User talk:SheffieldSteel/Archive 1


Your AFD comment

I just dropped by to say I enjoyed your comment. You might have swayed me if you had used a different example - right now, re-voting the 2000 election doesn't seem like such a bad idea :) --Kubigula (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

I'm sorry if I deleted the extra info you inserted in the EVP article this morning. I got a little mixed up trying to keep the NPOV changes and delete the POV changes- You changes are now kept (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you last change -"The paranormal nature of EVP is disputed,"- it is good to have an editor who is not so ideologically motivated! Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. I'm just trying to be clear about what is what. SheffieldSteel 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Just a suggestion, when creating dates with citations, the format is year-month-day. So todays date would be 2007-03-29. I was doing the references for Flood Geology when I say a new reference. It caught me by surprise, because I was thinking, "hmmm, I don't usually do it like that." Anyways, I hope this helps out. Orangemarlin 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope

Your comment under Creationism seems to lend to the idea that you think the Pope is in charge or is president of Christianity. No...the Pope is a religious leader of Catholics. There is also Protestantism. I would read that article for your own education. Also, 90% of the worlds population belives there is a higher power, that is God. Fbc215 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wish I could draw Venn diagrams. I find it hard to explain logical issues without them. le sigh SheffieldSteel 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASP

I took out your (I think it was yours) mention of "anomalous speech products" in the EVP article definition. It appears that MacRae (and subsequent reports of his activity by AA-EVP) are the only ones on the planet to use this term. It probably shouldn't go in the definition, but can certainly be mentioned when the article talks about him specifically. LuckyLouie 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

No shouting, I promise... please see the note on the Solar System talk page. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP using unreliable sources to spread lies

as you did here, thank you. COFS 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to use only reliable sources, but I fear that where the church of Scientology is concerned, there aren't any. SheffieldSteel 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there are. It's just more WORK to find them. COFS 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps it's a lesser evil to include information from a dubious source, when that info can be refuted (allowing the read to make up their own mind), than to [hide ] information from a source that is beyond reproach, and attempt to mislead the reader as to what that source says. SheffieldSteel 23:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for example the not yet existent one called "Scientology critics scam" or "Atheists fighting Scientology" or "Lies about Scientology. Misou 05:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put this in context: COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SheffieldSteel 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday

Appropriate or not, I got a good chuckle out of your late-night comment on Talk:Intelligent Design. Gnixon 20:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad someone liked it. I've done the decent thing and got it out of the way now. SheffieldSteel 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Earth

Many thanks for the heads up about the airing of Planet Earth. I was enroute to New Guinea (!) at the time so missed it, but my TIVO caught it for my return. Anyhow, much appreciated... Mahalo and aloha! Arjuna 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll add comments if I feel I can make a contribution. SheffieldSteel 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep civil

DO not delete information on causes of abortion. http://www.fertilityfacts.org/articles/fertility-articles/your-lifestyle-can-impact-your-fertility.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2007

Advice from the master, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion&diff=124161807&oldid=124160755 SheffieldSteel 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as bad as this:

Did is the revert other user did, you wants facts for what is already given.

cur) (last) 21:28, 19 April 2007 Severa (Talk | contribs) (72,080 bytes) (Rv. WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. There are multiple other causes listed at Miscarriage, and "stress" or "lifestyle" aren't one of them. No reason this should squeak by with a fact tag.) And g, you posted my only reply, but ignored good ones. Nice hypocrite. Keep in mind guys, many of your sources are not always reliable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 April 2007

Goodness me, what a horrible revert by Severa... including links to wikipedia policies like that is so... brutal.
Now, as to your accusation of hypocrisy (nice choice of section in which to make it, by the way!)... whether most of your contributions to Talk pages are civil is beside the point; they all should. be SheffieldSteel 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought anyone would take exception to my edit summary, I thought it would be SheffieldSteel, because the "squeak by" comment was more directed at his (or her) addition of the fact tags. I'm sorry if that came across the wrong way. Let's all of us take a step back for a minute. Everything that's added to Wikipedia is subject to the policies I linked in my edit summary (V, CITE, and RS). That means, Foremanfan, that if you want to add new information to Wikipedia, you generally have to provide a source to verify this information (unless you're taking that information from another article, and the sources are already listed in that article). In this case, the information on miscarriage added to Abortion was not supported by a source, nor was it supported by the information and sources already present at the article Miscarriage. The onus is on the editor who wants to add new information to an article to provide sources before that information is added. It isn't the other way around. Sources must also meet the standard of WP:RS; an essay "written by AJ," which does not list any of its own sources, and which is hosted on a site filled with Google Ads is not a reliable source. Also, Foremanfan and SheffieldSteel both, please remember to sign your name at the end of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). That makes discussion easier to follow. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

Sorry, I have to disagree with "the thing which is unusual, thus meriting the term "phenomenon", is that the presence of the "electronic voice" is unexplained." Only a relatively small group of EVP/paranormal/proponents call it a phenomenon and say it's unexplained. The rest of the world, including professional audio engineering organizations, don't call it anything -- and haven't reported any unexplainable anomalies with regard to audio technology, design, or application. Therefore those sorts of claims need to include a phrase such as "said by paranormal investigators to be". See my note on the Talk page. -- LuckyLouie 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar :)

I don't get a lot of them, and they are appreciated. I wasn't sure if my most recent edits have been overkill. The page is already featured, after all. But thank you. Serendipodous 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Hey, please excuse my alteration of your comment. I still don't quite see the difference between making a suggestion outright (the way I edited your comment) and making one indirectly as you did. Nevertheless, I acknowledge and submit to your personal sovereignty and will refrain from any further edits of the like. I would appreciate a direct suggestion here, if you have one. Thanks. —Red Baron 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom evidence..

