User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 7

I stand corrected. Tho i still think the discussion points are valid to the article and will not get attention through the archival process. re: parenting. --87.95.76.146 (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Bambifan, please find someplace else to play. You are wasting your time, kid. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm assuming this was a mistake, I've been tracking Bambifan. I'm not him. Check my contribs. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry. I saw a report on the AIV page regarding the account. Just be careful with the edit summaries, OK?  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Advice is always welcome...and I admit that trying to constantly wrestle vandals can be frustrating. So, I'm trying a "carrot" approach instead of a "stick." Maybe we can get this kid on the right path now that we have a dialogue. Sorry once again for putting my message on your page instead of his. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly wish you good luck. Reforming an abusive user like this is difficult, but not impossible. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has been nominated in AFD. Since you had declined PROD, I thought you may like to provide inputs on the detail explanation. Some more details were also added to the talk page of the list. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to put the citation request back. I changed my mind about what I wanted to put in my edit summary and ended up with it being a bit mangled, I didn't intend to sound sarcastic. Bevo74 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• no biggie either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's probably been so long that you've forgotten about this, but FYI I've closed the SSP above, which you filed. Apologies for the delay in action; it's due to the ridiculous backlog at WP:SSP. --barneca (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hey thanks for the update and the closing/blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you add "outdated" and "citation" tags to properly referenced articles such as this. If you have time to do that you have time to check the adequate links in the article and if necessary make appropriate changes. Or are you just lonely and trying to get someone to talk to you? Albatross2147 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I should dignify such a rude, troll-ish, question by responding, but the article says "According to the report for the 2004 redistribution of electoral districts, it was estimated that the electoral district wouldl have 47,650 electors on 29 April 2007". I tagged it as outdated not unreferenced, because an estimate from 2004 of what might happen in 2007 is outdated information. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have been consistent and tagged all 93 state electoral districts thus? Coming from a country so benighted that it is incapable of conducting elections so that they are fair and consistent, one would not expect you to understand the intricacies of the system used in NSW or the significance of the estimate figures. A new estimate for the 2011 election will be prepared by the boundaries commission when it carries out an examination of the boundaries to be used for the election at which point the estimate will be revised and, no doubt, be uptated on Wp. Until the scheduled general election in 2011 the ECNSW will use the estimate as a basis for their preparations for any special or by-election that may be held for the district. I have taken the trouble to put a citation on the page to confirm the existence of Mr Stoner and his continuing presence as a member of the 54th Parliament although this is already referenced elsewhere in Wp on pages that are linked to on the page that is the subject of this present discussion. I hope this helps assuage any doubts you may have entertained in regard to the accuracy of the information on the page and that there will be no need for you to place silly and unnecessary tags on pages on a subject that you are not fully informed on. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• obviously I should have gone with my first instinct and ignored you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could have done the right thing in the first place and left well alone. Albatross2147 (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to the template atop Justin Grant.

I see that you removed the praise at the top. Good, good, but please don't rush remove this bit:

He shot the hair collection "Swept Away" for "Shear Genius" star Tyson Daniel and the work was featured on "Behindthechair.com" in 2008 [6]. His work with Jake Thompson, was nominated for the Avant Garde category for the North American Hairstyling Awards[7] in 2006.

To me, this has a considerable (if presumably unintended) pythonesque charm. I fear that Mr Grant may be heading toward an AfD, but if it disappears to Deletopedia, let it go there in (blow-waved) style.

Woof woof! -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. an edit summary like : " (iOffice IS NOT OPENOFFICE YOU MORON. LEAVE OFF!!!) " is not very civil. Talking to the other editor on the relevant talk page is the way to handle a content dispute, resorting to childish name calling is not constructive. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, beebly. Sure. Tons of people say its "iOffice", and "illegal". Actually, it is legal, and even if it wasn't, we dont do it anymore. Get out of my face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.224.176 (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you are talking about as far as "legal" or "illegal". My point was that you are being extremely rude. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked for incivility. And there is no need to re-post my entire message in your reply.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not rude in comparison with the uncivility dealt to me. My point to you was "Stay Out of iT".

