User talk:SheffieldSteel/Archive 5

Re: 3RR

Alright, I shall do so in the future rather than edit war.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Equal measure of self-aggrandizing brought Deadalus to my page talk page, where s/he kept deleting my own posts - although I found none offensive - I had just listed facts and pointed out how s/he views him/herself in a higher esteem than a 20 year tenured professor at MIT (Harvard). Obviously this was displeasing to a large extent - which convinced me get away from Wikipedia for good - since it allows such Nazi treatment of contributors. Now I see that I am not the only person with such claims. My next "crime against humanity" was that I found spelling errors in this person's writings and questioned how my posts could be deleted only 12 seconds after they were posted - indicating my answers were not even looked at - just straight out deleted. That type of behavior has not been seen since the time of the Nazis - including the MegaNazi - Stalin who outHitlered the Fuehrer himself.

Naturally no human desires such frustrations, especially not from such source with questionable abilities, but unlimited power to block one's views and thoughts. I do not endorse thought police and I gladly bowed out and away from all Wikipedia activities - although I will find adequate forums where I will convey my Nazi-type subjugation over the last few days.

Iliijapavlovich (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Iliya PavlovichIliijapavlovich (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems a little strange that the person (Daedalus) writes "Alright, I shall do so in the future rather than edit war.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:43, 23 March 2009" - and obviously "the future" expired on March 27th (four days later) when this contributor plowed into my discussion page. Just caught my eye that this person can not operate without restraint - and should be removed for repeated offenses against your own policies.

I have never found any reference showing that future means only next two, three or four days. Must be my own shortcoming - since everything else was, as well.

Iliijapavlovich (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Iliya PavlovichIliijapavlovich (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Deadalus (again)

I am sorry I failed to open a new tab. I have found some traces of a moderator who has been criticized and instructed to do otherwise - to have violated the same requirement (Daedalus) doing the same thing to my talk page. Invariably, thinking this would be a constructive continuation of a preceding discussion I added my comments on that (page prior to this one) having failed to open a new tab. Yes it is a mistake on my end - but it sort of makes sense if we conclude that the same moderator had stated only 5 days ago "Alright, I shall do so in the future rather than edit war.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:43, 23 March 2009" - obviously the future for this moderator is any time period under 4 days, since my own posts on my talkpage were deleted by this person.

Iliijapavlovich (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Iliya PavlovichIliijapavlovich (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The user above has been blocked indefinitely for continued personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Running amok

Of course you're right. Figuring the evidence speaks for itself (at least to most people) I was stretching a point to be generous and wrap things up, resisting my well known inclination to berserkly run amok. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice

New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank your for the notice. I'm sorry, but I can't support your request. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 23:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise if I came across as hostile. I seem to be getting grouchy lately. It's something I'm going to have to address. I stand by the fact that someone in that editing exchange should have commented on the talk page before I did, but I was wrong to jump down your throat. I pretty much agree that no further reverts should be made until consensus has been established through discussion, but I also believe that the person who reverts has to initiate the discussion. If there is no discussion started, I think it is reasonable to assume participants are happy to settle the dispute through editing. Hiding T 12:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit-warring on Talk:Firearm

Since you've never been blocked, I'm not going to issue one now. But you should consider this a final warning since you have clearly violated WP:3RR. Please review WP:edit warring and WP:Dispute resolution in order to avoid this kind of situation in future. Thanks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

per Talk:Firearm - I have a question. Don't take this the wrong way, because I will heed your warning about edit warring, and do accept the final warning on the merits that i was edit warring. However, you said that I 'clearly' violated 3RR. I am not sure how this is the case. I do understand that 3RR can be interpreted rather loosely, and it doesn't have to be 4 reverts in 24 hours to be 3RR. However, I had 4 reverts in 96 hours, and all my reverts were to undo the modification of my words under the guise that the phrase 'POV' was 'hate speech'. yes, i edit warred. but did i 'clearly' violate 3rr? i really don't think the acronym 'POV' is 'offensive hate speech', so i felt somewhat justified in removing the fallacious claim. if someone reverts me for a reason that is clearly wrong, shouldn't i be able to add it back? i mean, this guy has been blocked over 10 times for NPA, 3RR, and so on, amongst his various sockpuppet accounts, and he's been warned countless times. every time i've tried to reason with him, he just makes personal attacks and reverts all attempts at discussion with him on his talk page as 'vandalism'. but anyway, was it really 'clearly' 3RR? and in the future, if someone reverts you with a blatantly fallacious reasoning, shouldn't you be allowed to explain to them that they're wrong, revert them, and report them, without facing potential consequences? if you just let someone get away with making unnecessary changes based on false premises, don't we end up with an encyclopedia with bullies getting the final say, regardless of the merits of their changes? Theserialcomma (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated response. Looking back over the history, I see that I was mistaken about the 3RR violation, and that you are quite correct. Thank you for understanding my warning and accepting it in the spirit in which it was offered, i.e. a warning against edit warring in general.