I thought it might be a good idea to cut down on the mass of arbcom evidence information there is. I cut my evidence down to simply pointing out that parapsychology being affiliated with the AAAS doesn't mean it's a 'field of science' and I believe we should probably combine our evidences into one single part so that the arbcom folks don't have to wade through it all. Would you be willing to allow me to bind your evidence into mine and you erase yours? TO make it easier for the arbcom reviewers to read it all? Since it's essentially the same thing.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk exchange with ProtoCat

Hi Sheffield: I left a post on User talk:ProtoCat recommending that some of the exchanges be struck or removed, towards a possible fresh start. Any interest? ... Kenosis 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoCat

Until he/she gives any reason for us to think otherwise, I think it's time to stop feeding the troll. Because polite efforts to respond to queries they made to me have resulted first in them calling me a stalker, because I went to their talk page like I asked, then, when they asked me what they were doing wrong, the current rant resulted. I call troll. Adam Cuerden talk 19:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ProtoCat was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. If it looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, smells like a troll, and lives under a bridge, well, it's a sockpuppet troll. Orangemarlin 06:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Researching Wikipedia Online Survey

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - Abortion, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Scientology

The section you "restored" is unreferenced and targets the Church of Scientology, not Scientology. A belief system cannot be harassing or exploiting individuals. In this light your edits seems to have the sole intention to throw mud on the belief system using allegations against the Church. Please understand that this practice has been tolerated for much too long and violates WP:BIAS. COFS 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You wanna finish this discussion? COFS 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Per WP:NPA I would appreciate it if you redact your comment that I am a Scientologist editor. I find the remark rather offensive.

I have no connection to, nor interest in, Scientology.

My only interest is in ensuring NPOV articles. If you want the wording included, provide a source that says it, and I'll revert myself and add the source. Otherwise, insisting that unsourced statements and claims can be made, and then demonstrated, is original research and is prohibited.

Best regards. Peace in God. Lsi john 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have assumed that in Good Faith you would have redacted the comment yourself, so I have saved you the trouble and done it for you. Best.

Peace in God. Lsi john 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with the brainwashed

Hang in there SheffieldSteel. I am sure you have already found a few folks chronically lie about themselves and their intentions here. They do NOT assume good faith because their policies and practices dictate otherwise. --Fahrenheit451 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about me; I'll be fine. But thanks for your support. SheffieldSteel 22:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Heart

The Purple Heart
I, Smee, award this barnstar to SheffieldSteel for enduring flack and uncivil behaviour while being a good editor and making valued contributions to the project. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Your work here is appreciated by the community. Yours, Smee 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration notification

Per recommendation from the WP:CSN closure I have initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#COFS. You are a named party in the request so you may wish to submit a statement to the Committee. DurovaCharge! 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project

Hey, I noticed you were a frequent contributor to the Electronic voice phenomenon article and I thought I'd let you know that I'm proposing a rewrite project for the article. I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. Currently the article seems to have numerous dispute problems including POV issues and I thought I could get it to at least a Good Article. You can see my proposal on it's talk page here Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. There are a few questions I'd like you to answer first though. If you have any questions about it you can leave me a message. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments EVP

Comments on new version of EVP intro? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problerms with C++

In reply to your "add references" message on my talk page, generally, I can't be bothered to spend ages looking for references for something that's bloody obvious :P But, just for you, I've added some quotes from the man himself, Mr.Stroustrup. I might add some more if I find the time (quite unlikely ;) ) Pog 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warthog

Were you going to offer a 3rd opinion on the dispute or in some other way deal with your removal of it from the 3rd Opinion page? 24.6.65.83 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am writing it up now. I think it deserves more than a rapid response. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got a little concerned when the request disappeared and there wasn't a post to the Warthog talk page for at least ten minutes. Sorry for doubting you. :) 24.6.65.83 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

[1] –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examine a Case Before Passing Judgment

You should see the first para of the main article Rgveda, in which there was a statement about Rgveda's dating which was falsely sourced to a work by Max Muller. I supplied the correct citation about dating from that work, but DAB removed the entire reference. Thus, the statement became unreferenced,which is bad. Then, I replaced the absolute dating 1700-1100 BC (which needs source; same statement is repeated elsewhere where source is given, but an unsourced statent in the beginning is bad) by a relative dating 'much before the Buddha', which no one would have challenged. There was no need to discuss dating in introduction,because it has a separete passage. DAB reverted my well-intentioned action and again inserted absolute dating without any citation, and posted an abusive message to my talk page. I find many people in Wiki are passing judgments without judging a case. I complained to many admins about DAB's insulting behaviour and wrong edits, but no one checks him. Moreschi said yesternight that no one will sympathise with me , after which I was frustrated and issued a legal warning to DAB in order to check him from abusing me publicly, for which Moreschi instantly banned me indefinetely. I did not know a legal warning against illegal activities is not favoured in Wiki, I joined Wiki just a month ago. But I do not edit an article unless I have adequate expertise of the topic together with adequate sources. Today, DAB inserted an unsourced statement by removing a well sourced one and abused me for giving a sourced statement ! Who will check him ? Implement what you have posted at Talk:Rgveda, and remove unsourced statement which has been inserted by removing a sourced one. The list of past complaints, see talk page of Abecedare and Moreschi. I am being abused and harassed and no one listens. -Vinay Jha 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not passing judgment. I was pointing out an important wikipedia principle because I thought, based on your post at Talk:Rigveda, that you would benefit from reading about it. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Vinay Jha 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lexie Kaye

Before an article is nominated for deletion it should be advised to edit first. Chuck Sirloin did not do that and created this madness as you referred to it. His "reasons" are not valid enough for deletion and did not give the opportunity to edit before deleting 95% of the article. Multiple citations in an article are a good form of resources according to what I read on WP. So the article is well documented and linked to other pages verifying that information. Why this individual's page is being targeted is beyond any rational decision. And I hope Chuck Sirlion gets blocked for his continued actions and edits on this site and not only with the Lexie Kaye article but for others as well. I agree with what you stated, this is ridiculous and it all began with Chuck Sirloin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Industry101 (talk • contribs)

I think you are confusing two things:-
  • the act of nominating an article for deletion
  • placing a notice on that article that says it has been nominated.
Your repeated removal of the notice from the article has had no effect upon the AfD discussion, which continues whether or not it is brought to peoples' attention by the notice on the article. Whether or not you think the article should be deleted (and I am not interested in the answer to that question) it makes no sense to remove the notice, which should (as a matter of normal wikipedia procedure) be added to the article. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack!

