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

Smailliwsemaj

Hi, you recently declined this user's unblock. Their block expired and they've gone back to making disruptive edits. See their contributions. They've been disruptive on various places for a while now - inappropriately recreating articles closed as redirects at AFD, inserting false information into music articles, writing inappropriate messages on talk pages and creating this sort of thing. Could you please block them? They're clearly not getting the message, and are causing disruption. Aiken ♫ 18:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another admin beat me to it by a few seconds. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy

A four day protection for this? Really? It is the one of the most important topic in the news at the moment. This is analogous to protecting the TFA. Could you please unprotect the page? NW (Talk) 19:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a rather large edit war involving many parties brewing, do you want to babysit it for the next week while partisans constantly edit it to suit their own POV? Seriously, if the answer is yes, go ahead and lift it with my blessing. I may as well point out that this spilled over to Namir Noor-Eldeen and I gave it the same protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather deal with blocking blatantly partisan editors than cutting off improvements to such a vital article. Thank you for allowing me to unprotect the page. NW (Talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Namir Noor-Eldeen

At the WP:RPP page, you had indicated you were fully protecting Namir Noor-Eldeen for five days because it was to receive the same level of protection at July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike controversy. However, it appears the latter page is only semi-protected, and that now, it can be edited by experienced editors, whereas Noor-Eldeen cannot. Is there any particular reason for this approach? — Hunter Kahn 20:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't see the above conversation topic until after I made my post. Now that I see that, I also feel that Namir Noor-Eldeen should be semi-protected, since the logic behind protecting it in the first place was to extend to it the same level of protection as the 2007 airstrike article. Also, there is less of a potential war brewing at this article than the other, and I also would like to add more biographical information to the Noor-Eldeen page, so it's less centered around the controversy and can stand better as a stand-alone article. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn 20:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have dropped the article to semi-protection, as it appears that Beeblebrox has gone offline. He is free to undo my action if he wishes. NW (Talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm working on-call today and had to leave for a while. I apparently hit the wrong button, causing the disconnect between the two protections. I'm fine with the semi on both. I only checked the diffs, I didn't read the whole article, I was thinking this was more in the old news department, not realizing the events the last few days that had made it such a hot-button topic, and then I had to leave before delving back into it, hence my somewhat curt response earlier. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In Too Deep (The 39 Clues)

Hello Beeblebrox. I requested speedy because I moved the above article to In Too Deep (novel) before realizing that I could not do the same to Storm Warning (The 39 Clues). I didn't see the need to go to RFD because I had made this move accidentaly and was the only contributor to the redirect. Is it OK is you move In Too Deep (novel) to In Too Deep (The 39 Clues) over the redirect, for consistency reasons? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I apparently didn't notice this message when you originally posted it. I went ahead and made the move. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

RFA Optin

Hi - thanks again for your feedback/changes here. I think we've got a pretty good consensus to implement these changes and before I do so in a single edit I wanted to confirm whether or not you would like your changes attributed to you, and if so - would you care to perform a histmerge on the two forks of the article. If the attribution is not important then just let me know and I'll make all the changes in a single edit referencing your name in the comments.  7  23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC) (this message copied to all three admin who helped with the page).

The other two editors agreed to just a single edit. I'm leaving for the day shortly so I hope you don't mind but I went ahead and made the change. If it's a problem we can revert and histmerge. Thanks, and have a good weekend.  7  08:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

modern cooperative socialism

Greetings,

Thank your for your helpful input re this new page I created. Clearly, I am just a little less new at wiki pages than my friend (whom I posted the page for). I didn't know about caps vs. non-caps. How can I fix that issue? Do I need you or HalfShadow to delete the page and then I can make a new one with upper and lower case words? And I will have my friend add further reliable sources (as I don't follow the movement per say, the sources she'd included looked reliable to me, and had wiki pages, so I thought I was okay on that. Will endeavor to get better.) Many thanks in advance for your helpful critique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlentini (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern cooperative socialism currently exists as a redirect page. If you think you can make it into a stand alone article, as opposed to s subsection of the current article on Socialism, you can do that by editing the redirect page to add your content, being sure to provide reliable sources to verify the content. Alternately you could create a user subpage to create a draft version, and I or another admin can move it to the redirect page when it is ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

K-1 World MAX 2010 Final 16, K-1 MAX Final 16

Can you please restore the speedy deletion on the pages created by the user User:Abdel1991, both of them listed above are bogus. The correct page for the last event is here K-1 World MAX 2009 World Championship Tournament Final 16 and the other one doesn't exist. Mind as well ban the guy as well.thxMarty Rockatansky (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I converted the other pages to redirects. I don't see any reason to block or ban the other user, I don't see any attempt by you to actually discuss these matters with them. Blocks and bans are not handed out on whims, there has to be a demonstrable problem or policy violation, and you must discuss or at least warn the user first. Since you have given no reason at all for your request that they be banned I certainly won't pursue the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

K-1 World MAX 2010 Final 16 is a wrong redirect to 2009 event, there's gonna be an event by that name on July. I think its a violation and a problem to create an event pages with incorrect names of future events of no references nor an official announcements on the card. These should be deleted not redirected.Marty Rockatansky (talk)

NEED YOUR HELP

Dear Beeblebrox.