I personally feel that editors should usually be warned about edit warring rather than violating the three revert rule. Unfortunately, the latter is simpler to understand, evaluate and enforce (barring admin error, of course!) and so it tends to be cited more often. If you read up on 3RR, you'll see that there are a few important exceptions - cases where reverts will not be counted against you. It's a very good idea to study that list, and in the cases not listed, seek assistance from other editors. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Eye.earth evading your block

Hey - as you were kind enough to respond to my post at WP:AN/I and are the blocking admin for Eye.earth (talk · contribs), I thought I'd let you know that he's using his local public library to evade his block with 216.190.22.200 (talk). See [1] and [2]. Thought I'd bring it here; I think it's worth a longer block on the Eye.earth account for obvious block evasion, but I'm hardly objective having long ago reached the point of frustration with him. So I'll leave it up to you. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking into this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Back for more with 216.190.22.151 (talk) (see [3]). Would you be willing to semiprotect zidovudine for a bit, as opposed to blocking the entire Sacramento Public Library system? Probably also worth giving Eye.earth (talk · contribs) a formal sanction for repeated block evasion, but up to you. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. The original block would have expired by now had actually expired! Ah well, I've dealt with it. Extended the block to 48 hours per WP:EVADE and semiprotected the article for a week. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're too nice. Thanks for looking into this. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User name change

Thank you for telling me, but I actually like it the way it is. One little typo dose not hurt me unless it is in the book I am writing.Hawkey131 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Boyle AfD

Bingo. That's exactly what I would have liked to say to explain why I was fighting so hard to keep it open. Thanks for articulating it for me. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. I hope people listen. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished

If you're about, could I ask you to take a look at water ionizer? One editor (using at least 2 IP's) is persistently edit-warring to insert inappropriate material. They've violated 3RR (if you total their reverts under various IPs), but semiprotection might be more useful than blocks since their IPs appear somewhat dynamic. Anyhow, wondering if you'd be willing to take a look - if not, I'll send it to WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi me again! the ones that doesnt know anything about wikipedia

sooo i got kicked out again, or should i sai my finrad page got deleted. if you check the wikipedia of SunGard, who is similar to FinRad, they are up and running and not getting deleted. Have i done something wrong? they are not really different from the page i had created. let mek now. thanks for your help! Yslane (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me look into this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

Please take a look at this.

Both users who reverted my edits did not cite any reason, Future Perfect of Sunrise made an unsubstantiated claim of plagiarism, for which he was challenged to substantiate, and the next reverted citing no reason whatsoever. I am afraid edit-warring is ahead, and I am afraid to revert the article because of the three-revert rule, since am a newbie here can you help me out here by guiding me on what should I do next? Can I revert the article? As it stands there is no argumentative reason not to since my edits are very clean as you can see.

Thank you and have a nice day.--Gkeorgke (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute

Hello. I'm afraid that you've overreacted a bit. You see, that map was not added by me at all, it was in the article already. See the history of the article. Don't you think that Δρακόλακκος should discuss it and get consensus, since he is the one that deliberately removed the map without discussion? Bomac (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that you're trying to deceive me with that link, but I'm going to assume you simply made a mistake in posting it here. Perhaps you used the wrong link? It shows the state of the article on the 16th of April, after you added the disputed map. Please, if you have not already done so, read The Bold-Revert-Discuss Cycle for more on harmonious editing. When an edit of yours is disputed, you can either accept that it doesn't have support, or you can discuss the edit in the hopes of getting a consensus for it. The other party has the same options. What is not acceptable is continuing to revert other editors reversions. This is edit warring, it is disruptive to Wikipedia, and to prevent such disruption editors may be blocked from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

There is a request for arbitration regarding the naming dispute regarding the Republic of Macedonia and the recent unilateral move of the article to Macedonia by User:ChrisO. I know that you were at best peripherally involved, but I thought that you might be interested in making comments. The request currently has four accept votes and no rejections, so I think that it will probably be accepted by the end of the day, and comments from any and all parties knowledgable about the subject will probably be welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, John. I'll certainly be following the case, and will contribute if I feel I can help. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your contribution to the arbitration page, I feel I should make one small but important correction - I only moved the page, I didn't touch the move permissions. I feel your wording is a bit ambiguous on that point and could be misinterpreted; maybe you could have another look at it? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, let me check that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Corrected. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Newly discovered disease

Just today I invented a name for a disease we see around here. I call it "because I can" syndrome. Thought you might be interested, since it's the same thing you've just described at AN/I. Friday (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting essay - thanks for the link. People do tend to rely upon what is / is not expressly forbidden, rather than what might be productive or controversial. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

... and just because you should do something, doesn't mean that you can. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on ANI. I'm a bit perplexed by the discussion there that an uncivil user posting a duplicitous external link and forging a media-wiki interface is being condoned, yet this well-intended admin is being bashed. It's clear that I spend far too much time trying to help this project. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IP disruption

I noticed that you recently commented on the talk page of an IP editor who was disruptively commenting at Talk:DreamHost. The IP editor was subsequently blocked for this. Now the IP has returned to disruptively remove comments from the same talk page, claiming they are personal attacks (against a different editor). Would you mind taking a look at this issue, since you are an uninvolved admin? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at this, I think you both could behave less confrontationally. I'd like you to consider striking "You are editing here specifically to attack the company" and refactoring it yourself, so that it looks less like a comment on the contributor, perhaps to something along the lines of "your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company". Clearly the IP shouldn't be edit-warring to delete your comments, but I think they will stop if you can focus the discussion on content. I'll comment on their Talk page too. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I will go and refactor that comment exactly as you suggest. Thank you for looking into this for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Complaint regarding dreamhost talkpage administration

"If you have a problem with my use of administrator tools, tell me so and hopefully we can resolve the matter."

Well I do happen to have a problem regarding your administrator status on wikipedia and the way you behave yourself. You contact me on my talkpage regarding reverts that I have made to the dreamhost talkpage due to obvious personal attacks and yet I don't see any evidence that you have Ever confronted this user Scjessey regarding his personal attacks which seem to have been ongoing for quite some time. What ever you do here you do it with your green color behind you showing that you are an administrator and therefor you do it as an administrator.

