This is an archive of past discussions with User:SheffieldSteel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
AN/I states This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. However you, I guess not an Admn, took actions.
Without providing evidence you concluded in the very beginning that Naadapriya was trying to get 'Upper hand' and tried to wrapup AN/I
After reminding you again about 'BS' you served a warning to wikility123
Without any recourse by Wikility123 you unilaterally changed warning to a remainder
As if it was concluded when relevant discussions are still going on someone (I guess Wikility123) archived the all discussions about BS
Then you started participating in discussions on HK falls in an adhoc way mostly attacking me.
In the beginning I was given an impression that you were an ADMN. Later after visiting your user page I found you were not. My question now is why you got involved AN/I when it was for an Admn. Am I missing something here.? I plan to report this to AN/I unless a clear clarification is given. Naadapriya (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to explain. For clarity, I'll address your points in the order you made them.
I am one of a number of editors who, in the process of improving our understanding of Wikipedia administration, regularly read, comment on, and respond to the issues raised on WP:AN/I. Bear in mind that many of these issues can be resolved without use of Admin tools (block editor, page protection, etc.) and frequently are. Non-admins often take on these tasks.
From the start my impression was that Wikiality123's remark was impolite, but not so incivil that it merited admin action being taken. I also observed that you were involved in a content dispute - something that AN/I regulars routinely refuse to deal with, usually replying "dispute resolution is over there" or a similar remark. It is also quite common for editors to post on AN/I with reports of bad behaviour, in the hope that the admins will "get rid of" their opponent, and allow them to "win" the content dispute. After I read the discussion on Talk:Hogenakkal Falls and reviewed the article History, your post seemed to fit that pattern all too well. I'm sorry if I was mistaken about that.
I warned Wikiality123 about civility, because I thought that was what you wanted, and because I wanted to resolve the issue so that all parties involved would go back to discussing the article content, rather than editor conduct. In my experience of AN/I, a warning was the most that you could hope for anyway. I'm sorry if you were expecting more but, as I've said, Wikiality123's behaviour simply wasn't bad enough to warrant a ban or a block.
On reflection, and after discussion with Wikiality123, I changed the word "warning" to "reminder". The more I conversed with the various parties, the more I came to think that his actions were not serious enough to merit a warning.
The page was almost certainly archived automatically, because no-one had posted to it for 24 hours - that's the way their archive "bot" is configured, because that page is so busy. It was not a bad faith action by any editor.
I involved myself in the content dispute because I wanted to help resolve it, and I certainly didn't intend to attack you at any point. If you felt that I was attacking you, I can only apologise for that.
Finally, I am sorry if you got the impression that I was an admin. And of course, if after reading this you have any doubts about my conduct, you may raise the matter at AN/I, although for less urgent matters it might be better if you were to post at WP:AN, the regular Administrator's Noticeboard, and ask for opinions. If the consensus there is that non-admins ought to behave differently at AN/I, or that we should make clear that we're not admins when responding to issues raised at AN/I, I'll certainly take their opinions to heart. Thanks for posting and I hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK00:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your comment on ANI shows you do not have the qualifications of an administrator.
As an administrator, you're suppose to be a representative of WP and help build it, not ruin it's reputation. You offered advice then reneged on it.
See ANI for details.
Right. The way to get Derek unbanned is for an account with, say, 3 months of quiet article building behind it, to post saying "I am Derek and I hereby demonstrate that I can be a good contributor". I would support an unban, I think, in that case. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Then when a very productive editor responds, you arbitrary change your judicial sentence.
Now I'm getting spam email from ...uh... someone who was alerted to my post by his secretary (that's novel). It seems the author of the mail VK35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is blocked as a ... anyone? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have clearly given a reliable source. I am going to revert it. If you continue to revert my edits for no reason, I am going to be reporting you. If you are gay for timo ewalds, please take that up with him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.149.77 (talk • contribs)
I see you have written "privately owned". I think we can both agree that this is the best conclusion for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.149.77 (talk • contribs)
Rfb participation thanks
Hello, SheffieldSteel.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
how to take part in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya"
Well, you can simply sign your name in the "Endorse" section, if you agree with John carter's summary - or you can add your own "View" if you want to say something different. If you want advice on that, I suggest you look at the other Requests for Comment on User Conduct (WP:RFC/U) - some good examples are here. Either way, thanks for taking part. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK03:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please review my actions at the above and let me know whether it is okay. If it isn't please let me know what I need to do differently in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that closing the AfD was the right thing to do - other contributors to that discussion, though few in number, were agreed that deletion was not the solution to the article's problems. Non-admin closes of AfDs should normally be carried out only after 24 hours have elapsed, to give editors around the world a decent opportunity to contribute; however, I don't think that's going to be a problem since this article should really never have been nominated. Nobody said, for example, that the subject wasn't notable, and the nominator made it clear that they did want the article to be written, so you have a very strong case for saying it was a de facto withdrawn nomination.
One thing you overlooked was the removal of the AfD notice from the article itself. It's also customary to add {{oldafdfull}} to the top of the Talk page, not the bottom. I took care of those.