I have previously uploaded an entry on Olmeca Tequila that was rejected and want to send you the re-written neutral text so you can advise if the content is now neutral and suitable for Wikipedia. Please could you email me your email address to hannahfoster2000@googlemail.com so i can share it with you before uploading

Much Appreciated

THanks

• You can email me by clicking the "email this user" button in the left hand column. Alternately you can create a user subpage where the article can be worked on until it is ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a year

Hi. This is to inform you that you have been blocked from editing list.wikia.com for a year: block log. This may be of no concern, as you don't appear to have ever edited that project.
Doan-worry; I was whacked, too ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is the same user by this name that edits here: what a fucking asshole ANobody is. Good fucking riddance. Thanks for letting me know about this pointless block on a project that nobody gives two shits about. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No assumptions necessary. For what it's worth, you're in good company. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see that he is continues to manifest the civility and maturity which have made him a legend all over the internets.  pablo_hablo. 11:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC) ^{not blocked yet ...}

Yep, and obviously I'm done smiling through my teeth and being polite to him. Of all the petty, and frankly pointless, things to do, blocking accounts that aren't even registered out of spite is pretty low. Of course I could just use another name if I actually wanted to edit whatever the hell list.wikia is supposed to be anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Block me please

Hello, can you block me until July 1st please? I think that I meet all your criteria. Thanks a lot for being willing to do so! Smartse (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears you do meet my criteria, I'll do it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Beeblebrox's Day!

User:Beeblebrox has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Beeblebrox's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Beeblebrox! Peace, Rlevse 00:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Community decision violation