Your talk of block history on my talkpage is an insult as well and I ask that you strike it out.--194.144.90.118 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising your concerns here. I haven't yet used my administrative tools in relation to this matter. I haven't blocked an editor, protected a page, etc. (compare the actions of admin User:SarekOfVulcan who has done both, I think, in response to your actions). Nonetheless, I'm always willing to listen to complaints and criticism. In this instance, if you want to see evidence of my talking to Scjessey regarding personal attacks, I suggest you look at the thread immediately above this one. It may not be obvious, because all I said was that the disputed text looked like a comment on the contributor - a reference to the wording of our "No Personal Attacks" policy. Scjessey has been around long enough to be familiar with that wording and to understand the reference, and he was good enough to withdraw the remark.

SarekOfVulcan has also addressed the issue of personal attacks, at Talk:DreamHost. Between us, I hope we can keep things civil.

The green in my signature is not a signal that I'm an admin; it is just a custom signature (which any registered user can create - see WP:SIG). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A single remark out of dozens. I think that it would be best if you stayed away from matters regarding Dreamhost from now on. Thank you. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your opinion politely and succinctly. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that in the absence of a more compelling argument than that already provided, I do not think it would be in Wikipedia's best interests for me be avoid the pages in question. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a special rule for September 11?

Is there a special rule for Pearl harbor (1941)?, or for the Trail of Tears, or for the burning of Rome? Will this change as time goes by? It's been almost a decade since September 11, and I think the event (the most significant event in the history of the United States, should be closely examined without fear of gross censorship in the United States. (Peterbadgely (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC))peterbadgely

You should be aware that the Arbitration Committee case was a response to significant and prolonged disruption of 9/11-related articles. I'm not aware of any "special rules" for those articles, and I assume that this is because there haven't been particularly high levels of disruption there.

If you feel that the event should be "closely examined" I recommend that you find an appropriate online community who wishes to do so, and contribute to their efforts. You might find a suitable link if you start looking at 9/11 Truth Movement. Wikipedia, however, is not the place to right great wrongs, to unearth hidden truths, or to challenge received wisdom. On the contrary, the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to record received wisdowm. In practice, that means that we document what is notable and verifiable according to what has been published on the subject by reliable sources.

I hope this information helps. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Per this talk page comment, you should know that he was just recently blocked as part of a long string of sockpuppets, most of which had been going around harassing me in one way or another. And while you may be "aware that other editors have had problems with" me, in the end the people doing the most complaining about me tend to get permanently banned later when others finally catch on to what exactly they are doing. DreamGuy (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama admin stuff

Hey Sheffield (can I call you that? or Sheff? or is a shortening of your nom de plume verboten?...anyway), I notice that you seem to be watching the main Obama article pretty closely which is obviously good. I've been doing that as well but am going to sign off for about a week to get some real-world stuff done and won't be checking in at all during that time. I think things tend to stay a lot more chill at the Obama page when there's an admin or two hanging around over there, so I was just hoping that you could continue to do that. And if not no worries since we are, like, volunteers or something. I'll be back after defeating those damned French imperialists. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you have a good break. I will certainly continue to keep an eye on the page. Either short form of the name is fine, by the way :-) Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

3rdAlcove

Hi, you might want to have a look at a comment I left regarding your warning at User talk:3rdAlcove. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I have replied there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dreamhost talkpage

You saw a reason for interfering previously with the matters going on at that talkpage and well now we have this guy scjussey deleting my remarks. My remarks there are in no way of less significance than yours for example and it is totally unjustified to revert them. I ask that you permanently block the user for this as well as other personal attacks from him that appear on that talk page.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just emerged from a block and immediately begun ranting at Talk:DreamHost (which has been blissfully quiescent for a while), including making personal attacks against me and one of your fellow administrators. Sigh. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that neither of you should comment at Talk:DreamHost on any subject other than improving that article, and I don't think either of you needs to say anything about the other editor anywhere on Wikipedia. Future disruption and personal attacks will be seen, and dealt with, without either of you needing to point anything out to anyone else. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I interpret this as biased against me, I was merely answering remarks that had been made regarding me there and the accusation that I was deleting comments when I infact was deleting personal attacks. I ask that you strike your remarks out cause my comments were clearly legit and you are implying that they were not.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I would like to ad that the reason for my block that scusssey refered to was that I was judged to be a sockpuppett something which was later apologized for and reversed so I can not see how that is relevant.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Scjessey may interpret my above post as biased against themself too, but all I have said is that the two of you need to avoid either making personal attacks or using the article Talk page for arguing user conduct. In other words, respect our policies. I haven't singled either of you out.

I'm familiar with the circumstances surrounding your block. I assure you that it hasn't affected anything I've said here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

List of supermarket chains in Bahrain

I know we still have no rule on this, but after a relisting, one additional immediate comment is not really enough to close. Others need time to respond. DGG (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't really take the relisting notice into account when evaluating the contributions. I hope that doesn't cause a problem.

The keep arguments that could be identified were all variations on the theme of "it's useful" and the delete arguments were based on notability and/or what wikipdia is not. Comparing those arguments against deletion policy, there just wasn't a good reason to keep. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talkback

Thanks, but I usually try to avoid that template; just a bit too fancy for my tastes. :) Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's fine with me :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ

If you have the time and inclination, would you be so kind as to review the material in the WP:NPOV/FAQ and identify any further Policy content that should be moved? Thanks! Dreadstar † 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything obvious. I'll refrain from commenting at that page for now, to see what others have to say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my C++ edit?

It is true that C++ translates as "C Plus One", any programmer would know this as if you have a variable such as int number = 0; in a later line number++ would be equal to "number + 1", "number = number + 1" or "number += 1" and it does have a source which I added at the bottom in external links. (AKA cplusplus.com).

Thank you for your time Darkmonkeyz321 (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

C++ does not "translate" as C plus one. If C is 2, "C plus one" would be 3. But the following code...

int C = 2;
int N = C++;
printf( "%i", N );

... prints 2, not 3. The statements above, that you suggest are equivalent, do not all produce the same result. More importantly than any argument I could make, though, the author/designer of the language has commented on its name and, to my knowledge, has never used that phrase. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hobson's Choice- why lose the coords of his coaching house?