They weren't serious problems, and I think you did the right thing for Wikipedia, in closing the discussion, and you also avoided biting the newbie (the author and nominator) - my thanks for that. Just a non-admin opinion. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK13:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The RfC was brought up to address the issue regarding Sarvagnya's conduct, namely his incivility, canvassing and attacks. I can see that JC has tried to discuss this user's incivility (Wikiquette posting, comments on the talk page), but his efforts were unsuccessful (and unhelpful at times). On the other hand, I haven't see you engage in discussion regarding Sarvagnya's conduct. I did see your name pop up during the Wikiquette alert discussion, but there wasn't anything substantial there. If you had engaged in some serious discussion with the user regarding his conduct, then the RfC would still be open. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I did place the diffs in question in the first draft, but they weren't really apparently "attempts to alter his conduct," as "noticing and commenting on his conduct," not quite the same thing. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
My fist comment was quite mild: I've ignored your incivility and read your citation.(23:32, 6 May 2008) The second was considerably less so: Sarvagnya, are you always this unpleasant to work with, or does this sort of behaviour only surface in articles related to Karnataka? I can't help but wonder if there's some underlying reason why you feel the need to be so combative and insulting. It might be a good idea if you were to avoid contentious issues in areas that you feel very strongly about. (02:01, 7 May 2008) While that might not look like an attempt to get someone to change their behaviour, that was certainly my intent. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
After posting at WQA, and being advised to start an RfC, I really wanted to seek comments from a wider group of editors. For one editor to decide that our efforts were not good enough is rather discouraging, to say the least. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention, immediately before creating the RfC, John started a thread on the page in question, trying to discuss with other editors whether an RfC would be appropriate, but Sarvagnya and his friend deleted that three times. Does that count as an effort, or not? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, being new at this, what would be the appropriate way to indicate to others that an RfCU is taking place? On their individual talk pages, or would that be counted as canvassing? John Carter (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Okay, enough. I didn't contribute to the RfC properly, John didn't publicise it properly, Sarvagnya is not going to change, Nishkid is just doing his job, and there's nothing more to be said. Really. No more comments, thank you both. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Only one final comment. If, for whatever reason, you need to have a second voice come in to discussion which seems to be headed to an RfCU, let me know, so we can make sure it goes through. By the way, if you see the talk pages of the various parties involved, you might note that even Nishkid isn't real happy with the outcome of this one. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA cliches
See, you're already catching flak for being part of an admin cabal. That's a sure sign that you're due for an RfA. May as well have the buttons, since you've already got the aggravation. :) MastCellTalk21:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That page is crammed with people talking past each other. So I come here. If you want to take a stab at rewriting the lead, please go ahead. Going by the responses to the "Proposal" and "Solution" sections on that page, it seems that (with the possible exception of wikiality) there is consensus that the falls is "disputed". Sarvagnya22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh.. wait.. did you mean that you wanted to write a neutral summary of the talk page discussion or a draft of the lead? May be you meant the former. Sarvagnya22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You asked -
"That source also raises another question: the Deccan Herald says [Karnataka] Chief Secretary Sudhakar Rao told reporters ... that he had received a letter from his Tamil Nadu counterpart ... [saying] “that the Hogenakal falls belongs to TN and not Karnataka.” - is there a more direct source than 'DH says SR says TN sent a letter'?"
Did you mean to ask for a citation which directly stated that TN claimed the falls as its own? If that is what you asked for, well.. I'm not sure there is any one such that states it explicitly.. but there are TN govt., sites which state matter-of-factly that the falls is in TN. If you want something more explicit, check with Wikiality. I cant spot one right now. Sarvagnya22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, btw.. it is not "DH says that SR says TN sent a letter".. but "DH reports that SR, the Chief Secretary of the Govt of Ktaka, received a letter from his TN counterpart stating that TN claimed the falls as its own." Sarvagnya22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that was just me trying to summarise the information as briefly as possible, for the purpose of being clear in the Talk page discussion. Obviously we can't just add to the article a sentence saying "TN claims the falls" because we don't have a source for that. We have a reliable source (Deccan Herald) reporting that a partisan source (Sudhakar Rao) said that in a letter, the TN Chief Secretary claimed the falls. This sort of chain-of-reporting always makes for awkward sentences. If there isn't a more direct source, we'll use the best we have.
But yes, to answer your question, I do intend to try to write up a neutral lead for the article that everyone will consent to. I'd appreciate any help you can give, in collecting and evaluating the various sources - I'm afraid I have not followed the discussion closely over the last few days, and I want to avoid (if I can) having to read through a huge list of documents. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well for all practical purposes, both SR and his TN counterpart are speaking as serving Chief Secretaries of the respective states and are surely not talking in their personal capacities. So their views reported in that DH piece are as good as the official views of the two states and they cannot be said to be biased (if that is what you meant by 'partisan'). The dispute, at the moment is still being discussed at the state level and neither has approached the Courts. Both states view the falls as their own and dismiss the other state's claim. Sarvagnya23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. All I mean by "partisan" is that he is one of two opposing parties that are in dispute. I'm not saying he's biased, and I'm sure he's taking the position his State asks of him, I'm just saying that he is involved, rather than being simply an observer (like the newspaper). So when he says something, we have to attribute his statements to him, rather than repeating them as facts. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there has to be a "horse's mouth" somewhere. Here it happens to be SR and his pronouncements can safely be attributed to the Govt of Ktaka. And DH which is a long-standing newspaper source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is the "observer" here. Unless, the issue goes to the court or the Center sets up a "Tribunal" as they did in the case of the "Kaveri dispute", there are just two parties in this dispute as of now - TN and Ktaka. What I'm trying to say is that, from that DH report, we can gather the following facts -
TN communicated to Ktaka.
In the communication TN claimed the falls as its own and intimated Ktaka about its planned projects at the site.
Ktaka has expressed serious concerns over the communication as it does not accept TN's view. In Ktaka's view the falls belongs to Ktaka and not TN.