• My mistake. I forgot that two wrongs make a right. Thanks for the lesson in civil, mature behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say - that Rebel Baja Bug on the Beetle page is awesome! wbortz at gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.34.128 (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's for sale if you want to come to Alaska to pick it up... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The changes that you noticed at WP:UAA were made at Template:User-uaa. It was inserted by a user without any discussion, and so quickly removed again. -- role^player 01:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I thought it seemed awfully odd (not to mention rude), thanks for the reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to grow up and stop deleting legit articles. Not everything has to relate to WOW.

hi,

care to fill me in how to add the info to the lead so that it won't be "messed up"?

thanks, t. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• N.W.A (abbreviation for »Niggaz Wit Attitudes,«[1][2] albeit the false »Niggaz With Attitude« is more common) was a Compton, California-based hip hop group

• Well, I've never seen the little arrows you put there used this way,, I don't think that works at all. The sentence structure is awkward, and I personally don't like parenthesis used in this manner. And also the "self-reference" you refer to in the song lyrics is unclear. The links you provide are not references, they are a website selling CDs. What you would need is at the very least, lyrics published by the record label or reprinted in a reliable source, in which they spell the words the way you would have them. Saying that "Niggaz With Attitude" is the "false" name of the group although it is more common is just confusing, without a source, it is probably better to leave the article the way it is.

• click here for information on reliable sources
• click here for Wikipedia's manual of style
• I hope this helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

the "arrows" are actually so-called guillemets, or typographical quotation marks. the syntax indeed isn't the best, but then again, the entire article needs an overhaul, to be honest.

the links point to the respective releases where you can find the mentioned songs -- discogs is a music database for sound carriers of any format (vinyl, compact, cassette, you name it) -- while there is a market place, it is not its primary purpose.

nwa never provided lyrics with their releases and to find an "official" reprint anywhere is impossible.

a common name or term may very well be false or inappropriate, mind you -- take "eskimo" for example.

the problem with the web nowadays is that what is published first, regardless whether it is correct or not, sets the standard and then it is difficult to rectify it. i recall an article on hip-hop in the german magazine "der spiegel" from the early 1990s, where "nwa" was written out as "niggers with attitude" (orthographically correct, but wrong in regard to the band's name) -- "der spiegel" has a reputation in germany not unlike the "new york times" in the states (or "newsweek"), but the article was full of factual errors about hip-hop in general, anyway.

the first two lines from "straight outta compton" go like this: straight outta compton, crazy motherfucker named ice cube from the gang called niggaz wit attitudes

video/song link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkPb4s0-QcI

two lines in dre's verse on "real niggaz" go like this: the niggaz wit attitudes if you didnt know we blow, flow and getting loose slow from the get go, yo

video/song link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70rFN7dwwr0

ice cube's intro line on "hello" goes like this: look at these niggaz with attitudes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2io7IKOZ4I

an article about hip-hop in the german weekly newspaper "die zeit" (section about ice cube) -> "niggaz with attitudes": http://www.zeit.de/2006/41/HipHop2?page=3

and finally a sound clip where you can clearly, cleary hear it -- eazy-e "nutz on ya chin" (interview after a song @ 2:43): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkWOoUmP4Vw

cheers. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced. Discog, youtube and allmusic are about the same on the reliability scale. You mentioned yourself that the media couldn't agree on the name. If you listen to the group, they say it "attitude" and "attitudes" sometimes within the same song. I think both should maybe be mentioned, without any judgments made as to which is "false" and without the "guillemets" and parenthetical remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• i didn't write that the media couldn't agree on their name but rather that even allegedly reliable sources contain mistakes. nwa use "niggaz wit attitudes" exclusively, and not interchangeably with "niggaz with attitude," where did you hear that in their songs? you're mixing up some other things again -- youtube and discogs were not the sources -- the albums and the song/interview skit are the sources, the former are listed on discogs and the latter happens to be uploaded on youtube. i could have pointed directly to the releases but considered it more sensible to post a link where you can easily access them. as to the parentheses, they were there before i edited the entry. however, i'm not interested in further arguing over it -- i provided sources, you claim they're not decisive, which is fine. i pointed out the error and will now move on.

cheers. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I thought my compromise would solve this, listening to the lyrics and using what you think you hear is original research. On "Real Niggaz Don't Die" there is a repeated loop that says "I'm a muthafuckin nigga... with an attitude" just as one example. It's to bad they never printed the lyrics or specifically spelled out the name, then we could be sure we had it right. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your support regarding that Cher picture, and I was wondering if you could vote keep so that it wouldn't be deleted. Thank you! Alecsdaniel (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think I was fairly clear, but I went ahead and added the actual word "keep" just in case... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: User_talk:Inclusionist#Study