Hey there

In Hobson's Choice you've removed my addition of the coaching house he lived in. As I imagine you guessed, I live quite close by there. But I've no connexion to it.

I think it is kinda notable to have it because few people know where it actually is/was. I've not reinserted it but I'd like to talk it over with you. It was called the Cambridge Arms and before that something else it changes its name so often. The oddest thing is it is not on Hobson St or Hobson's Passage (but just round the corner). You'd think if you DID want to advertise it you'd make a better job than I did!

Suggestion: keep the coords but lose the name of the pub (which will probably change in six months anyway)? How's that?

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the coordinates are a bit trivial, but I have no objection to your reinserting them in the article (as long as it's verifiable). My only concern was that there might be a commercial interest in promoting the pub. I appreciate that you took time to discuss this rather than just reverting. Thanks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi Sheffield, unfortunately you've done a stupid thing at British Isles. With your uncalled-for threat in an edit summary you've left the position whereby the advocates of one point-of-view, i.e. the currect edit, can now just walk away from the debate laughing at their good fortune - having a statement with a bum reference to "support" it. Instead of threatening editors, why don't you protect the article, if you see a need. I belive that's normal practice in these matters. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that I did something stupid. Unfortunately, I'm not getting any smarter - I can't see how protecting the wrong version would be any different to warning editors that they'll be blocked for continuing to edit war. If the edit war stops, I've achieved my goal. The advantage of this approach is that editors can continue to edit and improve the article, even before this particular stupid issue has been resolved. I hope this makes sense. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, but it's not a stupid issue, it's an issue of accuracy. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the BI article but you may be aware that consensus is never reached on anything to do with the Irish angle. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that dispute resolution can be difficult. Edit warring isn't the answer, though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello? This is not 1916. How dare you, or your ilk, lecture an Irishman on "civility" - particularly while you people are trying to claim that me and my entire very large Irish Catholic and republican family are "British" by virtue of being part of what British nationalists such as you claim is your "British Isles". Have you ever, ever spoken with an Irish person? With these "British Isles" ideas, I doubt it very very much. Open your mind, and your heart will follow. Dunlavin Green (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Considering that someone who clearly did not have consensus to remove a section of a policy did so just before you locked this page, you should restore it back to the longstanding consensus version. This is not some mere article, this is a policy page. Right now the policy page is completely lacking a section that is currently policy because of the timing of the lock. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I protect the wrong version? That's unfortunate. However, I am not going to make the final decision as to whether the disputed text is included or not. I am also not going to violate protection policy by both taking part in an edit war at, and protecting, the same article. Sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that unprotecting the "wrong" version is going to result in the protecting of the "right" version. But we'll see. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And I called it. I had little doubt it would happen... Hobit (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I think you did the right thing by protecting. It's always going to the wrong version to somebody. In the end, it makes no difference, WP:CON will rule the day. Dreadstar † 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

hello

Nice fishapods. I try to think of myself as chaotic good. Saw your switch at Everking. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)+

That's the problem though, isn't it? You think you're on the side of the angels, doing what's right whatever it takes - the epitome of the chaotic good character - and maybe one day the right thing to do might involve doing something rather harsh to someone, but it's justified - hey, it's not as if you don't have a code that you live by... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed ANI thread

This was done after the topic is closed. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the reason that my post didn't get an edit conflict notice was because I was editing a different section to the hat/hab templates. Odd that you didn't either. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And what's this about? It really does seem that you can't let it go. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warnings

Hello SheffieldSteel, please don't take this as criticism, but I'm wondering why you put a 3RR warning on my talk page for just a single revert at British Isles, when User:Snowded reverted the same text three times and didn't get a warning. LevenBoy (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I missed anyone out. I was attempting to warn everyone who'd recently reverted that particular edit, in an effort to stop the edit war. I must not have seen Snowded on the article's History page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI closure

Good closure statement, imo. Concise and fairly balanced. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

terror bombing

Its more than just the Blitz. Please look at the talk page. I have outlined clearly his removal of cited information from John Buckley on four occasions. Is it me, or is this vandalism? When I revert, whatever he has put in inbetween deleting it and adding text, gets reverted. That's his problem. Unfortunately any attempt at reaon and compromise only works when it is in his favour - you can see this from the talk page too. All his edits are agenda driven. Dapi89 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

... I would like to point your attention to the fact that this Buckley quote was not removed; I cross-checked the accuracy of the 'cite' [User:Dapi89|Dapi89]] provided, and found that it was taken out of context of the original text, and some liberties were taken with it by Dapi89. I have replaced his 'cites' from Buckley with actual, direct quotes from the said author from the referenced page. Ever since you warned him , Dapi89 still keeps deleting the original quote from Buckley and replaces it with his own version. Its quite simply a misuse of the original source, removing what the actual author said with what Dapi89 would like him to say, and the two are in very different context.