Completely ignore my last edits! WP:VandalProof has a few kinks to be worked out! Sorry about that! Dreadstar † 06:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precession (astronomy)

You are interested in this article. Many readers have asked for deduction/elucidation of the precession formulae (which other contributors rightly say is 19-page long, cf. Talk page), which I can put here in very concise, lucid and well sourced way (Newtonian, plus relativistic corrections), but I am being reverted almost eveywhere before I finish. -Vinay Jha Talk 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

EU page

Hi, sorry to bring up the European Union article again, I know it can get tedious. Basically it is about the city table. Small point but we've been wanting to replace it, thus far Lear has been the only one wanting the old and has reverted any changes. A summery of options has been written up, I'd appreciate it if you'd give a comment. Don't mind what you pick as it will either help convince Lear to compromise for once or it will legitimise what he is doing (if he has support I don't mind, so long as it is not him alone). See here for the summery. If you could pop an opinion I'd be grateful before it turns into 3 pages of "standard content" vs "consensus" again. I understand if you don't want to or don't have time to. And thanks for your past contributions there! - J Logan t: 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, so sorry that it keeps coming back to this. We've got another summery: numbers of cities. If you have time I'd be greatful if you could drop a comment. Thanks. - J Logan t: 07:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 article

Thanks. Your answer was great. I was focusing too much on the guideline and not enough on NPOV. --PTR 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

88.82.46.193

Banning me is absurd.But i wouldn't be suprized.Do them in black and white.That way,no more arguments,and i will be happy.Like i said before,but you didn't listen,i don't care about the kmines screenshots.Also an svg should definetly satisfy me.--88.82.46.193 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.32.78 (talk • contribs)

memo Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 04:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ip adress

What?You are happy that i was blocked for the ip address?Do you really beleave that i was thretening you?--88.82.32.78 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you were threatening me is irrelevant. Anybody who wanted to stalk me, or you, could look through page histories and find such information. I deliberately avoided posting your name, address, email, or fax number out of respect for your privacy - and because I respect wikipedia's privacy guidelines, which state that such information should not be posted. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really pathetic

NNNOO.You silly,it's not possible to have that kind of detail from the net alone,without special prevelages.The adress ,tellephone,fax ...is,the person responsible in my isp.It's not me.Maybe you should reed the article about ip's.--88.82.32.78 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I misunderstood some information. However, I did still act in good faith, out of respect for WP's privacy guidelines. You did not.
I'm not sure further conversation on this subject will be productive. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would stop posting messages to this page. Thank you. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioshock -360 Achievements page

Good point. I didn't realize it shouldn't be part of the gameplay section. Thanks for fixing it! I was thinking of adding 360 Achievements sections to other games. What should it be part of, if not the gameplay section? Should it just be an external link? --UaneReade 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I wrote a response here, but on reflection I decided to post it on Talk:BioShock. Your question is relevant to many games, and I think any discussion of it needs a bigger audience than it will get here. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TDVision AFD Page

Thank you for your comment it was very informative. Could you give me some help getting this article accepted. It really is not meant to be advertising and the company is very notable. The cover of the Chicago Tribune, Exclusive use in Northrop Grumman targeting systems, industry acceptance and unique technology are all reasons. 3dtech 23:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said

Well said. I was getting a little perplexed by the weirdness of the opposing argument myself. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

Hello! I would love to hear your input on my most recent comment in this section at Talk:Abortion. Thank you! Your logic is great, by the way. Photouploaded 16:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time thinking through a response... until another thread started on the same topic. I think we're making progress on this issue. And thanks for the compliment! Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 23:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Hi, would you care to comment here as to whether you stuck out your comment because you think Iwazaki did violate WP:NPA or because you noticed there was already a discussion going on further down the page. Thanks. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki's attack

Please take a look here. Watchdogb 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:EMBaero

Hi Sheffield. I noticed your comment on the user page of EMBaero about his username. I'm cooperating with him over fixing up the contributions of a difficult user (user:Genick), at the moment. May I ask what the worry is? Regards, AKAF 15:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you left me a message about my user name, EMBaero. I am rather surprised by this as I do not see how it violates the Wikipedia name policy. Please let me know if there are any specific problems with it - it is simply some initials with the word 'aero' after it since I am interested in editing aerodynamics articles. I am having some problems with the user Genick, who is harassing me over changes I am making to his edits and he has apparently had issues with my name. This user has caused a lot of problems with Wikipedia aerodynamics pages (see his discussion page - I am going to work with AKAF to try to resolve these issues.) EMBaero 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero[reply]

Response to both

In addition my concerns about a potential conflict of interest, the username implies that this user may be a representative of a company (EMB Aero LLC, Lakeland FL 33809), which is a violation of username policy (specifically, the "Promotional" clause). Would some other series of initials be acceptable? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About this company

I searched for this company, and I can't find a website or anything else for it. It appears that someone created 'EMB Aero LLC' as a limited liability company and registered a small airplane under it, probably just for taxation or liability purposes. Maybe this person is a flight instructor or something of that nature where he or she is paid to have some passengers on the plane. The similarity of my name to this extremely small pseudo-company is a complete coincidence, and I would like to keep my name for the sake of continuity if possible. I've never been within 1000 miles of Lakeland, Florida. Not to be overly nit-picky, but your name also can be mistaken for a company (Sheffield Steel Products Inc., 355 Ledge Road, Macedonia, OH). I'll request a name change later today if it is still a problem. EMBaero 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero[reply]

