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

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Policy. Looks like you would be willing help Bishonen with this. I think all conditions are met.--Elvey (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Beeblebrox: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Early archiving

I noticed that, in November, you simultaneously removed a tag and archived the related discussion. If your behavior was procedural, I think it was premature and has now had the effect of implying that you "contested" the proposal. If you were indeed against the proposal, then you deserve a finger-wagging for stifling conversation with a premature archive in a way that superficially appeared to be merely procedural. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The merge tag was added to the article here]. That's May 19th 2010. No actual proposal for merging was made on the talk page at that time. Fast forward to October of this year. You made a comment and the person who added the tag replied. More than a month later I removed that tag and archived that page. How anyone could think that it was premature is a bit obscure to me, so your "finger wagging" is a bit misplaced from where I am sitting. For the record I have no opinion whatsoever on the actual merge proposal. While I can't say two comments over a period of two and a half years constitutes a consensus there is also a lack of consensus against the merger so instead of complaining to me I suggest you review WP:SILENCE and WP:SOFIXIT as they both seem to apply to this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello?

I see you're back. Are you going to consider my request here?--Elvey (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(Belated} Barnstar

It's a little late, but I've been meaning to give this to you for starting up the FZ project:

		The Original Barnstar
		For finally getting the WP:ZAPPA project started

ComputerGeek3000

I think you jumped the gun just a bit. He was originally blocked by copyright violations. When he returned, he started by posting fair-use images of living people, but with correct sourcing and copyright information. Once I pointed out the problem with images of living people, he stopped, and every subsequent image was of dead people. He was clearly listening to warnings and modifying his behaviour to take them into account.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I get for just going by the warnings. I'll have another look. I'm still concerned about the utter lack of communication though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saw that block-unblock thing. Kww is right up to that point, which is also the reason I didn't block again. The reason I gave him that final warning was because of his last upload: he first uploaded a non-free image of a deceased person, with correct attribution and everything, but it happened to be from a commercial agency, so it had to be deleted as F7. Innocent mistake, so far. But he then re-uploaded the same image and changed the authorship attribution to "unknown", as if trying to circumvent the rule with a falsehood, so that's basically another deliberate copyright violation, in my book. I'll be happy to leave it up to you how to further deal with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping they will get the point from my unblock message that when they are not sure what to do they should ask for help instead of guessing or worse, lying. It is possible they will manage to do that but I am not holding my breath. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom Reform Party

You are an admin and you should know better than engage in personal attacks like this one[1] (especially the edit summary). Please redact. Nsk92 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The evidence of his dishonesty is manifest right there on that very page for all to see, as well as at his candidate page for the recent arbcom election. If he is going to be the leader of this useless organization he will need to be able to face that his actions will be criticized. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to re-read the opening paragraph of WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Criticism is one thing, but giving your post the summary "Oh, and you are a liar" is not criticism, it is a personal attack. Nsk92 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem in this case is that the "content" is the party itself, which is being run by a person who has shown a staggering pattern of WP:IDHT behavior along with outright dishonesty. The content and the contributor are more or less the same thing in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