DH's summary of the report at the top which reads - "Karnataka has decided to explore legal options in dealing with Tamil Nadu's recent move to launch drinking water and power generation projects at the disputed Hogenakal falls." is evidence that the falls is disputed even in the eyes of the "observer" or atleast, that is what they make of the situation as it stands now. Frankly, we could just paraphrase them and be done. Sarvagnya00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Now, now, don't be modest! Why would anyone be interested in your opinion? Because you seem generally balanced and considered of word. Thanks for clarifying your position on the matter; your statement was a careful presentation of the good/bad faith perspectives. My bad for attempting to interpret your earlier words into a specific position.
I will also join the growing chorus here that you should consider an RfA. I'd be willing to co-nom you as well. Despite your recent dust-up with the RfC referred to above, I still think you have pretty good judgment from what I've seen. Of course, I haven't gone through your contribs at all yet and I reserve the right to backpedal furiously if I find unrelenting and unmitigated horrors there. We all make mistakes on Wikipedia. The golden quality is to learn from them and do better next time. Quite a few editors don't but I think you do. Cheers, Pigman☿01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind of you. I'm still learning, though. I can see a few things in my recent history that are fuel enough for dramaz, if sufficient people wanted that. And there's no deadline :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I've seen about 5 admins tell you that you should be an admin. Let me know when you're ready, I'll co-nom (unless of course, there are too many noms, then I'll "strong support"...you should be able, because of your dedication to Wikipedia, your overall and well rounded goodness, be able to see everything, and do everything, that I can do. There's no good reason why not. Let me know...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
For your continuing, never-ending work and patience on the Hoggenkal Falls page...the falls that go on and on and on.... Renee (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to apologize. It's my fault for not being specific in my statements. Because of this, there was a lot of general confusion about my intentions. In my opinion, clear cut vandalism should in fact be reverted upon sight. Edits which are questionable should not be labeled as such, or subject to revert. The only reason I responded at all, was to clarify. No harm done, happy editing, and Best regards from SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I do the same thing myself all too often - I think I've spelled something out clearly and then I find someone's got the wrong end of the stick. Thanks for clearing this up. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been snooping (a bug in your ear)
As I've been looking through your contribs the last few days (trying to decide when would be a good time to push you closer to RfA), I just wanted to stop by and say I very much enjoyed this essay. That's all I wanted to say. Keep up your fine editing. You would pass RfA as of right now, but I understand if you want to wait. 4000+ edits, plus 1+ years tenure = you should have as full of access to Wikiepdia as I, (with less tenure, and less edits at the time of my own RfA), have. Does that make sense? Check out this page to see a bit of my track record. At least twosimilar editors to yourself have received noms from me. One has passed, and the other will in a matter of days. Just to bug you again (I'm sure I bugged you before), just keep thinking about it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That essay's really just me summing up the problems I've seen most often, and wishing that our policies were clearer - or easier to find, perhaps. As for me applying for the tools - no, I think too many people would point to the botched RfC (see above), where I was not only impolite but obviously didn't know enough about the process to do it right. No one wants to see that in an admin candidate, least of all me! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You're too modest. Mixed in with the "botched RfC" are several high caliber editors/admins saying "Wha? You're not an admin?" and telling you to go for it. As far as I can tell, it's about a 5 to 1 margin or better, which is 80% or better, which is a passing RfA. Alas, you are to use your best judgment though, as you usually do. I know I've bugged you about this prior. Please hit up my talkpage once you think you're ready for hellweek, I mean RfA. You'll pass most certainly, and you'll gather an oppose or two, maybe 3, and it will be stressful. But you'll come out the other side with a very intense editor review, regardless of pass/fail. Keep me posted! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer21:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Except you provided no evidence of a mistake, but anyways, RFA withdrawn now, I did oppose myself, but I felt your comment was a little unjust.--Phoenix-wiki18:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still rather surprised at being challenged for !voting Neutral, given that the consensus seems to be that a Neutral is essentially just a comment. Anyway, SynergeticMaggot and I have now resolved this (see above). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hogenakkal falls
Sorry, I have be scarce for the past few days so could have missed some references. Did we have references for the river acting as border downstream of the Hogenakkal falls? Thought its best to ask here, since it is a personal favour. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant to ask a clarification of your post here [2] where you said that there is a reference that states that the river acts as the border downstream of the falls. As far as I know the river as border is just for 64kms. The Hindu reference just talks on the stretch which acts as the border. I am not sure that we have source that says the river forms the border downstream of the Falls, and a source that says the river forms the border upstream of the falls like you said. Let me know if I missed something. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Indian English is getting too hard for you. Apologies for that, but what I been asking you is, does the river acts as border downstream?. There is a border running downstream somewhere for sure, but this time is it the river acting as the border and I'm still not sure what is the interpretation of the 64kms if the river is such a long stretch of border. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I am sure both the parties involved in the dispute know that you are working on good faith on this article. You really didn't have to say this. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the ongoing failure of one of the parties involved in the discussion of this article to abide by even the most basic conduct guidelines might be sufficient cause for possibly requesting a topic ban on that editor. If you can guess who that is, then I think that there might be such cause, but would welcome your input as to whether such steps would be appropriate. John Carter (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
my RfA - Ta!
Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.