Touché. However, my contributions are related to neither Sheffield nor steel. I think it's the combination of your interest in aerodynamics plus your username that might be a problem (the initials EMB are also used to refer to Embraer jets). I would suggest we see what other editors think about this, although Requests for comment / usernames says it's only for cases where an editor refuses to change their name - and the other available forum, Usernames for admin attention is for users where a block is requested based on username. Since you're clearly a good faith contributor and willing to discuss this matter, wikipedia doesn't seem to have a venue for this. How odd. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having another editor take a look at it sounds like a good idea to me. This might seem like a fine line, but I do not plan on editing any articles about aircraft - only the principles of aerodynamics and biographies of some of the early pioneers in the field. I would have no problem changing my name, but the fact that all of my edits will not be transferred to the new name is what holds me back from doing so. The user name policy is specifically against: "Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it" - and my name does not exactly match either of these companies nor will I be promoting them. In short, you can trust me, and my only motive is to help Wikipedia in expanding articles on aerodynamics. EMBaero 18:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)EMBaero[reply]
The great thing about wikipedia is that generally the admins can not only lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, they can usually even put the horse back in (although not in the case of biographies of living persons). After reading your replies, and thinking about this some more, I really have no problem with you continuing to edit under your current name. Good faith editors who're willing to politely discuss problems are a valuable resource at wikipedia, and as such I hope you continue to contribute in whatever field interests you. I'd also like to wish you good luck dealing with that other editor, by the way :-) Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

That comment of yours on ANI was not helpful, nor was it funny. Would you please consider removing it? Picaroon (t) 01:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG... that is so incredibly offensive, especially given that I declare my Judaism, it's downright hilarious! No worries, I am sure you do not wish my death in a gas chamber etc. You made my day. -- Y not? 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind if I again remove the phrase in question. I absolutely did not intend any offense to you or anyone else. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

questions:

What would be an acceptable source?
What would constitute an acceptable source for the statement that creationists reject evolution? Just to cite some hypothetical examples, how about...
a prominent creationist leader personally offering a substantial cash reward for anyone providing proof of evolution, or

a statement by a creationist group that belief in evolution is wrong and is responsible for many social ills?

Just throwing some ideas out there. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dontletmedown"

This is what you put on my talk page. Why are these discussions not allowed on the original page?

Yes I think these would be something to look at. However does one extrememist speak for all 'creationists' I am sure we could find some very extreme muslim positions but do they speak for all muslims? Dontletmedown 13:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to reply to ongoing discussions wherever they are, but I don't think it's helpful to spread them to new pages such as this. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie A. Lewis

Hello,

You recently voted in an AfD for Leslie A. Lewis and made a comment about there being too few references. The nominator, an administrator, has tampered with the integrity of the AfD by removing much of the article's content, protecting it to keep it that way. Please review the article the way it was before he did so, and consider whether your opinion is consistent with what is really up for debate. Thanks Reswobslc 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say thank you for bringing this to my attention, although I do not think that "This one should not count" was really an appropriate way to discuss my contribution. Nevertheless I have reviewed the extra sources and amended my post. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the update regardless. The "This one should not count" is nothing personal, it's just you referred to a rationale including the article being poorly sourced and commenting on its "three" cites at a time when it had twice that, and that appeared to amount to an obvious clerical sort of error. Reswobslc 13:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you learn from this experience you're sure to be a much stronger candidate next time around, and I look forward to being able to support you then. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support.

Especially your very nice comment about me showing grace under pressure. I appreciated that.

Guy Fawkes Remember, remember, the fifth of November?
Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007.
It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is how we feel"

I just saw your comment on AfD/Revolution-based and wanted to tell you how cool that name is. (Only band that matters.) Wish I had been as clever. Hult041956 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It's good to hear from someone who got the reference! Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I assumed correctly. Take care. Hult041956 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 10:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on BQZip01's talk page

Respectfully, I guess I disagree. I viewed this as simple disinformation without any source to back it up. This is like quibbling over whether the FBI executed a search warrant or agents of the FBI executed a search warrant. Through the agents, they executed a search warrant, but the terminology is still accurate in the original and the changes only added wordiness/confusion. Personally, I am not too thrilled about "affiliated with Al Qaeda" since membership in al Qaeda doesn't exactly give you their secret decoder rings or a membership card...contrary to the rules of war, but that's another battle... but I'm leaving that one for now while I work on other articles. — BQZip01 — talk 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is one of those questions where it's quite reasonable to see either side as being correct. For my part, I saw the phrase "attacks by al-Qaeda" as somewhat similar in structure to phrases such as "the scientific community states X" - in other words, perhaps a little too metaphorical, considering the informal nature of the organisation. Next time, I'll use the article Talk page for raising such questions.
It's a shame that one can't add as much information to an edit summary as your post above contains - indeed, the default summary for a revert has zero information content beyond the bare facts of what has been reverted (hence my post to your Talk page). Anyway, thanks for the reply! Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO 3 comment

Greetings,

My intent here is not to sway your comment either way but to clarify at least my participation in the RfC. The RfC was filed based on the actions of the editor and not the content proposed by said editor. Hence the User RfC and not an Article or other type of RfC. spryde | talk 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this response. I'll review my comment and see if I ought to clarify it. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That is very odd. Thanks for fixing my edit. I'll have to get to the bottom of things. Hopefully it was just some weird glitch on wikipedia's side of thing and not a sign of my computer being infected by something. Thanks again for looking out!-Andrew c [talk] 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ethnic Taiwanese Imperial Japan Serviceman

