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.

1980 Lynn Sailors

You recently closed an afd discussion. Please reconsider your decision. User:dewelar started a discussion of the issues involved in this afd at the sports notability talk page and asked those of us who wanted to save the article to suspend afd discussion until the larger issue was resolved there. It is yet to be resolved there and it has been suggested that this will affect dozens of minor league season articles across several sports. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinston eagle is correct. There is ongoing, although stalled, discussion at the link above regarding determination of notability of individual minor league seasons not just for baseball, but for team sports in general. While the general track of the discussion seems to be that we should simply use the general guidelines, I don't consider the discussion complete. While I may not personally think that the Sailors article, as it stands, passes GNG, I do think that your decision to close this AfD with a result of delete may have been premature, and also request a reconsideration on that basis. -Dewelar (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I based my close on the consensus at the AFD. If policy is changed in the future to include this type of article it can easily be undeleted or recreated at that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I believe Kinston eagle's concern was that others, like himself, may have refrained from commenting due to my request for discussion at the sports notability talk page. I just don't want my good faith request to have -- or, indeed, to appear to have -- resulted in a false consensus. There are, after all, a number of other such pages, for which the result of this AfD will likely be used as a precedent, and some pains should probably be taken that the precedent is as clear as possible. -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see it that way. This purpose of this afd was to decide the fate of this one article according to current guidelines as policies. AFD is not for doing "test cases," if a policy or guideline needs to be changed it can be discussed elsewhere. If there is a future change in policy that invalidates the arguments to delete I would be happy to restore the article at that time. This request to restore now is a bit to hypothetical for my taste. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally fair, and understandable. After all, I agree with the result. Just know that it is because I agree with the result that I want to ensure that my appeal to put the AfD on hold did not weigh too much in the decision to delete. I do not want to be seen as having "shut down debate", as some might put it, because that was in no way my intention. In fact, my intention was the opposite. Also, it's so much that this was meant to be a "test case", but that there were other articles that would have been added to this AfD, that may not have been added to it due to my original appeal. In any case, I will not pursue the matter further vis-a-vis this particular article. Thank you for your consideration. -Dewelar (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi. I wonder if a RevDel of [redacted] might be in order? It seems especially obnoxious considering the subject is only 13 years old. Thanks in advance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would have said that it is fairly normal idiotic vandalism, but given their age I decided to err on the side of caution. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and yeah, I'd have just left it if she wasn't a minor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sock Q. Faunce

I saw you declined this user for a username violation last night. Although having "sock" in and of itself isn't a username violation, in this case it was either a reincarnation or an impersonator of a banned user, User:Cy Q. Faunce. User:Sandstein blocked him after he opened a DRV for his hoax article for that reason. Thought I'd let you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the time, all that stuff is outside the scope of a report on a username violation. It's preferable to block for the more serious problem if the username is just an clue and not blockable unto itself, which is what happened in this case. So, in my view the system worked properly here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought impersonation usernames (which is almost certainly what this was) would fall under disruptive, but what you say makes sense. Duly noted, thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEGW

Hi There, I have been researching DEGW for a while now and would like to submit some information to Wikipedia, but due to some failed attempts I believe it is blocked.

Before I pull the page together fully and push it out, could you please take a look at the current rough draft. This still needs a lot of work to make it fully Wikipedia friendly, but I would like some guidance so that I am moving in the right direction. Can you help? The draft is here: User:Mzimmerman/DEGW Thank you MZimmerman (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I can take care of this, I'll leave a message on their talk page. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists

Hey! Allow me to extend my thanks again for offering to take this on. I know it's a big task. I am just checking in to see how things are coming. Let me know if you need me to clarify anything or give you more context. SYS... Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been a while, sorry about that. Every time I try to read it over and finish the close I end up getting called away, I've been trying to find an hour or two when I know I'll be able to read the whole monstrosity and summarize it. 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's okay. We're just eager to keep moving. Get to it when you can. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI; that may or may not have any impact on your read of the RFC. postdlf (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in

At the risk of being a pest... :) Shooterwalker (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist terrorism