Thanks for the strong support and help in my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Whenever I see people saying words to the effect that "NPOV is a balance between racism and anti-racism" or whatever, I tend to make a fool of myself. One day at a time, I am learning to live with my shame. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sheffield. I am not at all trying to start a fight with you, but, I think that the chart of the fisheys you have might be a little off. I believe that the Caelocanth was discovered in the Indian Ocean in fishermen's nets. Am I wrong?Prussian725 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the chart is wrong, although the layout might be clearer (it's not my own work, as you'll see if you click on the image). The labels down the left-hand side are a key as to where the various creatures lived, and positions left-to-right indicate when. I'm not sure about the Coelacanth being found in fishing nets (although I do recall reading something about that). Perhaps we'll just have to agree that the diagram is somewhat imprecise in its nature, eh?
No sweat. That IP's contribution history consists of making more-or-less controversial/inflammatory posts to ID-related Talk pages or User Talk - no article work. I'm hoping they will contribute productively from now on, and am keeping an eye on them. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK19:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You are not reverting vandalism. See the definition Wikipedia:Vandalism for more on this.
This is posting a link to an unreliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources) which questions the mainstream view on Mercury poisoning. Wikipedia is not the place to challenge or change mainstream opinions, but to report them.
This is inserting a link which makes a political statement by drawing a contentious historical parallel - essentially, asserting your own point of view.
This is inserting unsourced contentious material into a biography of a living person, which is expressly forbidden by policy.
This, this and this are reverting editors in good standing, without any attempt to discuss or obtain consensus for the changes.
A number of other editors are also well aware of what has been going on. If there are any more violations Joehoe665 should be immediately blocked.--Kleinzach08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, CenariumTalk00:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Do not delete entries in talk pages
You can edit articles. Talk pages are not articles. Removing other people's posts there is just as bad at editing their words. It is one of the worst crimes in Wikipedia. You don't do it. Mikademus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.247.165 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume you are referring to this edit of mine, which reverted your contribution. On reflection, I should have posted a message to your User Talk page explaining why I reverted you, and I apologise for the oversight. But the Talk page guidelines which I linked in my edit summary (see WP:TALK if you missed that) are quite clear:- Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. (emphasis added). I hope this clears the matter up. Please do not add such material to Talk pages again. It does nothing to improve Wikipedia and can only serve to distract from productive discussions. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK13:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia as a meaningful project is dead, and though I don't know you personally, the wikilawyering you seem to have adopted is one cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.247.165 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Judging by your post above, you seem to think that anyone can say anything they like on a Talk page, and there are no circumstances under which any editor can remove or alter any other editor's Talk page contributions. Luckily, this is not the case: the community has agreed on a set of guidelines which lay out several exceptions to the principle that an editor should not edit another's Talk page contributions.
I do not consider it "wikilawyering" to consider the good of the project and to attempt to minimise disruption of the wiki process, which is why I removed your post. I see wikilawyering as seizing upon one particular part of policy or guidelines and arguing that it applies to your situation, to the exclusion of all others, even in defiance of common sense. This is why we have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: to help remind us that the goal is to improve Wikipedia, and the "rules" should never hinder that.
I suggest, assuming your intent when posting to Derek Smart was to improve the article, that you rejoin that discussion, making clear what sort of changes you would like to see, and why. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want you to know that I sincerely don't want to heavily dispute the matter. In some ways, I agree with that anon. user more, but I want to make it more fair now that the issue seemed to have been discussed to its death before I even created my account nearly a year ago—or even by the time I started paying attention to the problem. Both sides should really consider the other view more as I see it. Hopefully, things will settle down, so please try to understand. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"in response to"
I have made a substantial alteration to section 33: first paragraph -- "avoid" to become ID "completely reformulated"..."in response to"
It is intended to reflect your input as well as that of others -- your continuing attention would be appreciated
Hi, i'm terribly sorry I didn't realise how big it was. My screen shows it as pretty much the same as everyone elses! Anyway, i've reduced it now. Sorry for the trouble. — CycloneNimrodTalk?15:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about an RFC/U. Other than his initial edit skirmish, all he's done is talk. I just want to know who he was "last year" when the subject supposedly came up before. Whoever he was, it wasn't under the current user ID, since that only started 5 days ago. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I share your curiosity. However, what we have right now is a disruptive single-purpose account, and I don't see any hopeful signs. I'll hold off on the RFC/U and see what happens. Perhaps a combination of BITE and DFTT is in order. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have said this before and am compelled to say this again. Please have the decency to direct any accusations about me directly to me. There is nothing in the discussion that shows me to be impervious to other lines of thought. Given how diligently you have defended the misleading wording in the article one has reason to say that about you, though.MAL01159 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
He also claims to have addressed this "last year", although a random look at July a year ago shows the same wording as today. His selective ignoring of that question is also telling. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Having adopted Presumptive, I assume that you believe so too"