Sure, please review this article and make any necessary change as you see fit. Thanks in advance. --K kc chan (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was basically translating the same article on Chinese WikiPedia. I'm not sure if you can read Chinese language, but if not, you are gonna have take my word for it. On the Chinese WikiPedia, it does not specify the number of people tried, it simply says "Convicted: 173, Sentenced to death: 26" and nothing else. It also states that there were 5,369 Japanese and 129 Koreans convicted for class B and C war crime, so perhaps we can rephrase it to "Of the 5,671 IJA and IJN personnels convicted for Class B and C war crime, 173 of them were ethnic Taiwanese, and 26 of them were sentenced to death" or something like that.
Also, of the some thirty thousands dead, about 26,000(number from Japanese WikiPedia) of them were enshrined in the controversial Yasukuni Shrine. Can you include this piece of information in the article? Thanks.--K kc chan (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. If you don't mind, can you do another copy editing on this article again? I made some major changes on it and would like to have someone look at it. --K kc chan (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear SheffieldSteel,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've suggested an RfC because I feel that would be a better way to get input from many editors. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SheffieldSteel's summary This is not my summary Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WHAT is not you summery, and who says it is? You proposed some text, right? What is the misunderstanding?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "This is not my summary" because the text following was not the summary that I proposed. Someone changed it - and I don't know who, because various editors on that page are in the habit of cutting, pasting, and moving text around, without necessarily signing their contributions or clarifying who said what. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 01:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my RFA

 Thank you!

Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 19:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AfD Votes

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the advice! Cheers, iMatthew 2008 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany proposed for deletion

Dear SheffieldSteel, Because you took the time to wade through these posts, I thought you might want to weigh in here. Thanks, Renee (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I will have a look. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter

Hi and welcome to the project. There is a Newsletter and please help us keep Formula One related articles up to scratch. This isn't an official welcome, just a hi off me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbennaitor (talk • contribs)

Thanks! unofficially Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India

Your counter-proposal is well worded and very fair. I detect a fair amount of frustration in this issue where people have got too emotionally involved and are now unable to deal rationally with the situation. SilkTork *YES! 08:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think you've summed it up well. It's a very difficult situation for everyone involved. Hopefully we can still find the best solution for WP as a whole - whether that's an encyclopaedic article, or no article, I don't mind. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart WP:BLP page

Hi, in your recent edit, you removed the Echo Squad product which this company developed for GameTap because it wasn't 'published'. I'm not sure if it makes any difference as to whether or not it was published, but they did in fact publish the Second Edition of the title this past March 7th. Please correct this at your earliest convenience.

Also, removing a title which was developed because it wasn't published is like trying to re-write history or not listing a movie, book or other artistic works because they were un-released or canceled. That does not take away from the fact that the works were in fact created. Perhaps the heading of the section should be changed from 'Published Games' to 'Developed Games'? 207.218.231.211 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I have added this new title to the list at Derek_Smart#Published_games. I must say that it certainly does make a difference, when compiling a list of published games, whether or not a title has been published. I'm sure you would not want the Derek Smart article to contain inaccuracies, although WP:BLP applies regardless of anyone's wishes on the subject. As for the suggestion of changing the table to list developed games rather than published titles: I'm not sure that such information would be well suited to a table. The "Game Development" section does already go into considerable detail about unpublished works and I think that that is the best place to treat such matters. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
btw that game is actually developed and published by 3000AD (like their previous games), not Gamers Gate. They, like Direct2Drive, Digital River etc are just online portals where you can buy the game. Those distributors also sell all 3000AD games.
Also, I agree that changing the name of the section won't make much difference.
As of March 18th, there is also a new game called Galactic Command Knightblade not in the current projects section. This according to his dev blog and the press release is what Bravo Team was morphed into. So perhaps the current projects section needs to be updated accordingly.

Also, someone added an incorrect quote in the Derek_Smart#Current_projects. Thats not what he said. If read post #7 in the second link (which is not even valid in a WP:BLP article since it is a forum post), this is what he said:

In fact, here's my pledge to you: If you're a space sim fan, can't wait for the demo and you buy the game (Gamers Gate already has it online, Direct2Drive follows later today I think) but think its crap, I'm tits up and talking trash, I'll personally refund your money. And you still get to keep the game (i.e. I won't invalidate your DRM license on the server).

He was talking to one single person, that being Hump, the guy he was responding to. The MTV blog (is that link even allowed under WP:BLP?) also recorded it incorrectly.

75.125.163.152 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion is continued on Talk:Derek Smart. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 05:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your C++ article patch

Arguably spammy, perhaps. AFAIK, DMS is the *only* tool in the world that actually combines the features in that sentence into a system capable of actually transforming C++. IDB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.210.165 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. In general I don't think the name of a commercial tool belongs in an article about a programming language - we don't mention lint (for example). But please, by all means raise the matter at Talk:C++ so we can get some other opinions. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 05:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patent list discussion

Ok ... I would like to do your suggestion. Where can this be discussed? has there been any discussions on it? Where is a good spot for input from thje community? You chooose for me if you would please ...

BTW, thanks for the rephrasing ... J. D. Redding 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a definitive answers myself. I'm making enquiries at the Village Pump. I'll let you know when I hear anything. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... J. D. Redding 19:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On "Ignorant"