Usual gang seems intent on removing large sections in an edit war. Kindly examine. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas - one editor (Andy) has now completely moved the article in his preferred direction - you might wish to see how it looks. Collect (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Igny has again decided to war. Sigh. Collect (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now Ludgiwgs2 decided that Igny did not go far enough and announced his intent to do major rewriting and deletions. -[1] I suggest you either go back to status quo ante on the article, or just allow one group full carte blanche to continue deletions (your choice). Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Collect's behavior here as inappropriate for Wikipedia. I have warned him here, but you can apply additional sanctions to him if you think they are warranted. (Igny (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Just look at Talk:Communist terrorism and the comments about "moving" the content to a new POVfork page. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission was completed -- the article has been totally gutted, and is now only a dab page leading to the POVfork article. Kindly review - as this is precisely what the "plans" were, as I noted. They failed to get a rename through - so deletion was the result. Sigh. Collect (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Somebody who can't spell doesn't like you very much. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canola

Can you take a look at what is going on at the Canola page? Weetoddid (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Had you not suggested a self imposed topic block on RfA for Ctjf83‎. I would never have gone to your userpage. Had I never gone to your userpage, I would not have read your admin log. Had I never read that, I would not have found a new gem for User:Sven Manguard/Fun and Interesting. Best unblock request ever. Feel free to peruse the list. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better link needed

The subpage User:Beeblebrox/CC_workshop has a link to Wikipedia:Banning policy. However, that is a link to the current policy, which is undergoing some revisions partially motivated by deficiencies noted in the CC case. It would be better to link to a static version at the time of the case. I'd do it but I have extended family visiting, and am planning to be at a workshop with limited internet access for a few days, and was just checking to see if anything urgent has come up. I'll look for a relevant link when I return at the end of the week if someone doesn't beat me to it.--SPhilbrick T 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrace Park

Replied to you on the talk page. Just curious — are you familiar with US local geography terms? I'm not trying to tell you to shut up if you aren't; it's just that your words remind me of something I read by someone who wasn't familiar with US local geography and thus misunderstood the way that an article was written. I don't want to appear patronising; forgive me if I sound that way, for I'm just trying to understand how much you know, in order to be able to discuss nuances if you understand them or to talk generally if you wouldn't. Please reply to my question at the Terrace Park page, and copy this question there if you feel like it; I'll have an easier time remembering to look there than here. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly replied at the TP page, but I have just remembered that you and I have actually discussed such issues before, (nearly two years ago) regarding Kachemak, Alaska and the difference between the census definition and.... everybody else. There as well a compromise solution was found that reflects both what the census calls things and actual reality. I think the key difference here is that I am editing articles on places I have actually been and know about, and look for resources other than the census. It's nearly impossible to absorb the real character and flavor of a place from census data, as it is just that- data, and often uses wildly inaccurate descriptors that are only used by the census. For example, right next to Kachemak the census would have us believe there is a separate settlement called Miller Landing, Alaska. I have lived in this area for twelve years and do a job that involves having an intimate knowledge of place names in the area, and in all that time I believe I have heard this area referred to as Miller's Landing exactly once. Maybe you could help me out with another Ohio issue, Hamilton, Ohio legally changed it's name to Hamilton! in the 80's. Stupid, I know, but it did happen and was never changed back. The page has been moved back and forth several times between the exclamation point and the non-exclamation point title. Nobody uses it, but it is still the legal name of the city. So, which is it? Even I am not sure anymore which it should be. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-US border article

Re: your recent edit: I don't disagree with the "September 11" usage, but I do disagree with the statement that the article is written in "American" English. Previous discussions have established that this article is not to have a specifically US or Canadian POV, but is to be international. Pursuant to that, you will find that the metric system is primary (or should be) except where Imperial units were used in the original quoted texts (i.e. the US and UK agreed to maintain a clear strip for "ten feet" on either side of the border), or where the sentence refers to an exclusively US condition. You'll find that words are usually spelled as they are in most English-speaking countries, rather than as they are in the US.

Having said that, I agree that "the September 11 attacks" is the common usage. Don Argus jr (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had assumed that Canadians would also use "September 11" and that the change was made by a U.K. user. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify something for me?