I also have to point out that Dapi89 ever since your warning keeps vandalizing the talk page and continues making personal attacks. He also methodically removes cited references, see here, here and here. Kurfürst (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Pioneercourthouse

You may be aware of this already, since you tend to patrol WP:ANI. There is a proposal to formally ban that idiot, now that he's branching out into harassment and trying to get other users in trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Lewis Hamilton

Looking at your revert you note that the change is not supported by the source. Actually it is. The source spells it both ways. The predominant spelling is the one given by the user (2 uses of TBWA versus one of TWBA). The Guardian is known for spelling mistakes. In fact its parodied by being called the Grauniad in the Private Eye news humour magazine. beardybloke (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm aware of the reputation of the publications you mention :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually its because of its reputation that I'm not sure which way it really should be spelled, though I see there is a wiki page for TBWA and that TWBA redirects to it. All very confusing. beardybloke (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, a Google search for either spelling will take you to the correct one. I reverted my edit accordingly. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cantankerosity

I think that's a fine edit you made. The edit summary invites a reply, however: Even if it's always the same reason, it could still be cantankerosity. Hard to prove, of course; good thing we don't have to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

True :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible bock evasion

I am not certain, but it is possible that this new user maybe one of your past acquaintances trying to evade an indefinite block you placed. My apologies if I am wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Either that or someone pretending to be. There's been an unusual amount of impostoring going on this spring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who was who, but after reviewing the contribs & talk page history of that editor, I would say that this seems to be resolved. Thanks for the notice. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an obvious (and admitted) sock, and I'm fairly certain who it is, but it doesn't matter, as it's history. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's someone pretending to be Axmann8, just like a month or two ago. The IP he posted along with the other Axmann8 impostoring, in WP:ANI, could help in finally tracking that character down. The D.C. area location reminds me of one who was blocked back sometime in the winter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrative assistance...

Normally, I would only involve an administrator as a last resort, but I'm afraid I've reached it... in a series of revisions and counter-revisions of the M4 cannon page, Nukes4Tots and I have reached a point of impasse with regard to the page itself... I'm afraid that his actions (and to some extent, my own) are harming the page, and that is why I'm asking for your help as an administrator to sort out my dilemma... this user has continually refused to leave the page alone, despite the facts that his edits are unsourced... I hope that a resolution is available that can prevent any further harmto the page's contents, and I thank you for any advice on this matter that you can provide... you can find what I'm talking about here -> [4] Magus732 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

---

{{talkback|NRen2k5}} - answered.

Self reverts

Thanks for your input in this matter. I have a question though about two of your recommendations that apparently contradict one another:

• To be clear, should you violate this restriction and edit in areas you are topic-banned from, you will be blocked. - This should not require any further clarification. You might not want to take the advice of User:Abd, who was recently blocked from editing for editing in violation of a ban.
• If you're sure your proposed edit improves Wikipedia, you should have no difficulty persuading another editor to make it for you. However, if you're sure that any reasonable editor would agree that your proposed edit improves Wikipedia, don't let the rules stop you making it yourself. Just don't revert yourself afterwards.

The first point was crystal clear, however the second opens the door to a potential can of worms. Please can you clarify, as I think you might have undermined the community ban here. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The second point relates to Ignore all rules, which is where the "worms" factor comes in. If an edit is so self-evidently correct that no reasonable editor would disagree that making it improved Wikipedia, then a case can be made that even a banned editor can make the edit. In the case of e.g. reverting BLP violations, I would go so far as to say that any editor, banned or not, should make the edit. Clearly they should not then revert themselves. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this view not differ from the discussion we've just had on the Administrators' noticeboard, where the consensus about Abd was that *any* edit construed a violation of his ban? Also "no reasonable editor" can be an extremely subjective viewpoint in these cases (doesn't everyone believe their own actions are reasonable?). I'm still not seeing the consistent approach here that I feel we should have towards all banned editors. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that any edit made by a banned editor, to a page they're banned from, construes a violation of their ban. However, it may still be possible to argue that a violation was justified. Of course, other editors may not agree and a block may follow, but in general, the more severe and urgent your edit is, the more likely you are to get support for it. The phrase "no reasonable editor" was an attempt on my part to formulate the sort of test that might be used in this situation. Of course most editors think of themselves as reasonable - the point is what others will think, and not every editor will be good at applying such a test to their own edits. In other words, use at your own risk.

I hope this is clear. It seems so to me, so perhaps I'm not explaining well. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd bet money that if Abd reverted vandalism on the Cold Fusion article, he'd get slapped with an immediate block. So why should the ground rules be any different for another editor? The consensus around this point on the Administrators' board was black & white, not grey. I don't think we're being fair by treating people that are subject to the same rules in different ways. Furthermore, if something is so obviously wrong with an article, surely no "reasonable editor" would decline a request to fix it? Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to be black and white here, then.

1. WP:IAR applies everywhere, like it or not.
2. If you see a BLP violation, remove it immediately.
3. The rules should not be applied differently to different editors.
4. If something is obviously wrong, no reasonable editor would decline a request to fix it. That's why, if you were banned from editing an article, but saw a problem, you'd ask someone to fix it.

Hope this is now clear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my contention that other editors will block Abd immediately if he touched the Cold Fusion aticle on grounds of WP:IAR, yet PJH might get away with it. So I don't expect the treatment to be fair, regardles of what we've discussed here. C'est la vie. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"stupid edits"