I adopted Presumptive prior to her having any involvement with the "9/11" article, so I didn't adopt her over it at all. I adopted her over an unrelated issue and as you can see I have advised her about various things on her talk page. I don't know much about the 9/11 article although I do get the feeling that she's been pounced on by an editor or two who think they WP:OWN the article. On the other hand, some articles are like that on wiki and stay that way.:) But as you can see from her talk page I've advised her about her editing in various ways- I've been at the hospital today (nothing to do with me really- just hours of boring tests) so I've not seen what's happened since this morning. But you could have a look at WP:ADOPT, it's not about adopting an editor because you love them, but about helping new editors or those who've had problems, to improve. I didn't know Presumptive beforehand but adopted her to help her improve her editing. It's not to be seen as endorsement, or lack of endorsement. I will try and encourage her to edit in a constructive way so that she and everyone else has a good time and the wiki improves- see what I mean? It's not a matter of backing her up indescriminately, but trying to improve her editing and integration with the community. Also, it is her talk page, she can to an extent do what she wants with it, and no-one was claiming to be saying she was being disruptive at that point, they said it was just a standard warning given to anyone editing the article, and she acknowledged that she had seen it, thus it's fine for her to remove it. But this should not be seen as an endorsement of her every action and like I said, I don't know all the details as I've been busy having a nuclear medicine test, injections of dye into me, and yesterday an MRI. :) StickyParkin17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we can agree that adoption signifies your good faith in the adoptee, but not blind faith. I believe, as I presume you do, that Presumptive is not contributing in bad faith. I hope this is clearer than my earlier post and I'm sorry for any confusion. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh that's ok then.:) I wouldn't even go so far as to say it means I assume anything, although I hope Presumptive can increase her qualities even more and become a more excellent editor/colleague for others. It's more of an experiment and due to my having an optimistic nature. I can be naive about people, but hopefully not, eventually, in this case.:) Also, adopting is a way for me to contribute to wiki even on days I'm not inspired to write- I have a bit of a grasp of how things work on wiki and want to pass it on to my seven and 1/2 adoptees.:) StickyParkin18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI
You are using my lack of knowledge of the ways and means of how Wikipedia operate against me. I do not know what you personally have against me to go through all this. I do not know why you continued to bring up the 11 vs 14 thing when it was put to bed (at least by me) a week ago. Yes, I am guilty of responding when it was brought up again. But in the last week, I was never the catalyst behind bringing back the 11 vs 14 debate. I have always been interested in civility and compromise. And in the article in question, I seem to be alone in that respect. I have been berated, lied about, had false accusations made of me... To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely no idea why when all the guidelines I have uncovered show that to be something Wikipedia does not expect from it's editors. This is puzzling. I have no agenda. I am not trolling. I have made every attempt to follow the guidelines when they were pointed out to me. This is really starting to look like a personal vendetta of sorts. If you took offense to that, I apologize. I really mean no disrespect. This entire affair has me perplexed. That is me being blatantly honest.
BTW: Before I got an account, I edited the San Francisco Giants page as well. I do not frequent Wikipedia often. (well, very rarely) But when I did, and saw an error, since I could, I felt compelled to correct it. The last I looked on the Giants page, the edit was undisputed.
I just want you to know that I have always attempted to edit in good faith. Even when I was getting angry at the accusations. And I have never wanted to break any rules of any kind.MAL01159 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Your posts have consistently been at odds with (and often to a significant degree) every other editor's perception of reality, whether that be evaluation of reliable sources, assessment of consensus, possibility of alternative explanations, and so on. As such, I am not sure whether anything I can say at this point will help. Nevertheless...
For the record, I have absolutely nothing against you personally - indeed, I initially responded to your request for assistance, and I have no personal knowledge of you upon which to base any such attitude. If you think that no other contributor to Talk:Atlanta Braves has been "interested in civility and compromise" then you really must read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, particularly considering the patience other editors have demonstrated in explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you. The statement that this is a "personal vendetta" on my part is laughable, considering my contributions in the period since your account began contributing, when you have only contributed to this one issue.
The best thing I can suggest now is that you listen to the responses to the Request for Comment and try to take on board what other editors have to say - this is, after all, the purpose of it. I'd also recommend you read (and re-read, if necessary) the policies and guidelines I listed there. Finally, perhaps the best thing of all would be to edit other articles. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Now you see, to say that my posts "consistently been at odds with (and often to a significant degree) every other editor's perception of reality," I consider not very civil. I see it as accusatory and a gross exaggeration of the facts. I don't take offense to it because I am assuming good faith. I think if one looks through the Braves talk page, it is VERY obvious that no one is interested in compromise. With respect, yourself included. You even questioned how a compromise could even be possible. (Maybe not you, but someone did. I am not going to go back to confirm who it was, however) When I responded, it was ignored. I realize that you don't know me from Adam, but that only makes the entire thing even more odd. I have assumed good faith, but it seems that has not been assumed of me. You speak of patience, and I have actually exhibited great patience in dealing with the situation. I have indeed followed every guideline when it was explained to me. To the letter. It has been difficult when in the discussion, others keep repeating the same thing over and over. What am I to do in that instance? It is as if no one read or even looked at what I wrote or the sources I included.
Like I said, I edited the Giants article before I had an account. And since then, what time I have on this site has been spent defending my edits on the Braves page. You are using against me the mere fact that the one place I have edited since I have had an account was the Braves page. I am not retired. I do not spend all my time searching for errors in Wiki articles. I think it unreasonable to crucify me because I have only been dealing with this one article. It is unlikely I will find other pages to edit because I do not frequent Wikipedia nearly enough to peruse all the articles in my spare time. I only edited things I have ran across that I know to be for certain in error. If it is a "maybe", it is not likely I will take the time to determine. Your words, like those of all I have interacted with, are heard and are considered. However, if I happen upon another page with an obvious flaw, after the experience with the Braves page, I am now less likely to go in and edit it.MAL01159 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting that this guy accuses me of lying about the contents of a published, in print and available (hence verifiable) source, yet he expects us to take his word for it (to coin a phrase) that he is not a single purpose account. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If I claimed I had a published, in print and verifiable source but only I had seen it, would you accept it based only on my word? I doubt it. Nor should you. Next, to assume I have only a single purpose account is a great step in reasoning. Just because I do not spend every moment of my spare time perusing every article here searching for errors does not mean I have a single purpose account. Since the first edit I made when I created the account was the Braves edit, the time I have spent here has been 100% defending the edit. I have never had a CHANCE to look at other articles. I have other things in my life that with a higher priority than Wikipedia. For the record, I made one other edit before creating the account. It has so far, not been disputed.MAL01159 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
RFC
I only signed the "endorse", as I am clearly not an "outsider" to this kvetch. I'm concerned that some who did sign the "outside" section are not really outsiders either, and that might raise questions. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that anyone can endorse any view; the only signing restriction I'm aware of is related to who can Certify the dispute. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK17:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! I can't offer much help, except...