I first arrived to Wikipedia when all the drama with Checker Fred was happening. I know he had sockpuppets, but what exactly were his motives? Was he an administrator? Please tell me, because I never understood what happened. Thanks, --Confession0791 ^talk 03:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motives of persons who relentlessly create sockpuppets is something a trained psychologist could probably write a book on. For some reason several of the worst repeat offenders are fixated on children's entertainment, I'm sure Sigmund Freud would have had a field day examining that relationship. I first became aware of Fred because at the time I was involved in watching for socks of User:Simulation12, whom I firmly believe Fred is a sock of despite his claims. He fit the pattern of the previous socks although he did seem to be more cautious, perhaps because if someone does this long enough they learn a bit and, ironically, may even become more clueful about how to edit Wikipedia. In any event, I had decided to stop chasing Sim12 and every time I saw an edit spring up on my watchlist on a page edited by Sim12 I removed it. After a few weeks of that I noticed that every time one of these edits came up it was Fred making the edit. The overlap got too large to ignore any longer, and another user filed an SPI that named Fred in Jauary of this year. However the Checkuser results on Fred came back inconclusive and Fred slipped through the cracks while the others named in the case were blocked. This is where it gets interesting, and may reveal something about the nature of serial sockpuppeteers. I had forgotten all about Fred and had cleared all the Sim12 related pages from my watchlist. He knew I thought he was Sim12 and should be blocked, mind you, but several months later he posted an invite to join the PBS Kids WikiProject to my talk page, and around the same time decided to run for WP:RFA, putting him squarely back on my radar and getting me thinking about the whole issue again. Ironically, the only editing I had ever done to PBS Kids-related articles was to chase sock accounts off. Another SPI was already underway at that time and between User:AussieLegend and myself we were able to put together a very compelling case that Fred and Sim12 were one in the same. It also became apparent that he was already preparing six new accounts to switch over to as it became more clear that he was about to be found out and blocked. You can see the various investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12/Archive. He never came close to fooling us into making him an an admin, as you can see at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Checker Fred. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Fred trying to make his self look better with the sockpuppets, or were they "alter egos"? --Confession0791 ^talk 05:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did, and still does, seem concerned with his image here. This is the the kind of flawed thinking that seems to govern a lot of sock masters, they think if they create one block-evading sock that can manage not to get blocked for a while they have proven something. Often these serial sockers don't understand how easy it is to catch them because they keep coming back to the same cntent and editing in the same style. Sim12 was always caught on behavioral evidence as they learned a long time ago to use multiple computers to avoid checkuser. You can see at the SPI from June that he went as far as creating yet another sock and claiming to be Ruff Ruffman himself, rather absurd since as a cartoon dog Ruff doesn't really exist. Why? What was the underlying motivation? I don't know, perhaps a need to feel like they were part of something bigger than themselves, something I also like about Wikipedia. Unfortunately, not everyone has something worthwile to contribute, and some people just can't get along in an environment like this. Simulation12 was originally blocked for disruptive editing two years ago. If they had just waited a few months without socking and asked nicely to be given another chance, it all could have gone in completely the other direction, but they chose to evade the block dozens of times instead and now there is basically nothing they can do to win back the trust of the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnClarknew

Please can I draw your attention to the continuing COI edits by User:JohnClarknew on the John Clark (actor) article. Both User:Will Beback and myself have removed a quotation from the article as per the discussion Talk:John Clark (actor)#The Komisar Scoop, however for whatever reason John Clark has reverted the edits with no explanation - and as of this moment has taken no notice of User:Tmorton166 request that he remove the quotation. Thanks memphisto 09:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I specifically stated that I would not use my admin tools in this case because I have been involved in the discussion. Talking to him seems to have no effect either, and nobody seemed interested in my suggestion that it was time for WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

Addihockey10 has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

--Addihockey10^e-mail 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for you

... at User talk:Jerzy#Block of User:Julpisanty on hold.
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUsernames_for_administrator_attention&action=historysubmit&diff=396231854&oldid=396224048

I'm no troublemaker. I just saw 2 usernames that weren't that bad so I commented. You seconded the comment. Thanks for the confirmation that I am not a psycho troublemaker. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your making me rename for some reason but cant figure out how to do it

Your saying my name is commercial (which it isn't) but I have to choose a new name I would like to go with charto911 or rruddie let me know how to change it.

-Thedubaipost —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedubaipost (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem t have missed a few details. I am the one who unblocked you so that you could make the change. In the big box on your talk page informing you you are unblocked there is a link, or you can click here to change your username. Beeblebrox (talk)

Oversight request — check your email

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Access Denied – talk to me 20:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Nbaka is a joke is attempting block evasion, but a SPI admin believes no conditions apply to creation of Basil Rock.[2] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]