First, you do not know whether I meant that individual's edit was stupid or my own. To be clear, I DO think it's stupid that I repeatedly have to make the same vandalism revert due to ignorance (or blatant vandalism) of other editors. Further, I've TRIED taking task with an editor who called my edits stupid repeatedly before (landon 1980). The outcome of that discussion was that he was attacking my edits, not me personally. By the way, landon and I have since become much more ammicable and help each other (the entire thing was because he thought I was someone else anyway). Also, I've just reviewed the no personal attacks and the incivility pages, and my comment does not qualify as incivil or as an attack. I'm certainly allowed to be of the opinion that a specific edit is not an intelligent one (which would imply it is a stupid one), and I can express this without insulting the editor... I do realize you're an admin, but to be honest, I don't care. You might abuse your authority by making improper, trumped-up threats, but in the end, that's not beneficial to anyone. Have a wonderful day! Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's Talk. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I was referring to my own edit as stupid, not the other editors, due to the fact that I think it's stupid I have to make the same edit over and over again. Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you missed the point of my last post. If you continue to use comments such as "another... edit" you're likely to antagonise the other editor and possibly provoke more of the same. On the other hand, if you use a summary such as "removing unsourced info" or even "removing personal opinion", you are more likely to be effective in changing the behaviour of good faith editors, and the bad faith editors will also find it less entertaining to see than if you show signs of being annoyed. Don't forget, some people edit here for the "lulz". See also Deny recognition and Revert, Block, Ignore for other approaches to unwanted edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I fully understand your point. I just disagree with your assertion that I was incivil (civility is a highly subjective concept, by the way). "another... edit" is in NO WAY incivil, nor am I inciting the trolls looking for lulz. That comment was not targeting that editor. While I generally agree that I can be more specific in why I'm reverting, I disagree that adding "another... edit" is harmful. In fact, that was mostly a cynical commentary on what I perceive to be your attempt to censor my comments about my OWN edits. I believe that should I have called my own edit stupid again, you'd have escalated the "blocking" threats, even though no WP policy addresses this. Therefore, I did not call my edit stupid this time. Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) In my second post to you, linked above, I did not say that your summary was incivil. I am not interested in debating whether your edit summary was within the letter of the law. What I said was that it was unhelpful, and not compatible with a friendly collaborative editing environment. Even if you were to clearly and unambiguously label your revert as stupid, there is still a problem, because your revert would not be necessary if not for the original edit, and it is quite reasonable for any stupidity associated with an edit-revert pair to be associated by implication with one or the other editor. This can offend people and put them on the defensive, which makes discussion and education harder.

Editing collaboratively means not raising unproductive and divisive issues such as stupidity, bad faith, etc. Instead, describe edits that you revert as being in good faith yet uninformed or mistaken in some way - ideally with a link to policy or guideline pages, so that other editors can see what they did wrong.

A minor point: Your cynicism, and your continued talk of blocking threats, is another sign that you didn't read my previous post. You should take more care before deleting messages on your Talk page, because that act is taken as confirmation that you have read them. If you don't take the time to read and understand your Talk page messages, you are doing yourself a disservice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

i disagree that it was unhelpful. bottom line. furthermore, i did read your post before i deleted it, therefore, no disservice done! have a wonderful day, buddy! Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice about British Isles article

Hello.

I need advice about British Isles article. MITH keeps deleting a referenced contribution showing the (c. 135 A.D.) description of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Insula and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Insulae. This establishes the geographic usage of the term Britanniae Insulae (British Isles) many years before December 6, 1921 A.D. (i.e., its political usage).

MITH keeps deleting it ... without explaination. He just deletes it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The text has no consensus. You are edit warring despite saying you wouldn't. I have requested page protection in order to protect the page from your disruptive behaviour.MITH 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield Steel, I appreciate your comments on the talk page. Can an admin (hint, hint) now take some action on AVDL at WP:AN3, and return the text to its earlier version? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes can you restore the text to before the disruption? Otherwise the disruptive editors may think that their behaviour will get them what they want. ThanksMITH 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than block the three main editors involved in the above-mentioned edit war, I've protected the page so you can all take part in a discussion. That should be more productive. Of course, it's up to your folks to make it so. I can't resolve the issue for you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to, but keeping the text inserted by the most disruptive editor will only encourage the behaviour the happen again.MITH 13:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield Steel, I think you may have misunderstood the position. The text now protected contains text proposed by AVDL, which he has inserted in contravention of the views of the great majority of editors involved on that page. The unfortunate situation this morning was merely a culmination of a long dispute involving many editors and much, much, discussion, which AVDL has utterly disregarded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That is often the case when pages are protected due to a content dispute. Let me review the history. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And thank you from me! The editors above claimed WP:WRONGVERSION and you've succumbed to their claims. Well done! MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've just noticed - the claim above relating to "great majority of editors" is a downright lie. Did you spot that? Also, the complaining editors are themselves serial reverters of note. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of who reverted who and when. This information is a matter of record and I did not act in ignorance of it. I've restored the version that existed before this edit war began, which is in accordance with policy.

If you're worried about whether the right version or the wrong version of an article is protected, you are worrying about the wrong thing. You should be more concerned with finding a way to reach consensus to resolve the conflict, i.e. seeking a compromise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello ShieffieldSteel.

I am throwing in the towel on this. No need to re-protect the British Isles article after June 22, 2009. I won't be editing it. Take care eh (btw ... I've been to Kenilworth, it is very nice patch of England. Cheers eh!) ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Heads-Up

Howdy.

This is a sincere question. I am not trying to disrupt the Wiki-process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles#An_Honest_Question:__How_is_this_related_article_.28British_Isles_naming_dispute.29_not_Original_Research.3F

If you feel that the section is bad for the Wiki-Process then please dump it. If you feel that it is worth addressing, then please do so. Anyways ... I don't want to get blocked over this.

Best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Heads-Up (part 2)

Hello ShieffieldSteel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles#Island_of_Great_Britain_and_Island_of_Ireland_need_to_be_used.

Here is what I intend to edit if the British Isles article becomes un-locked. I just wanted you to know eh. Take care and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello ShieffieldSteel. I have made the follow edit,

The British Isles are an island archipelogo off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the Island of Great Britain and the Island of Ireland, and numerous smaller adjacent islands.