Look at the text of signatures you like, and copy their tricks
Experiment! Don't bother continually changing the actual sig in your preferences; the "turnaround time" is too slow. Just write out the text and hit "Show preview".
Don't go crazy - if your sig is too big, too bright, or too long, you will cause headaches and readers will complain. See here for the basics of what not to do.
you deleted the sections to the abortion argument on incomplete information and discrimination:
'sections were not neutrally framed' - how were they not neutral? because they didnt contain a counter argument? i'm not aware of any and that is the duty of other members to add if they think of any. i stated it clearly and objectively
'contained weasel words' - such as?
'apparently cited to one book' - u'r point? i have found numerous sources that make this argument. why is one not enough, especially when it is a President representing an entire political party and demographic? previous references are to a single person's opinion in a paper they wrote.
'(spam?)' - spam? wat r u on about?
im happy to adjust the words, add in counter arguments, etc to ensure these valuable points are listed on the debate page. The debate page is very narrow in the perspectives it offers.
u should be adjusting the words to make it more suitable to wikipedia's standards, not going around deleting content.
ur feedback on why you deleted these paragraphs is not supported by specific evidence and thus not supportive of your action to delete this content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopial (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Non-admins shouldn't really close debates as delete.. They can close as keep, but since deletion requires the admin tools anyway it's better if the process (closing, then deleting) is left to them, I reckon. Punkmorten (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Or, you can just get your fine self over to RFA, go through the grueling one week process, and get the extra buttons that you should've had months ago. Then, you can make a very fine "habit of it." But whatever. :-) Keeperǀ7621:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't do noms anymore. (see my latest two, this and this for some context. Too many people were opposing very fine editors for ridiculous reasons, I was getting way too stressed, I almost quit, both of my noms did essentially retire (the former unofficially, just seems to have disappeared) and the latter officially (see his talkpage). I was starting to dislike Wikipedia. (It is a hobby after all). Good candidates should make it through RFA relatively unscathed. Don't reply to the opposers (there will always be one). A reply to the opposer generally generates 3-5 new opposers with "per oppose #1" as the reason. Don't reply to them either. RFA is not a discussion, don't let anyone fool you otherwise. RFA is a walk over hot coals. If you stop in the middle to have a discussion, you'll get burnt. I'm a bit jaded, but I've been slightly and surprisingly encouraged the last few days with the relative calmness and civility at RFA. May be a good window. I refuse to nominate anyone though, out of fear that my insistence and my nomination will cause another good editor to look for the door. I will most assuredly be your strongest supporter, so if the count ends up at 1-147-3, you can know I'm a fan of you and your clue regardless of what anyone else thinks. Do a self-nom! It will get an oppose. Meh. Keeperǀ7621:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll assume your "Okay" means that you'll either self-nom" (and take your lumps) or find a nom. Either way, I'm looking forward to being a supporter. You've long deserved to be able to use the tools that I've been able to use since last January. Cheers, and good luck! Keeperǀ7601:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! You really meant it! i can't think of anyone I'd rather support for adminship, and only now do I regret my firm stance agtainst nominating other editors. You will do fine at RFA, you will garner opposition from those that thrive on opposition to, well, anything, and you will pass. See you on the other side! Keeperǀ7601:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You really should have canvassed me - I might have missed the chance to support your RfA. :) Seriously, you're a great candidate and I think you'll do well. I'd have been happy to nominate you, but you never know - sometimes I think associating too closely with me hurts more than it helps. :) Best of luck. MastCellTalk04:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
How long do you think this full protection should go on? I kind of feel bad for being the one who suggested that in the first place, and now, I don't think there's a lot of discussion going on (from what I've read, silence=agreement in general on Wikipedia; to me, it just looks like inactivity).