Waiting for your date. Any date in the last 60 days of last year. travb (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Inclusionist/AfD on average day and its talk page...the beginning. travb (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem about the copyvio questions. I hate anyone even thinking I might do such intentionally. Better safe than sorry. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I know this may feel counter-intuitive but Wikipedia uses a license incompatible with the above. Specifically, there is no restriction to the commercial use of Wikipedia's content. In principle, anyone can, say, publish a print edition of a part of Wikipedia and (basically, see the legal details) sell it for profit without giving a cent to the project. In particular, this means that creative commons licenses that restrict the commercial opportunities for the work are incompatible with the Wikipedia license. This is the first time I see a case like this. It is a common occurrence with images but websites whose text is explicitly released under a non-commercial cc-license is pretty rare around the web. In any case, it shouldn't be too difficult to write an alternative article or even to ask the website to release the material under a compatible license, although they might be legitimately worried about having their work reused on commercial websites or even printed trail guides. Note however that I'm not the house-expert on copyright issues. You can take a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for further info or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk where you're likely to find more competent help. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I completely understand the copyright rules. What I do not understand is how I posted a copyright notice on the page. As this is my first wiki-page, I still needed to take some time to understand syntax and so forth. Please clarify the copyright notice for me so I can avoid that in the future. Thanks- Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedii (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• You added this content to the article three separate times[1][2][3]: "thinner metals - usually less than ¼ in. or 6 mm - McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Copyright © 2005 by The McGraw-Hill" so, there is the copyright notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've now made a few edits to reorganize the article slightly, and created redirect pages for The Guerin process and Guerin stamping. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you've added the {{manufacturing}} template to the deep drawing article. I'm not sure that that template is applicable to the article, because it appears that the template has to do with manufacturing ideology, not specific processes. As such, I feel that it should be removed, but I wanted to consult with you first. Wizard191 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've looked over the template again, the main thing it does is place the article in [[category:Industry]]. There is no documentation or discussion of what type of articles it should be placed on, so I guess it's more or less a judgement call. I placed it there because it categorizes the article, provides links to categories and other manufacturing related pages, and frankly I thought it made the article look a little better, but if you don't agree I don't have any strong objections to removing it either. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that it is a well made template, I believe that using it just to place articles in the "Industry" category is a little odd. (As a side note, I don't know if I agree that that template should be placing articles that it is transcluded into the "Industry" category.) This is the first I've seen of the that particular template, but from my first impression it is related to various aspects of organizing manufacturing systems (Six sigma, QRM, etc.), and thus has nothing to do with the drawing or deep drawing processes except that they are manufacturing processes. It'd be like putting the metalworking cutting tools template on the six sigma article; they just don't mix. If you don't mind I would like to remove the template from those articles. Wizard191 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

After consulting with the professor who created the linked data, he feels it should not be under GNU license, or any license for that matter. I understand that you have had interaction with a few of the manufacturing processes, and wanted to make sure that particular page is erased in such a way that integrity is preserved for the work. Being rather new to wikipedia, and as you have been a mentor to this point, I wanted to make sure this happens correctly. Thanks Zedii (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Are you saying you want the entire page deleted? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've looked over the page, and I found the link you provided in the page history. While they certainly seem to cover the same ground, it doesn't appear that the page is word-for-word copy of [4]. Copyright violations are taken seriously at Wikipedia, but I'm not sure I see on here. Click here for the relevant policy page. If there is a blatant copyright infringement, the article should of course be speedy deleted, which you can ask for by adding {{db-copyvio}} to the page, with a pipe link to the copyrighted material that is being infringed upon, or if there is some question, you can list it here and it will be investigated, although it may take a while. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern in this article was not verifiability, but notability. Being featured in a couple of news articles does not make you notable and the article (while having some sources listed after it) is still not properly CITED. I really dislike non-admin closures to AFD's, but since the results would probably have been the same (why not just wait until an admin closes?) I'm not going to throw a fit about it. However, the article remains orphaned, so if you can help in that regard, it would be appreciated. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And sorry, I hadn't seen the note at the top of your talk page until I'd already posted this here. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 05:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, and I have fixed the orphan issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I'm trying to initiate an RFC at Talk:The Dark Crystal#Sequel. I've done this a few time before with no problem, for some reason this time it's not adding it to the list, and so no new opinions have been forthcoming. What did I do wrong? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the template look like the example (link). Mayber that will help, we'll see in an hour. --Werdan7^{T @} 03:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should have mentioned that I [5] already tried that, and changed it when it didn't seem to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On your last point first: there are plenty of articles on communities that are parts of CDPs — see Montrose-Ghent, Ohio, Montrose, Ohio, and Ghent, Ohio. Find sources for one or more of the villages, and write; in case you're not familiar with it, try the GNIS, which should have at least basic data on all of them. I've actually heard of Old Believers before, as I'm a student of Russian history, but I didn't know that there were any Old Believer settlements in your part of Alaska.

