User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RE: Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G2) of User:Timrb/Ray Tracing (physics)

This page was, at a glance, created by User:Timrb to start writing an article on Ray Tracing, this is not a test page and should not have been tagged as one. Furthermore, WP:CSD#G2 clearly states Testing is permitted in the sandbox and in users' own user space. I am not trying to be mean, but if that page had been deleted User:Timrb would have been rightfully upset. In future, please be more careful. Thankyou and Happy Editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  02:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be perfectly honest here, I had no idea if that was the right move or not, and as soon as I did it I felt like it was probably a mistake. And now I know it was. Sorry. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, everybody makes mistakes, just be more careful in the future. And remember, you can always re-edit and remove if you are unsure.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

12.227.159.219

Hi, I have reported this user on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, just so you know. Dp76764 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Neville

You tagged Michael Neville for a speedy delete. At first, I thought the best solution would be to change Michael Neville to a redirect to Mike Neville (ice hockey). Then I visited Mike Neville, a disambiguation page which lists another person by that name, Mike Neville (newsreader), a former British television presenter. --Eastmain (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Mike, of course. I wish I'd thought of that, now I feel dumb. Well thanks anyway! Beeblbrox (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Pi in the Bible

About five seconds after I added this article it was deleted by you. Now, that is fine and all, but instead of deletion, don't you think more could be added on to it? Yours-not so-trulyWikimichael22 (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22

Firstly, I am not an administrator, I can ask or propose that things be deleted, same as you, but I can't delete them. Secondly, nothing is deleted forever on Wikipedia. If you can contact the administrator who did do the delete, they can help you get your work back. Also, if you truly feel more could have been added to the article, you can always re-create it with the new information, or even create a subpage to your userpage and work on it there till you felt it was ready. Don't take it personally when something you worked on gets changed or deleted, it happens all day, all over Wikipedia, I assure you it is by no means intended as a personal judgement on you. If you are not familiar with it already, I would suggest a quick read of the five pillars. I have found it to be the best, most concise guide to what Wikipedia is and how it works. Good luck! Beeblbrox (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can click here to talk to that administrator. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination for NVC

Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. - Is take from speedy keep, and applys since you didn't specify what you wanted done with the article. And there is nothing that tells me I have to disclose I'm a non admin while closing, its only recommended. I've closed so many I'm almost known only for doing this. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty flimsy argument, since I did not specify that it was for the sake of process, I merely mentioned the declined speedy (if that is what you are referring to) as additional information that was possibly relevant to the debate. Nominating an article for deletion and stating the reasons why you believe it should be deleted says pretty clearly that you think the article should be deleted. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it means nothing. To a closer, such as myself, if you do not offer an opinion, you haven't given one. Its not flimsy. You should try offering an actual opinion next time. If you had, its would have clearly met SNOW. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• As we seem to be at an impasse here, I have listed this and the related AfD at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts in the interest of getting uninvolved opinions on the matter. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, although its the wrong message board. Just because we disagree on a particular edit, doesn't mean we've somehow breached the etiquette which flows through this wiki. SynergeticMaggot (talk)

List of Airlines in Alaska

If you're bothered by the former Skagway Air Service link being temporarily revived, just take it of your watch list, and don't bother with it. There's no need and no reason to delete the rest of the Airlines in Alaska list. ----DanTD (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it "bothers me", it's that it does not meet the general notability guideline. Anyway, the debate on the subject is at AfD, not here, and you, sir, should brush up on your civility. Calling something "idiotic" does not help your case in any way. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but it is idiotic. To call this "unencyclopedic" makes as much sense as calling lists like List of Massachusetts railroads, or similar lists from any other state unencyclopeidic. And I will bring this up on the AfD page that you started. ----DanTD (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All Night Fuji

Hi, Beeblbrox, thanks for the note. I admit I get a little over-sensitive when I see articles put up for deletion on subjects I know are/were notable in Japan or Korea, but which have a very low profile here in the States... "Recentism" and USA-centrism are two of my peeves about Wiki. Simply not covering subjects that were quite notable 100 years ago, or in a foreign country is one thing, but actively deleting articles on them is another... Anyway, a quick way to check the foreign-language Wiki article is right on our own article. To the left, you see "Languages" and under that "日本語"-- that's Japanese. Click there, and you'll see quite a substantial article. That's a clue that the article is pretty notable in the country (either that or some enthusiastic fans have put together a big page). One frustrating thing about Japanese Wiki is that they rarely cite sources-- no matter how notable the subject. This has been getting better recently, and I hope it continues to do so, then we'll find sourcing these Japanese-subject articles much easier than it is now. Cheers, and happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Civility also includes not stalking through someone's contributions because you have an unrelated content dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that AfD is not the place for such conversations. There are such places, namely WP:RFC or WP:ANI that you can go to for help with these type of conflicts. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

When there is a clear issue with the nomination (Did you open the nominators full contributions and read them) I think it's proper to point out, politely and supported with evidence, that there's something else to consider. I don't think it's proper to let everyone else blindly walk along. My difs are there, if i'm wrong everyone else can make their own decision. If you feel it's needed to report me to ANI or start an RFC, I hope you don't but if so I understand your position.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of going to RFC or ANI, I was suggesting that if you really feel your being stalked and so forth, that it is where you could go to have the issue addressed. I'm not taking anyones "side", I was just trying to keep the AfD debate on track. Actually, you may want to start at WP:WQA, as it is the most informal "first step" in dispute resolution. Good Luck. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Colley

Why you added an expert attention template in the article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there are no reliable sources cited, and because biography articles are always better with a photograph and an expert might be able to find both of these things. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)