No apologies needed on your two-cent deposit in the discussion I was having elsewhere on the use of the word "ignorant" -- but your definition of "ignorant" is wonky. Scope out this page: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant -- the word goes somewhat beyond "does not know," and the negativity associated with it is not pleasant. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the definition you've provided just confirms what I said.
Ignorant means lacking in knowledge, training, or information, whether it's applied to a person, a statement, or whatever. Rather than assuming that it was meant as an insult (which is at odds with our guidelines on assuming good faith), it would be more productive to counter the accusation of ignorance by demonstrating knowledge in the relevant field. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but didn't you just contradict yourself? Calling someone's ideas "ignorant" is not a compliment. If anything, it shreds good faith by assuming that the person offering an opinion is clueless to the subject at hand, and his comments are without value. I happen to have researched Dr. Klein before weighing in and found no evidence of his alleged medical innovations -- he only improved existing procedures. I took time to determine whether the inclusion of the article was justified, and dismissing my input as "ignorant" is a miserable insult.Ecoleetage (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the contradiction you are seeing. You seem to be reading a lot into the statement in question. He said that your claim was "ignorant of academic practices", which means that he thinks that anyone who would make such a claim must be lacking in knowledge of academic practices. Accusing the other editor of insulting you distracts from the discussion. The most productive counter to his remark is a demonstration of your knowledge of academic practices in this field, ideally as it relates to the notability of the article subject. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry, but you contradicted yourself again. You stated that the comment in question was made by someone who "thinks that anyone who would make such a claim must be lacking in knowledge of academic practices." Is that a statement of good faith? Not in my book. Of course, the source of the statement also insisted there was genuine notability for Dr. Klein because there were 14,000 Google hits for this subject -- ignoring the basic fact that the majority of those Google references were repetitions, and a good slice of the listings came from Dr. Klein's personal web site! So much for "academic practices."

Look, I have no problem debating adults with facts. But I don't call people names and I don't like being called names.Ecoleetage (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that it is a statement made in good faith. He has said, and I have said, that it is possible to interpret his statement as being not an insult. In other words, he and I both believe that you are not "being called names". Please accept this, in the spirit of WP:AGF, and then we can all move on with our contributions to Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am afraid that we must politely agree to disagree on this matter. While I appreciate your defense of your friend, I think it is fairly obvious how that comment was intended.Ecoleetage (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your friend apologized for any perceived negativity. Everything worked out. Thanks for your input, by the way, I enjoyed chatting with you. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering a few truly offensive words that I have written in the past, I would be pleasantly surprised if Swatjester considered me a friend. Anyway, I'm glad to hear that the issue was resolved between you. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes

SheffieldSteel: Thanks for your assistance on the binary prefix issue. I wanted to make sure you were aware that I recently posted the more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry we couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I will take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion

Oh sorry boss, i'm not really familier with these. sorry again.  A M M A R  18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not a problem - we are all learning. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was telling you off. I just wanted to explain what happened, and why. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input

Hi there,

I noticed you for a discussion on MfD, since you have some idea about the topic of Sahaj Marg, If you have some time, it will be nice incase you can give your input about wikipedia policies like RS, NPOV, V, etc about this page [2], use the talk page for your comments. I will address the BLP concerns and then will file for DRV. Thanks --talk-to-me! (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know a lot about the subject, I am quite familiar with the article history. I'd be glad to take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Your comments

Thanks for reviewing the RfC of User:Cult free world's proposed page! I have posted a reply for you there. I have tried all my best to convey my findings to CFW but to little effect, any of your further comments would be very useful. Duty2love (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Thanks for notifying me. I have replied to the message with diffs. Hope you see the things in real light. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think your statement was all that bad. I'm just trying to resolve the situation so that discussion about the real problem (where the Falls is located) can continue. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do appreciate your point of view on this, but in the process of being good, you are letting an editor who has very clearly been intrupting the Hogenakkal falls article from advancing go free. You will see for yourself that I had been as kind as humanly possible with him. That user fails to take third party opinion too. Anyways, I guess we should talk further at the AN/I section to keep records. Thanks anyways. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother again on your talk page, but is the AN/I closed? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I've replied on AN/I. I think that particular "incident" is closed; of course we still have to find a way to resolve the underlying content dispute. I'll help with that if I can. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, SheffieldSteel, to be honest what you have done is to let go the real person who has caused so much wasting of time and energy in the talk page of Hogenakkal falls. Please do go and investigate there yourself. I have replied to you here [3]. If I'm not allowed to refer to WP:Bullshit, why is it there? Why am I warned for that? Your warning message on my talkpage is not fair at all. I have shown you loads of evidence that the user has disrupted the progress of the article. If AN/I is unfair then why do we go there. Who ever raises the voice first walks away getting the other one warned. Is that so? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that, if you can do another third opinion for the issue that will be good too. Atleast this time Naadapriya may heed something. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I issued the "Civility warning" because I wanted to defuse the issue between the two of you. Remember that all it really is, is a gentle reminder to you that WP:CIVIL should be respected. The two of you are not going to solve this problem by asking the admins to step in and warn/ban/block the other editor, and I wanted to stop Naadapriya pursuing that idea. The way forward is to take one of the dispute resolution tools and apply it to the problem. Sadly, I think that at least one other editor has already commented, so asking for a third opinion is not really applicable to this problem. However, I believe that a Request for Comment could be very productive. If you're interested in this, I could prepare and format it for you. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you can help with an RfC that will be a brilliant thing. BTW, in the process of difussing the issue, you just made my moral take a deep dive down the cliff, after me being as tolerant as possible. I never asked any ban or warning on anyuser, but the other one did and got his/her way done. On second thought walking in your shoes, I guess you wanting to difuse is a smart move. Now to move on; When I asked User:John Carter to comment, I didn't know that there was some kinda history between the article Naadapriya was editing and John. I went for him because he introduced me to the world of DYKs and since after that I had been in touch with him with loads of other wiki issues, giving me good honest advices (in my opinion he's a great chap). Anyways, having said that there can be a possible history there, Naadapriya seems not to like John's comment. I think Walton One will be giving his comments too (hoping that there is no history there) pretty soon. In the mean while, if you can look into giving your own opinion, that will be good too, hoping that the AN/I won't be considered as past history. Anything that can end this dispute asap!!! It had already costed me my moral, not sure how much more it will ask for. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just realised that I should have asked you this. How come you over looked that User:Naadapriya should have raised the what ever issue he/she has with me on my talk page. The AN/I page says that Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page. You may very well think that am being stupidly persistant sitting over the past, but well, if you were me, you will feel the same old stress too. Sorry, I do want to move ahead, and I do sound like a brat. But, as I said, you leaving me warning message, as far as I can see, is completely unfair. Please do not mix up your help on the waterfalls issue with my displeasure on your AN/I ruling. I hate ad hominem. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was passing judgment on you, rather than on your posts. That was not my intent. I've reworded the original "warning" and I hope that this may go some way to reducing your stress level. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! I was just posting a message for you and it all went off saying there is an edit conflict. Let me recollect.. mm huh.. Yes. Thanks for the message on my talk page. I do appreciate that. As for RfC, let me know if you need me to do anything. Then the next thing I wanted to ask, was if you know anyone who is an expert in geology. My expertise in it is pretty limited as am just an ecologist. I found it interesting that the carbonatites formation at this locaty is one of the oldest in the world and oldest in the subcontinent. It also seem to be an interesting point where the deccan plane falls steep. I am not too positive that leaving a request on a wikiproject page. People hardly get back because they have their own interests anyways. If we can't find one the article as to live with my amateur geology. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I know just enough geology to associate boundaries of harder/softer rock with spectacular waterfalls... but we already know that's going on. I don't know what to suggest other than to seek out reliable sources discussing the geology of the region. But we really shouldn't be using our own knowledge anyway - I'm know you're aware of the dangers of including original research in an article. Let's continue discussion on the article talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, these are not ORs. I have papers on them. I can pass them on to you. I don't add things myself without WP:RS materials. Do you think you can do something with that. I can't access them now from home, but once I get to work I can send them across. BTW, thanks for the info on edit conflicts. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hogenekkal issue

