and easily dealt with. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission removal

Please remove the rollback and pending changes reviewer permissions from my account. Thanks. CTZMSC3 (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found you !

I saw the pic on your user page and immediately took to the "where's wally ?" clue. I may be wrong but you're the guy in red and whit stripes,second row behind the man in the orange shirt...........I MAY BE WRONG Yours, Blisspop (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account is an old "friend" of yours. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have a lot of those, drawn to my talk page likes moths to a flame... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


YO.....i wanted to tell you that Blisspop is a sock of matheweditking who is a sock of induroy....i know this as this is a university computer and that particular is known for his crappy behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrayturtle (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murrayturtle, edits like this restoring the same inappropriate material which several other socks had attempted and your bizarre visit to my talk page [2], lead me to reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashas T, unless you are blocked first. Beeblebrox, see also here. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


ok fine....i admit it i am a sock but i have no clue who yashas t is.....i am sock of induroy,matheweditking,sly kupar,magic san,rortosthanos,and smileypapaya Murrayturtle (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Atleast connect me as a sock to the right guy.....And beebs...is that guy in the red shirt you or not????? I really think it is beebs Murrayturtle (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request

Hey, you seem like a fairly active guy in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. I was wondering if you could give me a copy of the code of the deleted Module:Module overview. I remember it had some weird way of working, but I can't remember how. I'd just like to see its implementation again to see what I can experiment with on other wikis. moluɐɯ 14:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been traveling the last few days, and just got home, and have no idea what the rules for module pages are, so it might be a moment before I get to this, but if nobody else does I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. After having nearly every permission a user can get here for the last five years it was somewhat of a surprise to be told I did not have permission to move a particular page. Apparently module pages cannot be moved out of the module namespace. I'm not sure what your other options are. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would moving it to a subpage of a "personal" sandbox module work? Like Module:Sandbox/User:The_Mol_Man/Module_Overview moluɐɯ 00:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that probably could be done, but I'm not at all sure that it should be done, ignorant as I am of how modules work. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrayturtle (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

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 transitioning 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 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. 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 (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 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 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways&oldid=686024006"