..anyway, I'm not sure if it's a good thing for most users to be barred from editing because of one silly edit war. I would like to know what you think. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I'd forgotten all about that page, since it all went quiet. Personally, I don't think it should be protected any longer, and I'll see what can be done about it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I really thought that you should have let the AfD run its course instead of doing a non-admin closure. There was one "neutral" and one "delete". I felt there was no unanimity nor was there an absolutely clear consensus. While there may have been a rough consensus to keep, that decision should have been left to closing admin, even if their decision may have been to keep the article. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for raising your concerns. I agree with much of what you've said. There was no justification for a "speedy keep" nor a "WP:SNOW" closure. However, this AfD did run its full course: it was nominated on the 5th of August, and closed on the 11th. While it is true that there was not unanimity among the contributors, I did feel that consensus was there. The best that you could hope for was a close as "no consensus, defaulting to keep". Of course, if you feel strongly that my closure was wrong, you may still raise the issue at deletion review. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK11:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I could DRV it, but I don't know if that would really accomplish anything besides wasting admins' time and making me look like a WP:DICK trying to make a WP:POINT. If anything, I might re-nominate the article for AfD at a later time; that would probably make more sense, and as we know consensus can change. (Obviously I won't do that now as that is viewed as not acting in good faith.) MuZemike (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Good answer
Nice answer to my question about CAT:AOR. I've seen more than a handful of candidates get pretty wishy washy in answering that question because they're trying to give "the right answer," when - in truth - I'm not looking for a specific answer, but rather the candidate's ability to support their answer. You said that you weren't totally comfortable with it due to the propensity for editors to abuse that process (which some do), but you also openly expressed a discomfort with the alternative, which was a very honest thing to do. I had a feeling that I was going to support your run before I posed those questions, but your answers confirmed my feelings. It doesn't appear that you're going to need it, but good luck in the rest of the process! --Winger84 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed by the answer. You're going to be an admin in a few days and you need to make a decision. I expect that you will default to "no". That's fine, but I would prefer to see a more honest statement of this. Axl (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I just stole your nbnb subpage, and made it my own, with very little to no attribution. Heh. It's part of my header now. :-)....Keeperǀ7620:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I was planning on rolling that out next April 1st. I wanted to see who'd take it seriously. I am still not sure, for the record, if it should be. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've heard people rhetorically compare going through an RfA to having teeth pulled, but it would seem that you are in a unique position to judge the aptness of this simile. :) MastCellTalk16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
yup i agree tht there was a mistake , my editing ended prematurely due to internet failure the edit wht nadapriya has done isnt a positive contribution but a proofless and sourceless claim which may prove the whole article wrong . what we have provided is an law ministry reference which is far more superior to a single political party's claim . inspite of calling naadapriya and others to the talkpage before attempting to edit to the article tht has just came after a good period of editproof he has made no attempt to comeacross the talk page . --Doctor muthu's muthuwanna talk ?17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Edits on Copt
Thanks for keeping an eye on that article. I still have pretty high hopes that it won't need serious protection any longer.
Kind regards,
~ Troy (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this about the comments made by you on the article M.I.A. (artist), I saw you had asked for more sources regrading the Controversy in it, I have added some I found, could you please comment on them if you could. Thanks Nitraven (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Collegue, you have mentioned that I have violated BLP in my edits to M.I.A. I would be gratefull if you could elaborate and show the offending edits. I have highlighted what the BBC and other reliable sources have mentioned regarding this controversial artist. If a controversy section is not acceptable please do tell. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing this artists support for the LTTE which is banned as a terrorist organisation in 31 countries. I would wellcome and input from you as to how a neutral statement could be incorporated using the BBC et al which wouldnot violate BLP.Kerr avon (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help Sheffield. I would like to know how I could go about existing in some form on wikipedia. Would you be able to help me structure at least one or two sentences describing The Center for Asian American Media in a neutral way. For example would "The Center for Asian American Media (formerly NAATA) was created in 1980. Its mission is to support Asian American Media. It is also the host of the San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival."
First of all, the basics: Do you know of any published sources which are independent of the subject? These will form the basis of the article content. Then we need to be sure that the subject is "notable" (i.e. well-known enough to deserve an article). After that, it's just a matter of neutrally summing up what the sources have to say, and I'd be delighted to help with that. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK18:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! There are definitely published sources on NAATA (the former name of The Center for Asian American Media) as well as Asian American Media Centers and Asian American Media generally. On NAATA we have a book called "Moving the Image: Independent Asian Pacific American Media Arts". We also have an article published by Oliver Wang on the History of The Center for Asian American Media. Oliver Wang is a music writer and media scholar who's writes on culture, race, and America for NPR, SF Bay Guardian, Vibe, and LA Weekly. On Asian American Media generally, we have the Moving the Image book, a book called Screening Asian Americans, and a book called Out of the Shadows to name a few.
Thank you Sheffield. I really appreciate the help with this. I will check in with you in a bit. I know you're extremely busy and I really do thank you for the help. CAAMwiki (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've looked for source material but I couldn't find anything to base the article on. I've found plenty that was self-published, and a good deal of listing and other trivial mentions, but the one thing I needed to find was an article or feature about CAAM. If you can provide me with links to any of these, that would help greatly. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
If I was nominating people, you were on my list. So glad that went well for you. Now you are invincible!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!. Of course, you fool, you said you'd be part of CAT:AOR. Silly, S.Steel....Keeperǀ7622:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, SheffieldSteel. Congrats on your adminship!!! There is a content dispute in the said talk page (the very last section and the third-last section are currently active). Just now, I did restore some text that was removed temporarily as there was not yet a consensus, but I still take that the partial deletions were in good faith as FunkMonk likely assumed that there wouldn't be an issue. I sort of over-reacted (*oops*) as I easily took it personally when it came to the idea that the Egyptians were all "Arabized", but now, I am trying to keep things a little calm. I know that you're good at that, so if you have the time, please help out in moderating if you can. Thanks a bundle! Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) :-)
I have received your message about my contribution on the September 11, 2001 attacks discussion page. The problem is, what you have said, has nothing to do with what i have said, nothing on there is my own opinion or personal views as you have said, i am just asking for Wikipedia to allow the page to be neutral, which is what it asks for, and not just have the official story on it, it should have conspiracy theories, explored by the BBC and CBS, and going by your message, such news broadcasters are reliable sources, and they will also be neutral, they are just exploring possibilities. Quote from the Soapboxing page, section number 2: "Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view." this is what i am trying to get for the September 11, 2001 attacks page, so by that, i haven't gone against any other sections on the Soapboxing page.