i saw u replying to the talk page on this water falls location dispute , its so nice to see you to spare time in resolving issues , and the way you react is nice ...and being the second editor and a person who wants the article to stay the way it is now un disturbed i wish to request you to assist me in working with this article ...being a newbie to these edit conflicts and other such issues im unable to proceed any further on this articles Talk page , i got introduced with this article with enough proofs from 3 sides ie:from the central government(the single largest proof) , from the Karnataka state tourism dept(should be quite enough) , from the Tamil nadu state who owns it since long, but its quite shocking to see a single member disrupts the whole article with multiple edits , it would be nice and supportive and constructive if the member provides some good citations , but the member seems to edit based on unverified claims (Google hits) and some press release , the citations/references that the member gives would be only suitable (may be even not) for a talk page , i refrained from editing this article as im closely watching the improvements towards the troubled side . so i hereby wish so sort of assistance from you about how am i to work / proceed now . regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My request for help

I note that you informed the editor I am in dispute with of my request for help. In view of this, I just wondered wether you had yet had a chance to read the reply I left for you?  ♫ Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 12:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'm continuing the thread here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Hogenakkal falls

Just thought I should bring a few things to notice for you and John. There is this User:Skbhat who has been adding things to the article. I would like him to participate in the RfC to sort the issue once and for all, because I do have concerns on the references that person is providing as I have mentioned in the user's talk page. BTW can you archive some of you old messages please :D Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the archiving thing. I've had some... technical issues with the archiving bot. (Technically speaking, I am too stupid to set up the archiving bot.) As for the other user: while I agree that it would be great if they contributed to the RfC, I think it would be a bad idea to suggest it to them because it might create the impression of seeking sympathetic contributions (see WP:CANVASS). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just thought it would be nice to notify the user. Afterall it seems unfair since Naadapriya has to defend the other party stance alone and I got Pearll's sun. I know that head-counts doesn't matter. I was wondering if that user had reasons other than Naadapriya's it would be good to go through them too. I feel it is better to sort out things once and for all, although it may delay the course of RfC, but will help the article in a longer run. Anyways, I guess you would know better. O and thanks for the archiving. My home laptop (after my wife pinched mine) seems to turn into a cheap Argos fan heater when large pages load...lol. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humor

I just wanted to say that I thought this diff was quite funny! Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh :-) Glad you saw the funny side. Parts of that debate are getting a little too scary for my taste. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipages in need

Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) so I am sending you this message for Wikipages in need.

Plain White T's needs a lot of help. It is a sketchy article.

8- inch floppy disc also needs help. There were a few notes that floppy disk was too long so I made a new article from part of that one.

From, --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism Comment

I realized it was OR, which is why it was on a talk page. Just adding color. If I wrote what I've really found (which I did not because I am not looking for arguments or promoting any single view), it is this: I have never met ANYBODY who would admit to not believing that evolutionary theory is correct, except for two people: One ultra-religious Jew (who in essence even then thought that evolution may be how G-d did it), and one guy who was strongly born-again Christian, who home-schooled his kids because he was afraid that his kids might get a teacher who was not heterosexual. Of course, I live in the NYC Metro area, which is home to all sorts of sinners. :-) Sposer (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say. Apologies if I was unclear: I wasn't accusing you of OR, but the editor above you, who posted "realistically, about half believe in creation". I found that remark just a little too... remarkable. The fact is, no amount of discussing such questions on the Talk page is going to lead to an improvement to the article - not if it's based on OR. I'll make another post to clarify that. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What I believe, or what I find, is irrelevant. Cheers. Sposer (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message. I've read it, so it will now be deleted. In regard to that particular subject, both nicknames are commonly-known among those who are fans of the artist. I see no reason for them to require citation, particularly since the artist herself has referred to herself by those nicknames in interviews, as well as radio station promotional liners. In the future, please refrain from getting yourself involved in a discussion which does not directly involve you, as I suspect that you did here. Charmed36 has a long history of incivility toward me, as well as many other editors here on Wikipedia, and I would hate to see you get involved in that. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying on your Talk page because I don't want to take the chance of this being ignored. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InDeBiz1 and his WP:ANI post