The usage of the long-form name of the Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Island are correct, and in accordance with the Oxford Style Manual (2003) Style guide. I have reverted my edit twice today, and I will not go for 3rd Revert today (as per respecting 3-Revert Rule). Ghmyrtle and MITH have collectively combined to revert it more than 3-times ... but them is the breaks eh (an effective Cabal). That is how-things-are at ole Wikipedia (I know-the-ropes!). Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I think British Isles needs to be protected again. After Armchair's editing without consensus on a volatile page, other editors who seem to like the disruption such as User:MidnightBlueMan continue to make revert to back the edit despite the obvious lack of consensus or even discussion on the page. I think it may be time for full protection!MITH 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Please read the notice I've left at the Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Already posted; thanks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama fly swatting incident

Hi. I understand why you did that edit to Barack Obama fly swatting incident, and you explained your edit very well in the comment section. However, this particular article was intentionally written with a separate section for every tiny detail. Would you be willing to revert your edit? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Short answer: Not without a better reason.
• Long answer: If the article is intended to be a joke, or has been written to make or to prove a certain point, you should make that clear on its talk page, and arguably at its AfD. If it is meant to be a serious article, then you will have to accept that other editors will edit it, it will have to conform to the Manual of Style, and you'll have to provide arguments in favour of any particular format you think it should have. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Thank you for your response. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving ANI threads

Can you please stop archiving ANI threads so quickly, as you did with the CoM thread [5]. The most recent comments were barely an hour old, and discussion was not restricted to the validity of the expired original block. MickMacNee (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this was a problem. I really did think that a closure might be the best way to prevent further needless drama. If you wish to continue to discuss the issue there, I suggest starting a new thread as suggested by the discussion top notice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded on three of them; I'll think a bit more about 2 & 4. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/main_articles#Users_who_endorse_Proposal_B

With regard to your endorsement of the main article naming, I wondered if you were aware of the requirement in WP:NPOV#Article naming that things should be termed by "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources"? "Republic of Macedonia" is neither the common English language name nor is it (by a very long way) the predominant term in reliable sources, the vast majority of which use simply "Macedonia" (per [6]). It would be helpful if you could consider this point, and if you continue to favour the option you supported, if you could explain why you believe NPOV should be set aside in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I've posted some comments at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles#Users who endorse Proposal A which you might find helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris, if policy is as strict and clear as you say, then there is no room for individual opinion to affect this decision. On the other hand, if there is room for individual opinions here, please respect mine. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The final decision is actually up to the process referees, based on the arguments that have been put forward. It's not a vote but essentially a viewpoint-gathering exercise. It's just that if you're putting forward an argument that NPOV should be set aside in this instance, it would be useful to explain (and I would be personally interested to know) why you consider that to be necessary. I'm certainly not disrespecting your opinion - far from it; it's because I respect it that I'm asking for a clarification. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Having visited the talk pages of the other editors who have endorsed the same option as myself, I do not think that your actions are really appropriate, having the appearance of lobbying or pressuring other users into changing their positions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've not asked anyone to change their position. Please don't misrepresent my comments that way. If you check the discussion page, you'll see that (for instance) John Carter has posted a description of why he thinks NPOV's criteria aren't sufficient in this case. I've no intention of "lobbying" him because he's obviously addressed the issue of NPOV directly. It's only in a few cases where contributors have not addressed NPOV that I've asked them to clarify the issue - it's certainly not indiscriminate. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've amended my posting accordingly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. Fritzpoll, one of the referees in the discussion, has stated that he is "happy with what ChrisO has done" and does not see it as improper [7]. I see that you have posted followups on a number of user talk pages, prior to Fritzpoll's post. I am concerned that these could be very misleading, given that I have been cleared of any wrongdoing, so I would appreciate it you could in good faith remove those followups you posted. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on the Macedonia naming discussion page; could you please respond to this request, as I am concerned that while you may not be assuming bad faith your talk page followups do seem to be implying it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that your contacting these editors was a good idea. I do not think that you are the right person to be contacting those who have endorsed a position that's in opposition to your own view. One of the editors changed their position, endorsing your view, after you contacted them. Whatever your intentions - and I do not mean to imply that they are anything but good - the appearance of impropriety is clear and stark. I am not prepared to make any statement or edit that might give the impression that I approve of your actions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect you to, but there's a difference between "not making any statement or edit" approving of my actions and pro-actively going out to other users' talk pages, with whom you have not communicated before on this issue, and posting implications of bad faith. I hope you will refrain from repeating that in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not implying and have not implied bad faith; I quite carefully and straightforwardly stated what you had done. If any user read my message and formed the opinion that your conduct was problematic, we must consider whether such an opinion was formed on the basis of my words, or of your actions. I believe Occam's Razor would apply to such a question. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) I feel a little foolish for responding to what turned out to be a form letter, especially since there hasn't been any followup. I would really prefer to see these things on noticeboards and major article talk pages only. It doesn't seem to fall under the current canvassing guidelines, tho, except in a pretty squishy way - the part about preselecting recipients according to their established opinions. If he were engaging in serious dialogue with all the individuals to whom he sent the letter (in response to their votes for other proposals), it would look better. I don't know to what extent that's happening, and I don't really want to dig thru diffs and contribs to find out. Just my personal take. Novickas (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I've requested arbitration for DreamHost at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. I haven't added you as an involved party, but if you're interested, feel free to jump in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Block review needed

Hey Sheff. Following the suggestion of others, I'd like to limit my involvement. But his block [8] needs to reviewed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Although I have no opinion regarding the issue itself I think you should take a look at this diff [9] in case you didn't already see it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be covered at ANI. I don't really have much to add. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for looking into it for me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Sheff, I just wanted to thank you for the best wiki-smile I've had in days, maybe weeks. (e.g. "Support Candidate is a member of Wikiproject Foo. Down with WP:BAR!"). OK, full disclosure: It was a downright "Laugh Out Loud" moment. ;D — Ched :  ?  23:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Frei Hans

See [10] by User:Free Hans, clearly a sock. MuZemike 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Re-blocked by Gwen Gale. Thx, anyway! MuZemike 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Frei Hans now?