whatever

Above page is proposed to delete again in Nov 2012 Here are the comments by users Jsorens > Keep 175.157.37.73 > Please Keep Shu-sai-chong > Keep MediaJet > Keep 131.107.0.81 > Keep obi2canibe > Not improved Sue Rangell > The result was KEEP. Can you please re iterate tags put by user self for this page. No one mentioned problems in this version and all agreed result was Keep from previous Keep and improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.32 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry but I don't understand what it is you want me to do. I closed a previous AFD on this article back in August but otherwise have had no editorial involvement with it. Administrators do not have any special authority over actual article content. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Here is your involvement to the article. Here is the discussion you used to put tags to the page and result was Keep and Improve. Here is the latest discussion about the page and most of the people appreciated the content and one person said this need improvements. The result was just Keep. I don't want you to go inside the content or the article. Just look at the latest discussion and agreed result considering your tags (neutrality,grammar, structure, point of view,expert on the subject). Then can you please double check whether you want to keep tags introduce by your self. Even participants collectively concluded page is improved your feedback is important since you are the person who introduced tags. Thanks I introduced the tags as a result of the consensus arrived at at the discussion in August. Since consensus can change it would be more appropriate to discuss this with users who are actually involved with this article, which I have not been watching in the interim, to determine if there is a consensus now that it has been sufficiently improved and the tags are no longer applicable. You could also pursue some form of dispute resolution if you are unable to resolve this issue amongst yourselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC) What I can't understand is you put tags as a result of the consensus ( Keep and Improve ) arrived at the AFD discussion in August. So why you reluctant to re consider your tags considering result of the consensus (Keep) of latest AFD discussion happened during November ? If consensus of AFD can be used to introduce tags why a consensus of 100% same AFD discussion can't be used to remove tags ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.16 (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC) The tag were introduced by you. You must able to use same algorithm or what ever facts you considered when tagging the page to re consider tags are required. Others don't know why you made these tags and what algorithm used for tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.160.252 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. Added the tags as a result of the close of the previous discussion. I have not been monitoring the article in the meantime and I am not interested in becoming involved in it now. like everyone else here I am a volunteer and self-assign what work I do. I don't take assignments from you or anyone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC) If you say you are not interest about this article it is ok. But if you edited something you are a party of a dispute. I will create a dispute resolution to remove tags in which I may add you as a party. I created a dispute resolution discussion on Here. You may participate to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.165.18 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with a certain users vandalism and talking style?

It seems that you know him, as you've reported him using socks years before, so I would like to ask you if you're familiar with his older incarnations or talking style. I do not know where he operates, so I can't check anything back then. From the list of people who report his socks on sock investigation page, most users who have dealt with him more than once have retired. The current suspected sock has respond to my message. Can you take a look at [2] and tell me what you think? There's also an ongoing investigation of whether Redcoyote18 is Bambifan101's sock here [3], and a CU says that the physical location is quite different. We're still waiting for more opinion from another CU at the moment, but more entry from someone familiar with him will be appreciated. If Redcoyote18 is indeed innocent, like, a good faith but misguided/disagreeing editor, I would want to give him a fair chance. May I have your opinion in this regard? Anthonydraco (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a very long time and I'm not sure I would be able to say one way or the other, but I will have a look. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I am seeing I don't think it is him. Although he has certainly been known to alter his targets and style in the past this seems like just some other hard-headed person. I could elaborate on my reasoning by email if you like, I'd rather not get too detailed here, just in case. Either way they are probably headed for a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. But there's no need to do it via email. I've added the link to your response to the sockpuppet investigation page. More than one user, including me, suspect that a new user is the case. The spelling's different. Once I learned that this user's location is quite different from Bambifan101, I asked around. Gotta give this user a fair chance. Anthonydraco (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Bears. Grrrrrrr.

Hey, Beeblebrox. I'm wondering whether this was such a good idea. The page has 229 watchers, which should be more than adequate to ensure that valid edit requests don't languish. There have been six edit requests over the past six months—not exactly what I'd call a "high number". Five of the six requests were answered the same day; the sixth, which required a fair amount of thought, was answered within two days. The most recent request (the one that brought me to the article for the first time ever) probably would have been accepted had it been posed as a pending edit, and it might well have been left unmodified, which would have been unfortunate. If you'll notice, what the user requested was less than what was optimal, and less than what I did. If it ain't broke . . . imho. Rivertorch (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• From what I have seen so far most PC edits are being reviewed within one hour so it is hoped this will encourage users to submit edits. if it doesn't work it can be changed back to semi easily enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that Bear is the sort of article that would benefit from PC, being of the top-level, heavily watched persuasion. I had hoped it would be applied more conservatively, specifically to solve demonstrated problems that under-watched pages are having under semi. Anyway, I guess it's fitting somehow that you're the one to PC the first PCed article on my watchlist. (I actually mean that in a a nice way, believe it or not.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have mentioned as well that it was under PC during the trial and was put back under semi when the trial was over. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Around

