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

Re: UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying Group F page protection

Hello there. I just wanted to discuss the full protection of the Group F page that you imposed after an IP user requested it. I think that your action might have been a little... harsh.
IP users adding live scores is a staple of the international football pages, and has been for all the years that I've been on Wikipedia. Someone always does it for at least one of the group pages on every matchday, and all the establishes users revert it and that person either gives up or the matches finish anyway. It's not really edit warring, so much as reverting a minor form of vandalism which is factually correct but against wiki's rules.
In any case, the very definition of this live score "edit warring" is that it only happens during matches. Once the matches are over, the page is updated to record the match results and scorers and there is no further issue. Updating scores after matches is very much the raison d'être of the page. What it seems you have done is to take a guaranteeably temporary minor 1-IP edit conflict and extended it to completely shut down a page on it's opening weekend. I would suggest that this is bit of an overreaction.
Semi-protection would have been more appropriate, but there are many useful IP edits on the football pages over a matchday and it would be unfair to block these users over a point of technicality which lasted 8 edits over a period of an hour. In any case, full protection stops absolutely everyone involved making any changes to a page for a currently active event; a page which is one of at least 10 that will have exactly the same potential minor issue at least twice over the next 6 days. If you feel that all these pages should be semi-protected for the next 7 days then that would technically be helpful, but as it would be against the spirit of Wikipedia I would not even feel comfortable about asking for that. I would simply ask that you remove protection from the page so that users can continue updating it.
Thank you. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. The current status prevents readers from getting accurate and updated information. Is that what Wikipedia for?--Nitsansh (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, no that is not what Wikipedia is for. This is not a newspaper or ESPN, it's an encyclopedia. Edit warring is not acceptable no matter the reason. Technically I could have blocked both the ip and Aheyfromhome for edit warring (it's literally impossible for one user to edit war despite your claim to the contrary) and of course adding semi protection would give the Ahey the upper hand in the edit war, so really this was the only "soft" option left.Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the game is apparently over for now I have lifted the protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you imply that there's no room for any article on current sports events in WP? This could be a reason for deletion of thousands of such pages. You may be surprised, but I often find WP a more useful source than any sports news website... the way many of these pages are edited and formatted in WP gives much more information on sports events, whether they are past, present or future. If you're going to suggest deletion of such pages, I will be strongly against it, and I guess I won't be alone...--Nitsansh (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

With due respect... It appears to me that you went by the rulebook and didn't examine the facts thoroughly... 2 days are by no means a "fairly short time" when a match that lasts less than 2 hours is concerned...--Nitsansh (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I was proposing deletion of anything, I never said anything of the kind. Thank you for admitting I went by the rules, which require me to be an expert on the protection policy, not the subject matter of the article on which protection is being requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I apparently misunderstood the phrase "To be blunt, no that is not what Wikipedia is for", so I appologize for those remarks. As an expert of the rules, which I admit I'm not... what do you suggest an editor should do in case that he sees an editor repeatedly makes edits that are against the consensus of this type of articles, without getting into an edit war that may lead to full protection? I don't think preventing any edits is the solution for this, as it freezes the article in an out-of-date (or more precisely, out-of-time) version for too long. These situations are quite frequent in sport events articles and I don't recall full-protection being imposed in other cases.--Nitsansh (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the point to any of it. Wikipedia is really not the best place to look for up-to-the-minute sporting information. So, while I don't see any need to update scores on a moment-by-moment basis, I also don't see any harm in just ignoring it until the game is over and then updating with a reliable source once the final score is in. The only other option I guess would be to request pending changes protection for the times the game is scheduled for, once an edit war is already underway full protection is pretty much the only tool left on the shelf. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pending Changes could be an appropriate solution for these cases. What is the process of requesting PC? Is it a time-related solution, IE it can be set for specific dates and times? (for example Sep 14 from 8.45 to 10.45 PM). BTW: What are the criteria for the status of reviewer and how does a user becomes one?--Nitsansh (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Click here for information pending changes and here for information on reviewing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you were very helpful. --Nitsansh (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, new Oversighter

Congratulations, your Oversight rights are activated and ready for use.

Before use, please ensure you are familiar with our Oversight policy and our privacy policy

The list administrator for Oversight-l has been informed of your new status and will allow you to join the list.

If you use IRC, please contact an op for access to #wikimedia-privacy. Your local project may have its own oversight channel also, but heck if I know what it'd be!

Again, congratulations. Kylu (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish people

Hello, there are some links about Turks, Turkish people meanings below,

→ From the official site of Turkish Language Association (tr: Türk Dil Kurumu) What does Türk mean?

→ Here is the Microsoft translated link of the related page above; Microsoft translation

For reasons already explained, I declare that changes made by Justin84 are inadmissible changes on en.wikipedia project and such edits can even be counted as a policy misuse._(NPOV) To your attention. Thank you. —CnkALTDS 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know or care about the details of the actual content dispute. My only involvement was protecting the page to stop edit warring. "Policy misuse" is not a listed exemption to the policy on edit warring. Again I suggest you pursue some form of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Al rite, thought that you were gonna care the content dispute. I do know about the policy you mentioned on your message. Thank you anyways. Happy editing! —CnkALTDS 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Climate Group

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Eamondevalera2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hi, I left a message for you about the Climate Group entry on my talk page.

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Eamondevalera2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your inputs. I think the Climate Group is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. I'll take another crack at it - things have also changed with the Group since I last attempted to edit the page to make a more appropriate entry, so I may just start again, but this time I will work from a document that I save in a separate place in case the PR people change it again, and if they persist I shall as you suggested seek dispute resolution or page protection, as I have in the past asked the people to join in the discussion but they have not done so (they just make changes and run away!).

Deja vu all over again

Does this look familiar? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty funny Ron, because you forgot to sign this. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

oh, and yes, it looks very familiar. After yet another loooong discussion on the subject we came up with.... no new guideline specifically for airlines, yet folks still insist on making them up out of thin air. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, the newer conversation was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course when I !voted "delete" in the third AFD for Alaska seaplane I was applying what I call the "Pluto test". It was unlikely that it passed WP:CORP so the only question left was "is it unique". (yes I know that's not a guideline) Example, a man with two noses might be notable if he's the only person (or one of few) in the world who has two noses but not if they're millions of people with two noses. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps wrong interpretation

Hi. Wrt your message here, a Saint is different from a Hindu saint. A Hindu saint (or Sant) is any "good person". There are notable Hindu saints. But a Hindu saint, in general, is in no way a qualification of notability. I request you to kindly re consider your decision to decline the speedy, or leave a note on my talk page on why I should extend deletion discussions beyond a CSD and involve many more editors effort and time to consider this article. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid deletion by that criterion the article does not have to prove notability, just make some sort of claim of notability. You can use WP:PROD if you are so very concerned about using up other users time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's basically the issue of interpreting any individual's biography where the claim is of his being a Hindu 'sant'. Culturally, I wouldn't consider a claim of being a Hindu saint as being a claim of notability, though I would consider a claim of being a saint as being a claim of notability. But that's, as I mentioned, culturally speaking. Irrespective of the fact that I do believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of this claim of notability, I would prod the article. Thanks for the reply and best regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

[ps: I additionally corrected an internal link you had put in the article which was not appropriately directed. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)]