I'd like to unblock him now because of the idiotic attempt to get him further blocked. Let's let him comment on his Rfc, etc, it serves no useful purpose I can think of to keep him blocked and just drags this on. I think he will end up blocked indefinitely, but meanwhile what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just writing up a view for the RfC. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So, will you do it and explain why or shall I do it? I agree with your view by the way (although I must read it again). Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Give me a sec... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The user is continuously calling others sock puppets, he does more by baselessly accusing Gwen and another. Check his talk page. I suggest a reblock as he still thinks he's in the right, and will most likely try to get his articles back or something.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:NOTPLOT

Good morning. You recently made a cogent and articulate comment at WT:NOT on the topic of plot summaries. Would you consider joining the effort at Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works?

The goal is to more fully explain all the nuance and detail about dealing with plot summaries without bloating WP:NOT any more than it already is. In that regard, this page is intended to parallel WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which very successfully elaborates on and clarifies WP:NOTDICDEF.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Rossami (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I make no promises of further intelligent thought, but I'll take a look :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh??

Did you mean to do this? The warning makes no sense, as far as I can figure out. Friday (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... is the problem that I wrote a comment after a templated warning, or that you think that no personal attack was made? Should I have warned him not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? (If you don't know what that point is, I am happy to email you). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was weird to see "comment on content, not contributors" applied to a user conduct RFC. Commenting on contributors is the explicit purpose of such a page. And yes, now that you mention it, I don't see personal attacks there. I see some questionable claims that should be backed up by solid evidence, but no personal attack. I've no doubt that there are things going on here I'm not familiar with, but such a warning for posting an outside view just struck me as very odd. Friday (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the post slightly. I stand by this part: Our No Personal Attacks policy clearly says that some kinds of statement are never acceptable, including accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop writing on my talk page. Your insights are not welcomed, and given your history of attacking me, it is becoming increasingly difficult to AGF with regards to your actions. If you honestly believe that you are unbiased with regards to me, then perhaps just step back in spite of this, and show how great you are at staying cool. --Law Lord (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that my insights are not welcome. However, given that I have no history of attacking you, I do not see any reason to commit myself to not taking any future action in an administrative capacity, and such may include warning you. I find it rather odd that you would ask me to "step back" when you have recently commented at an RfC in which I took part, but to which you have no other apparent connection whatsoever. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

LL, please stop bringing your grudge into disputes which are unrelated.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint Daedalus. This is the first place I ask people to bring any problems they have with me, and I hope that Law Lord can restrain himself from raising such matters on otherwise unrelated pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, re. this revert: I'm preparing for the implementation of the results of the centralised discussion at WP:MOSMAC2, which were concluded yesterday. The Macedonia (i.e. country) article is soon to be moved back to Republic of Macedonia, so all links to plain "Macedonia" need to be disambiguated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Your edit does make sense, now that I think about it in that light. Sorry to've undone your work. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a link in WP:RESTRICT for one of your actions

You're the admin who entered Rotational's ban in WP:RESTRICT. Per my edit, the words 'community sanction' in Rotational's topic ban entry now are a link to your edit to his Talk page announcing the ban. For completeness, somebody should add the link to the ANI discussion as well, but I'll wait to see if you think that is necessary. Since the original text of a ban is not kept in some handy place like the block log, they tend to disappear. For other community-ban entries at RESTRICT, I see that the newfangled convention is to make a file like User:Calton/Community sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I sppreciate your thoughtfulness. Since you've gone to the trouble of digging out that link, I've gone ahead and added it to WP:RESTRICT. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, SheffieldSteel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

British Isles reversions

Just thought you should know. TharkunColl has just reverted a reversion on the British Isles page. [11] Due to your guidelines on the talk page this constitutes a block. I'd do it myself, but they're your guidelines and didn't know what kind of length you where considering. Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just caught myself in time responding! Would you restore the stable version? I think the insertion was a follow up on the mess with ArmChair and his Greek/Roman map. --Snowded ^TALK 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After blocking this editor, I am not about to revert their change just yet - particularly since several editors clearly have views on the subject. I'd like to see a discussion before anyone changes that again, even if the only consensus possible is to restore the pre-edit-war version. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deal and done --Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also blocked Footyfanatic3000 for reverting that same edit. With a view to further preventing this in future, I've added an edit notice to British Isles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, he was just returning it to the position it would have been in if your rule had been followed. Might encourage an IP to get him/her self banned just to get a position locked in. Looks like its been sorted now with the citation etc. however which is good news so hopefully the sanction is having an effect as people realise you are serious in its application. Maybe give him the same option as Tharky? --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just seen that you had already done that - thanks and apologies for bothering your talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my incomplete post. I should have said that both users are now unblocked, having agreed to abide by the restriction. I took some care to word the block log entires fairly, and hopefully neither user comes out of this looking bad.

I don't believe that any editor will attempt to game the system to "lock in" their preferred content. If they are in a tiny minority, a discussion will easily establish consensus to overturn their edit, and they will have been blocked for nothing; if their edit has overwhelming support then it ought to be easy to get consensus for it, and again it's not worth getting blocked over; for all situations in between, i.e. where consensus isn't obvious, a compromise ought to be sought. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅Would have a quick look at the talk page of British Isles. There looks to be an agreement on a change on the use of Welsh, and a consensus (with one active dissenter) to a suggested phrase on the contentious issue. Some advice would be appreciated on where we are on these issues. --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we make some progress on this please? We appear to have gone from one extreme to another. If we had a problem with edit warring before, we now have a situation where everyone is afraid to revert anything, even when there is agreement on it, for fear of being blocked. Surely that can't have been the intention. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring?

Hi. Are you still monitoring this article? An IP has been reverting an established editor against consensus and we can't do anything about it without risking a block ourselves. Thanks. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)