Quick update, I sent both to WP:Mediation. Both users are being very uncivil. Rgoodermote  23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I hope they can work it out - clearly they're both interested in making good faith contributions, improving Wikipedia's coverage of modern music, and that's the main thing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But apparently not able to learn. They seem to still be at it. I continue to mark it resolved as it is a clear dispute. I am starting lose my cool on this one. So would you mind taking over? Rgoodermote  00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Cup of tea and a biscuit for you, sir. It's is not required of us that we can solve everything, merely that we not walk on by. Thank you for your efforts. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I told a admin about it (are you an admin?). The admin should be able to settle it better. Anyways I am going log off for the night and get my self some Earl Gray and some Biscuits. Rgoodermote  00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You've discovered my little secret: I talk softly and carry no stick whatsoever. Let's see what happens... The parties have it in their power to rise above this and become better editors all-round, or to spiral down into incivility, edit-warring and being blocked. Ultimately, that's their choice. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For awhile there I was thinking you were an admin. Kind of awkward. Thinking you would make a good one at this point. Rgoodermote  18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very kind of you to say so, particularly considering you yourself spent a good deal more effort than me in attempting to resolve the issue between these editors. If I had a hat on, I would take it off to you at this point. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you mate and thank you for the barnstar. Also, you are welcome. Rgoodermote  20:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll vote on binary prefixes

I note that you voted on a proposed MOSNUM policy for Wikipedia to use the common binary prefixes like “kilobit” rather than the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”). Since you took an interest in the issue at that time, I thought it proper to let you know that the proposal has since morphed into a broader policy (MOSNUM #Follow current literature). A straw poll on whether the basic principle underlying that policy is sound is currently ongoing here at Talk MOSNUM #Straw poll. I hope you read the policy and vote as you see fit. Hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have attended the bunfight as requested :-/ not saying it's your fault that it is one SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Thanks for your comments on AN/I. I just got a quick query. I may be wrong, but I was under an impression that AN/I's are attended by admins as it says on the top of the page! Is it not the case? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can read there, and anyone can post - not just admins. User:John Carter, by the way, is certainly an admin and well respected by the community - certainly by me. I'm sorry if my involvement in this dispute may have prevented another admin stepping in earlier on. But remember that an admin doesn't have magic powers or authority - they just have the tools to protect pages, edit protected pages, block users, and so on. I've been trying to resolve this problem before it gets so bad that "admin tools" become necessary. Call me mad, but I still hope that this isn't the case. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O that's fine mate! All I wanted to know is a clarification on the rules on wiki. Anyways, I always did and probably will always do in the future too, that the previous AN/I was a bit unfair on me and to learn now that it just went off without an admin looking into is rather disappointing. Please do not take this as to mean anything against you. You had been a genuine person and I do appreciate you for that. Having said that I agree with you 100% that admins don't have magic powers, but it is my feeling that if matters had been looked into in depth in the previous AN/I and things with Naadapriya sorted, it would have been so good and we could have all proceeded with our wikilives much better. Thanks anyways Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find

Do you know where I can find that page were they list various conundrums like "Is it Vandalism if the vandal ups the edit count?" I have a good one and want to add it. But I do not know the link. Rgoodermote  18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, sorry. But it does sound interesting. Let me know if you find it! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh...I saw it AN/I last week and I thought of a nice one...it is a Chuck Norris joke however. Well thanks for answering mate. Rgoodermote  23:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shifted through the Humor Category and found it here it be. Rgoodermote  23:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (undated)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.
Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.
Thank you again, VanTucky

Thank you from Horologium (undated)

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Per your deeds

I'd say I like you, at least I'd liked what you've tried to do on that # 7 issue, just wanted to let you know. Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this must refer to my contribution to September 11, 2001 attacks that documents the WTC7 collapse. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks about the info

Thanks for the explanation. I took it for granted that the mediation is about conduct since that was and is am more concerned about. Afterall, I would like the time I spend to be respected. It is my honest feeling that not to take action on users who intentionally disrupt wikipedia processes is sacrilegious. Well thats my opinion anyways. As for the content, I am still waiting for responses on the expansion. If my proposals are not good enough, I would like to know that and try to do something to change/improve it as per what other editors may think. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also let me know if I should file another Mediation or strike of the current one and start talking about the content there? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be fine to add the matter in to the space provided for other issues. There's no need to start another mediation request, I don't think. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are exhibiting the patience of Job here. I came back to check on this and can't believe it's still going on! I think when it's done you deserve a barnstar. Renee (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha. When it's done :D ... good one. More seriously though, thanks for your kind remarks. I don't think I would deserve a barnstar unless I can resolve this without Naadapriya getting either banned or blocked, or quitting, and that's the way I see this going right now. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh, you set such high standards for your self...I'll keep checking then...Renee (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just reviewing one of your essays

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone buster. When you close an AFD remember to substitute the top and bottom closing template using {{subst:at}} and {{subst:ab}} - no biggie but it meant the close wasn't complete! Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I must have done quite a few of those (maybe half a dozen). Luckily, I think I've figured out the principle behind subst'ing templates now, so it shouldn't happen again. Thanks for the tip. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple more that needed fixing. They were pretty obvious since {{at}} was changed. Of course, if I'd substituted them in the first place, they'd have been proof against just this sort of thing. Thanks again. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were...

an admin. Hmm. Why aren't you? Why is this a redlink? You've been around the block a while, you've made solid contribs. Are you interested? Am I missing something? What's your edit count/edit history? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'm waiting for a while, under advice. I actually don't have 4,000 contribs yet, I don't need the tools, and I certainly don't need teh dramaz. There's no deadline :-) Thanks for your kind remarks SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Let me know when you're going for it, I'll support or even co-nom. (and use this diff so it won't be canvassing:-) You've got the time under your belt for sure. I'm not an edit counter (actually, when I passed my RfA in Jan08 I think I had around 3500 edits). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predictability

In my experience, a certain party we both know and love only ever works on articles related to Karnataka, so the answer is, basically, "yes". John Carter (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooboy. Okay. Thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]