Are you around? Youreallycan 06:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you mean in general or right this second, but the answer to both is "sort of". Beeblebrox (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool - would you please remove my rollbacker right - I don't need it an it seems to affect twinke in a net loss sort of way. Thanks - Youreallycan 06:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to you Beeblebrox - Youreallycan 06:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, now that you mention it I have been having trouble with twinkle lately. But rollback is automatic in the admin toolkit, I don't think I can get rid of it without turning in the whole set. Maybe some tech nerd has a fancy script for this... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would consider this removal to be somewhat "under a cloud", as I'd just warned YRC for inappropriate rollback use prior to this request, which YRC removed just prior to making this request from you: [4]. I find the timing...interesting, to put it mildly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I consider rollback to be a more or less worthless user right. Since YRC requested it be removed because it was interfering with Twinkle (which has rollback included in it and can be used by anyone who has registered an account) it seems fairly unimportant either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

True enough, just wanted to let you know what's going on. By the way, I happen to be a tech nerd, would you have some interest in a .js that suppresses rollback for admins? I'm not sure if that's possible or what interference it would cause with Twinkle, but if it's acting up, it might be worth a few lines of code. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not entirely sure rollback is the issue. Twinkle rollback sometimes does not work for me, but I have also been having issues with its protection function. I suspect it is related to the tool not being optimized for iPad, which is how I have been editing much of the time lately. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Userfy deleted

Could you please userfy the deleted version of List of defensive gun use incidents for me? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. see User:Gaijin42/List of defensive gun use incidents Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap

I have not got to the bottom of the block yet, but I can say with a fair degree of confidence Pen is not a suck-puppeteer in any way that is significant. These claims were made based on a number of misunderstandings, which reflect badly on us as a community. As I say I am not exonerating Pen completely in regard to other matters, because I have not investigated them (and maybe never will) but so far he comes up, if not squeaky clean, at least clean enough, and as they say "more sinned against than sinning". Rich Farmbrough, 05:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

I don't really know myself, but I was under the impression they had repeatedly bragged about socking. However I also understand Penyulap has a somewhat unusual sense of humor and overall style of communication. At the moment I'm not sure it really matters given the bizarre rant submitted as an unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Block of Ucycoin

You blocked Ucycoin (talk · contribs) for having a "promotional username". Can you please explain the reasoning for that block? — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the reason by examining the old revision of their sandbox. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Laina

Please unsalt. I want to redirect it to Overly Attached Girlfriend#Laina. CallawayRox (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Message from ComputerGeek3000's IP address

Dear Beeblebrox, JeremyA blocked my account for violating copyright policy again, but I didn't upload no more images on Wikipedia and I continue to edit without violating copyright policy, and I read the Wikipedia:Copyright violations, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and Wikipedia:Non-free content project pages and I fully understand the copyright policy on Wikipedia and I did what you told me, not to upload no more images on Wikipedia and that is what I did. 69.209.202.155 (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

Note that Computergeek3000 has been found socking on Commons, using sock accounts to upload the images there and linking to them here.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also note that block evasion is the surest path to not being unblocked. please use the unblock template as described in the notice on your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message!

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Mediran's talk page.
Message added 08:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have a new message!

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Mediran's talk page.
Message added 09:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Evangelist Stadler

Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability back in Jan 2008. I've removed it because inclusion in The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to prove notability. If you disagree, you may want to consider taking it to the Notqability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and my apologies

Thanks for your informative help. And my apologies for my ignorance having caused me to unwittingly break Wiki rules.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

3 year old edit

Hello, Beeblebrox! When I read a WP article I have a habit of checking it's evolution throughout the years via the page history, and I sometimes do this on its talk page, too. Which brings me to an edit you made 3 years ago. In this edit, you removed a large chunk of a talk page with the edit summary "archiving/tagging" but I can't find an archive. Was this accidental? If so, could you please create the archive? Forgive me for pestering. Rgrds. --64.85.214.103 (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just tried to do so, and got a spam filter message: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: <redacted>.associatedcontent.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked." So, somewhere in that chunk of text is a link to that website that is being blocked. I had to redact the prefixes just to reprint the warning here on my talk just now! I vaguely remember this now, I searched the text but could not find the link. I could swear i also remember explaining that on the talk page at the time, but I don't see any such edit now. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, I got it to work: Talk:Cult of personality/Archive 1, but now I don't know what to do with it. Could you make sure the talk page is linked to the archives properly and check that I did it right. The offending link was in the first sentence of the George W. Bush section (the text in italics, I replaced the "." with "<dot>"). Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.215.183 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, looks good. I added the relevant tags to the archive and talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