As far as Kachemak — the reason that it was originally at Kachemak, and that I believe it should be at Kachemak now, is that there is no city named Kachemak City. I'm aware of the most-common-name policy, and heartily support it, but it's simply incorrect to state that there's a municipality named Kachemak City and not named Kachemak, especially given the state's official listing as Kachemak — see here, page 100. "Most common usage" for the place where the Golden Spike was driven is, as far as I've read, "Promontory Point", but our article on that place does not cover that location, because it wasn't there. Why don't you insert a statement to the effect that "while the city is officially named K, it's more commonly called KC; the USGS Board on Geographic Names has officially supported KC"? Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I guess that will work. What's funny to me is that I actually worked for the census in 2000, so some of the data these articles are based on was actually collected by me, particularly the Diamond Ridge area. Oddly, I tried the names of the Old Believer villages in the Fox River area at GNIS and got nothing. They are not incorporated villages, but there are three separate settlements, and no GNIS data at all. Nikolaevsk, Alaska is another Old Believer settlement in the area if you're interested. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Google maps picked up Kachemak Selo and Vosnesenka as street names but also has the area labeled as "Fox River". [6] I'm not sure where else to look besides coverage in the local papers. It's funny that the government doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of these villages. While they look like one place on the map, Razdolna is on a hill above Vosnesenka and they are about 1/2 hour drive from one to the other, and to get too Kachemak Selo you have to go to the end of East End Road at low tide and drive up the beach. I've never had the nerve to actually do that one, but the Russians do it all the time... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I forget how, but there's a way to contact the GNIS to tell them to add something or to fix something; some time back, I ran into a cemetery in Iowa for which the GNIS renamed its listing, because someone proved that they had gotten the name wrong. Why can't you just use other sorts of sources? At least this, for a random example, will give you information on the Razdolna school. As far as the government not acknowledging: if I remember right, even when they weren't being persecuted by the Russian government, the Old Believers have been very hesitant to become involved with the government (Solzhenitsyn speaks of a group that wouldn't sign government paperwork, even though they had to do it to get food!), so perhaps they don't want to provide any information that they don't have to. Just remember, if you go there, don't cross yourself with three fingers... Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Wrangell has become a borough, I've separated it from the old Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area, and going by GNIS data, have moved the census area to Petersburg Census Area, Alaska. I've also placed Category:Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area, Alaska up at Categories for discussion; would you please offer an opinion there? Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for "sweeping up" after me, and good catch on noticing Seward wasn't on the template. Now I'm gonna stare at it trying to find any other omissions... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, here's a head scratcher: Kalifornsky village, Alaska It's a former native village inside of the Kalifornsky CDP. Add to the template, or merge what little content isn't already covered in the Kalifornsky article? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with merge: because the name is the same, I think we can assume that it's the same settlement just moved a little distance or with an erroneous reading for the coords for one or the other. It's different from the Old Believer communities that you mentioned, since it's apparently the single core community, quite unlike them. It's also not like Upper Sandusky, which is a separate article from Upper Sandusky, Ohio because they're located at somewhat different sites. Thanks for the compliment for Seward; I was going through the list of National Register of Historic Places properties in Alaska, clicked on Seward hoping to find a picture for a property in that city, and discovered that it had no borough template at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, since the NRHP is in mind: having finished filling out that list to the WP:NRHP ideal format, it's now big enough that it needs to be split. As I've told other editors, I'm planning on making a separate small list for each borough and census area (this is the way that several other states have already done it), hopefully starting tonight. I'd like your input, however, on the names: they'll all be "National Register of Historic Places listings in _____, Alaska", and the census areas and many boroughs will be fine, but I'm not quite sure what to call the unified city-boroughs. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the exact "location" of Kalifornsky would even be, there's not really any population center on K-Beach road outside of the one end at Kenai and the other at Kasilof. I just drove through there earlier this week, and now I'm wondering where exactly this village is/was supposed to be. Anyway, I think a merge is in order so I'll go do that now, and I'll give some thought to the NRHP thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand a little better. What I meant was 60°28′24″N 151°12′5″W, the coords given at the Kalifornsky article. On the other hand, I'm confused, as the coords given are located in the middle of what looks to be suburbia on Google Maps satellite view. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 03:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember having to close the first AFD as "keep" despite your logical arguments. I'm not touching the second one but it looks like it's going "no consensus" at this point. I'm also reading the RFC.