Thanks for responding. This message gives a very different impression to your earlier post on the article Talk page, which was quite concerning. To answer the point you've raised in both posts: Wikipedia does cover the conspiracy theories. The problem is that the article is so long that it's been split over multiple pages, and the main page just contains a summary of the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories which is in itself a very long article (for more on this, see Wikipedia:Summary style). Our coverage is, or should be, neutral in tone and in quantity. Of course there are some editors who wish there to be more coverage, and others who say there should be less. Making sure that we give due weight to each viewpoint is one of the more difficult tasks facing editors, particularly on controversial subjects. Any help you can provide, particularly providing material from quality sources such as the BBC & CBS, would be most welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, i didnt realise that there was a seperate page for the conspiracy theories, if there isn't, could i suggest a link somewhere in the main article leading to the other theories. Thank you for this message :) Brock (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
ANI comments
If you think I'm "bloodthirsty" and endorse capital punishment, think again. In general, I don't. I'm not adding this to the ANI thread, because I would just as soon it pass the 24 hour mark and disappear into the archives, and my adding something would only extend its life. But for those who think the death penalty is excessive, read the story of John Wayne Gacy or for that matter H. H. Holmes and tell me why they deserved to live. The problem I have with the death penalty, other than the general moral question, is that it is applied capriously and arbitrarily (as opponents like to say), i.e. it's "whenever the prosecutor feels like asking for it." A black man knocks over a convenience store and kills the anonymous clerk, he gets the chair, so to speak. But a white woman named Susan Smith deliberately drowns her kids, apparently just out of revenge against someone else, treating her own kids like possessions, and she merely gets life. Who's the worse murderer in those 2 cases? But this stuff of giving murderers new identities is really, really offensive, if true. One of the editors talked about Germany being in denial. I once asked a German colleague how they explain WWII in school. He said they call it a "disaster", that this "crazy guy" (Hitler) was allowed to take over. That's its own kind of denial, blaming Hitler for everything, when he had lots and lots of help. And the coddling of paroled criminals looks to me like some kind of overreaction to their own bloody past, defying good sense in the process. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to avoid aiming that remark at any particular editor. More than anything, my post was an attempt to explain (or understand) the overall tone of the thread, which I don't think is actually due to individual editors so much as the cultural background of the majority. In some societies it's considered acceptable to cut off the hands of thieves; in others, that is viewed as a barbaric practice. You probably wouldn't feel terribly offended to hear of a thief being released from prison with both hands, but could you understand the position of editors who did? What if they then argued that Wikipedia ought to publish information identifying the thief?
You'll notice that I am not engaging in debate about the death penalty, nor about the collective mental health (or otherwise) of Germany. In my experience, the death penalty is one of a shortlist of topics on which few people ever conduct genuine discussion or change their minds. And of course, almost every country is in denial about it past misdeeds. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't question that the USA has plenty of "denial baggage" of its own. I don't like the idea of severing a hand, but I would argue that in that culture, the penalty is known to everyone, so if they steal anyway, then they can't say they were surprised. The same goes for the death penalty. The flaw in both of those irreversible punishments is, What if the guy didn't do it? And that's another issue I have with the death penalty. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is insufficient. It should be "Beyond all doubt" before applying the death penalty. In the cases I mentioned, there was absolutely no doubt. And, yes, if the theft was notable (e.g. of a famous painting or something), then the thief's name should be in the article, severed hand or not. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?15:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
All the links I add consider themselves National Anarchist
There is no major difference in perspective from the linked sites and sites already on the page
There are "editors" who make these changes that constantly try to get the page deleted due to ideological differences with the National Anarchist perspective (i.e., non neutral editing).
I respectfully request you look into this edit war and resolve the issue in a way that adds valuable content to the page and not detracts from it. Thanks!
Furthermore, my edits have been reverted on this page dozens of times with no explanation from other editors whatsoever. Can you also explain why edits to my content is allowed but I can't make edits to others?
Apologies. I overlooked your contribution to the discussion because (1) you posted at the top of the page, rather than at the bottom (clicking "new section" always gets this right, for future reference) and (2) you did not sign your post.
Strictly speaking I should have blocked you already for continuing the edit war. However, i am willing to give you a chance to work with others on this project. From now on, I don't want to see any more reverts from you on this. You need to discuss it with the other editors, you need to look at Wikipedia guidelines and policies and try to agree on a compromise, and you need to be polite and respectful to other editors - no more of this "Why the fuck" and "asshats" please. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK19:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay I can live with that, now tell me what happens when the the other editor reverts my edit which is probably going to happen within the next few hours? Are you going to give them a warning? I imagine that you will insist that we discuss the issue in Discussion however, what if they refuse to discuss the issue at all?
If one party is willing to discuss the matter but the other insists on reverting, they are likely to be blocked. If no one is willing to discuss it, and/or if edit warring continues, I'm either going to block multiple editors or possibly protect the page from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Bannedtruth
Hey, Sheff.
You might want to consider adding a block template and a reason to Bannedtruth's talk. Sometimes editors get mad when they have to find out the hard way. :) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't actually ban them myself; I posted at ANI for advice and another admin did so. But there's no reason why I couldn't post a block template myself... hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Double congrats on WP:100 — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Here's a t-shirt. BTW, sorry that I had to go neutral. I have to be cautious. But I think you'll do just great. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There are occasional moments of sanity on Wikipedia that lead me to believe that this place is not an entirely lost cause. The resounding support for your RfA is one such moment. Congratulations; I have every confidence that this was a good decision and that you'll do good work. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. MastCellTalk06:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Resolved. blocked as a sock by User:barneca