Resolved  – blocks all around

I wonder if this (first sentence) and this (red words) are violations of this interaction ban? I'm not sure about it, but in any case-would appreciate if you check it. --Gilisa (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC) This Interaction ban between Factomancer and Gilisa clearly states that Gilisa is prohibited from "comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party......The restriction is to be interpreted broadly." (My bolding). So please tell me; exactly how does the above not violate Gilisa´s interaction ban? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Didn´t read carefully enough; sorry. Huldra (talk) According to his user page he decided today to take a long break, so it's probably best not to bother with it at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hold on a second, so declaring on your user page that you are taking a break is a free ticket to break the rules and not have consequences? I'd like to point out that Factomancer has claimed that she is going on a break before, only to change her mind and come back after a couple of days. Clearly that break didn't help her alter her behaviour, as she has been banned several times since then and has violated her interaction ban yet again here. Aside from the links Gilisa provided above, take a look at these: [1] - direct reference to Mbz1 through diffs and complaining about it on her user page [2] - AN/I report with the same references to Mbz1. After an admin comments that she is likely to be reprimanded for this behaviour, she attempts to delete the entire AN/I report (her comments and others') Admin Sandstein was informed about this on his talk page but he expressed his desire not to act here (understandable as he has been heavily involved in this whole mess) and to let another admin deal with the violation Breein1007 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I didn't say it was a free pass, but if they really are taking a break that is a good thing, they obviously need it. Since they feel that I have "personally attacked" them and they have tried to banish me from their talk page I probably shouldn't deal with his either even though I find their accusations towards me ridiculous. Anyway it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Here's Factomancer's previous break [3]. She took it last time she got in trouble for behaving badly. It didn't last long [4]. I find it amazing that a user behaving like a 12 year old spoiled brat can intimidate admins into not dealing with them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Well I'm sorry Beeblebrox but this is getting ridiculous. The list of admins refusing to deal with taking action against Factomancer is growing. So the message she gets is that if she just pisses off enough admins, she'll rule this place. I already brought this to Sandstein and he didn't want to take action because he has been heavily involved and banned Factomancer in the past. Fine, I can understand that. But you are saying that you don't want to get involved because Factomancer has accused you of personally attacking her by commenting that you supported her previous block? I agree, her accusations towards you were ridiculous. But with all due respect, allowing her to get away with breaking the rules because you are scared of getting involved is even more ridiculous. That's why you're here! That's what admins are expected to do. I shouldn't have to run in circles trying to find an admin with the balls to enforce the rules. If I report something once, to one admin, that should be enough to see a result. Anyway, this is taking up too much of my energy and time. I am going to inform admin Tim Song about the violation and hope that he is the one who is willing to take action. If not, I give up and assume that anarchy has taken over. Breein1007 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Beeblebrox, according to the interaction restrictions I'm allowed, if I understand it correctly, to address other admin only if the first admin didn't comment in 24 hours. You did comment, but you tell that you don't want to deal with this because you are not in the best position to do that. So, I want to ask you if I'm allowed to address another admin without the risk of violating any of the restricitions. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Heh; Breein1007 has already contacted 3 admins about this in the last couple of hours. Sorry, Gilisa, but are you sure there will be any "new" admins left for you to contact? ;D On a more serious note: Do you really think Factomancer has behaved much worse than Mbz1? I don´t. And I don´t know the background for the interaction ban, but I can see that it is strongly needed...for all three of you. So the above words: "let sleeping dogs lie" sounds very sensible to me. Move on, please. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC) You know what, fine, you win. I have examaned the diffs and now I will make an administrative decision. Those remarks are obviously a reference to The Trial, a novel by Franz Kafka which melodramatic people like to compare to their own situation when they feel confronted by an unjust system. While I don't agree with that assessment, I am not aware of any restriction that says Factomancer may not make references to works of fiction on their own talk page. Therefore no block is warranted and you can consider the matter closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Umm, I wasn't referring to any references to works of fiction. I was referring to violations of the topic ban between Factomancer and Mbz1. Factomancer directly made references to Mbz1 in the links I provided. I don't appreciate you taking this lightly and making a joke out of this situation. If you are going to refuse to take action then that's fine, but don't say something like this. Do you not realize that you are encouraging her to continue behaving like this? I just don't understand for the life of me... Breein1007 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) It's not a joke. I was asked if these diffs might represent a breach of an editing restriction. I don't believe they do. Since several other admins have also declined to take any action, you should consider the possibility that such a block is not warranted and would serve no good purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC) It's hard for me to consider that possibility when you made a comment about some reference to The Trial, while I was asking you to look at a clear violation of the topic ban where Factomancer referenced Mbz1. And for your information, "several other admins" have not also declined to take any action. One admin said that he could not take action because he was about to get on a flight. Another admin said it probably was a violation but he preferred someone else to take the required action. That brought me to you. So please don't misrepresent the series of events. Anyway, that's all from me. Have fun, Breein1007 (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Beeblebrox, Breein didn't refer to the "Trial", it seems that you didn't read the diffs carefully. Anyway, in regard to me, I asked whether it will be ok if I address other admin (because in you say you are not in comfortable position to get involved) and yet didn't get any response from you. Your answer is important to me. I', waiting it. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Ok, at the beginning of this thread I was asked to look into this diff :[5], which is in fact a reference to the Kafka novel. As I've repeated several times now I don't think admin action is warranted and it would be best for all involved to let this matter go for the time being. I don't know the specific details of whatever ban you are under, but if you have to ask if you would be breaking it or not then you probably would be. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Another admin blocked her. Thanks for your help, Breein1007 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Beeblebrox, the all issue is not relevant any longer. But just in principle, how come you are not familiar with my specific ban details?--Gilisa (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Why should I be? I've never had any interaction with you that I can recall before this thread. I don't even know where your ban is detailed, or whether it was imposed by the community at large, or ArbCom, or a specific admin. There are over a thousand administrators and hundreds of thousands of editors, and I do not specialize in interaction ban enforcement. As I've said I generally find it a pointless endeavor to make any kind of partial ban because they generally create more drama than they prevent, this very thread being a perfect example. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Why should you be? Hmmm..I have to keep my right to remain silent.--Gilisa (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Ok, I get it, you are under the same interaction ban as Factomancer, and you have violated it again and again by participating in this conversation at all. So, shall I block you now or would you like to let this go, as I have been suggesting all along? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Actually, since you initiated this conversation and Factomancer was blocked again, it seems only fair that I should block you for the same 24 hours that they got. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to be blocked

I want to be blocked until June 1, 2010 in accordance with your self blocking criteria. Unioneagle (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh :)

I laughed! Pedro :  Chat  12:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you got a chuckle out of it. I guess the RFA "drought" is over... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Metapedia

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia. The article Metapedia was eventually turned into a protected redirect because of so many attempts to recreate the article. Clinchfield (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually figured that out just after declining the speedy, I looked at the deletion discussion and the deleted versions of the article. See my comments at Talk:Metapedia (white nationalist encyclopedia). Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to nominate this for deletion if that's alright. Clinchfield (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that, be sure to link to the first AFD in your nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Clinchfield (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)