This reminds me of the blowup over whether or not Pluto is planet. We called it a planet for 76 years until we discovered an assload of plutos in the Kuiper belt. Ditto for all those "airlines" in Alaska. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I tried anyway. It seems I "lost" more because of numbers than logic, once again. It seems to me that most of the keep votes were based on the idea that airplanes are cool and anyone who has more than one should have an article. I was tempted to compile a list of all the tiny airlines in Juneau in order to make the point that this one isn't so all-fired important, but I was afraid it would just lead to them all having their own equally pointless articles. What bothers me is that many hard core inclusionists don't seem to consider whether or not anyone actually cares. I can't imagine why anyone would come to Wikipedia and search for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• The creator's of such articles care I suppose. In any case, it's not having a zillion articles on mom-and-pop airlines, Pokemon, fictional characters, or TV episodes that concerns me. It's what happens when such standards are applied to living persons. Imagine having to deal with hundreds of thousands of articles on non notable or marginally notable shmoes, any of which may decide to call a lawyer if some assclown puts false information in their articles. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• That is a problem, but I'm not at all sure that this "flagged revisions" business is the solution, as it will further divide editors into a class structure and likely create even more buracracy and drama. Luckily CSD standards do knock out a lot of non-notable people. And thanks for using the word "assclown" it always makes me laugh... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This article got dedleted on the 21st, you said it was speed deleted 1/24/09 to me. I did not re-create this page, someone else may have. I haven't edited in a few days because a computer virus. Cheers!WWW 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yeah that was 4 years ago, was a bit more of a n00b with the admin tools I guess. Nowadays I'm very carefull not to quote any content from deleted attack pages. Afraid there is not much I can do to fix it though, not even admins can change edit summaries or log entries. You could try Wikipedia:Requests for oversight though, there are a small handfull of people with access to modify/remove log entries and such. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nah, I think we can let it lie. Actually I was more curious as to whether or not it could be changed, and now I know the answer to that one, so thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

An FYI: Magazines and whatnot normally fall under 'companies or organisations'. Ironholds (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• As opposed to other publications such as books? I'm just asking, I don't think I've run into this particular issue before. I assumed the phrase in the tag, ending with the wonderfully vague "etc." would cover magazines, and my brief research in the meantime indicates it was at one time the official magazine of The Society of American Magicians, so right now I'm thinking merge/redirect there maybe anyway, until more can be found to say about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ahh, ok; such information wasn't included in the article; SAM association definitely throws it past the boundaries of the notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, you are totally wrong with your FAKE word in my article, i'm still waiting for reliable sources for Group of The Truth are published in search engine, so think first before you write. You are not live in Indonesia, so you can't know about this! Khuntien Ngin (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Article? What article? All you've got are a bunch of user pages that aren't even in English, and all I did was tag one as a user page so no one would think it was a real article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot delete something from another users page, beeblebrox. I can report you for doing so, but I wont. Thank you for you cooperation. Chasesboys (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please do report me. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, this is why you're my favorite person in the world. You're so god damn funny! I just love your jokes, tell me more. Chasesboys (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You, Kelly, and I are in an elite group: We have been identified by Chasesboys as his "favorite person". I chose to ignore it, and in his typically immature fashion he realized he couldn't push my buttons so he moved on to someone else. Since it technically isn't a personal attack, and changing someone's user page could be considered vandalism, you might try doing what I did. He'll eventually find someone else that he hopes he can annoy. In fact, if he reads this message, I suspect I'll be moved back into that honored position. Ward3001 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good luck Ward, I know you can take back that number one spot. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to the number one spot, you're the icing on the cake beeblebrox. Chasesboys (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Just Step Sideways. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.