'== MFD on Rich Farmbrough's blog ==

Fuck off

Beeblebrox, I see you closed this as Keep. Per the policy NOTBLOG blogs are not allowed on user pages, so how on earth is this a keep ? Policy supersedes votes, so policy should have been carried out (No I'm not yelling at you....I'm curious ....that's all )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC) "policy supersedes votes" I don't where you got that idea but it is dead wrong. Policy is meant to reflect the community's will, not dictate to it. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making and it seems abundantly clear that consensus did not support your deletion reasoning. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Policy indeed does | for example ... it's stated here | here too... in fact, it stated near the bottom that policy superces consensus - and that's from an admin , | and here too | yet another admin emphatically stating that policy overrides consensus . I won't add more here, but the main point of all of these links are to show that policy has and does override consensus.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) If policy trumped consensus, there'd be no point in xFD discussions. Simply apply policy, right? Nope. No point in pursuing this Kosh, it's a dead end and all you're going to end up doing is looking bitter about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Those links all go to the edit window, not specific edits, so I don't know what in particular you are referring to. If you wish to challenge the outcome of the MFD you can pursue a deletion review. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC) He already has here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm, yes and according to the timestamps he did so before even my first reply here, yet he did not bother to inform me of it. charming. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Yep, hence my note. Nothing to worry about, but poor behaviour nevertheless... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC) So..... you asked me where I got my notion from that policy superceded votes, and I gave you links, and your response was not to read them? Great. Next time read . I pointed you to three discussions on ANI board where that very thing was stated. + Is there a way to access the source code for the now-deleted List of Bell TV channels, please? With all the hard work put into it, i wish Wikipedia would at least allow the chance to move this to (say) a channel listing Wiki. Thanks! --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)>br> − − − 1.) Was User:Kelly on then 7th indent down on [[5]] − stating: − I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC) − − − 2.) Was ADMIN User:Jclemens once again on the AN board [[6]] stating , once again , that policy superceded consensus: − − While yes, the act of making something deletable and then nominating it for deletion is bad form, that's not the case here. The thing that made this (and every other possible non-free image) deletable wasn't consensus or the presence or absence of the image in an article. If a free image exists all non-free images are off the table and to be deleted from the encyclopedia, period. Doesn't matter what consensus is, nor does it matter how much better the non-free image might or might not be: It's not up for debate. Between two non-free images or two free images, by all means let the debate continue in a polite and aboveboard manner. In this case, however? Nuke the non-free image--there's no debate to be had, just a reiteration of the policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC) − − − 3.) Yet another admin weighted in User:Gonzo_fan2007 ion this AN posting [7]] and he stated: − − People this is a Foundation Issue. The use of the images specifically violates WP:NFCC#8. Someone please explain to me how the use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8 and I will gladly stop what I am doing. Also, I am admin of this site, and am obligated to enforce policy. I am not required to wait to enforce policy, nor do I need consensus to enforce policy. I am stopping now because there is opposition (ignorant opposition, but opposition at that). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC) − − Once again stating that policy trumps consensus. So it's not just my word, it's at least 2 admins and one user. −  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC) By your own logic WP:CONSENSUS proves you wrong in its first sentence. Don't yell at me to read when you are the one too lazy or incompetent to post actual diffs. Actually, just go away, I have had it with your thick-headed nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Really ? Actually, it isn't just my logic. I based my argument on the arguments of three other users, two of whom are admins, so now what you're really saying is those other three uers (and I ) are wrong and you're right. O.K, if you really believe that, fine. 21:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Bell TV channels

Is there a way to access the source code for the now-deleted List of Bell TV channels, please? With all the hard work put into it, i wish Wikipedia would at least allow the chance to move this to (say) a channel listing Wiki. Thanks! --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done See User:True Tech Talk Time/List of Bell TV channels. Please be sure to properly attribute any content that is reused elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)