User talk:SheffieldSteel/Archive 4

your comments

your comments are better than Wikidemon's practice of removing comments and other administrators' practice of defending him and making snide comments about me.

the better way is to explain how to say it nicer and even suggest that I go back and rephrase it.

worse yet, some administrators, like barneca, even threaten to block me. this is very bad customer service. 74.174.46.41 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad service. If it's any consolation, the pay is appalling too, even at admin level :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But the SEO bribes bonuses are much better, aren't they? Everyme 20:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

misuse of NPA warning

If all those other comments do not warrant a warning for NPA, then "type of person" most certainly does not. Honestly I view your warning as a PA, it is clearly misplaced. Yes it may have been borderline uncivil but not when compared to the comments I was responding to. You singled me out of the bunch because I annoy you, and do not agree with you. All of those that share your ideas you fail to notice their incivility problems. There were numerous editors with far worse remarks. Please stop attacking me, and if you have nothing constructive to say to me please just ignore me completely. Landon1980 (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, you actually went as far as to say "content not contributor" when a large portion of that thread was directed at me other than my proposal. I have been called insane, prick, boy, stupid, childish, etc. Even told I wasn't capable of finding my own nose. Tell me how all of those are "content not contributor." Many other comments were thinly disguised attacks on me, many many more were rude. Stop the double standard or just don't warn anyone. Landon1980 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't give you an NPA warning; I commented that your remarks were borderline incivil, which they were, and I provided a link to a policy, in case you hadn't seen it. The view that comments about incivility constitute personal attacks, in my opinion, is never productive, since it invites a vicious circle of counter-accusations. I think the best response to your allegation of bias on my part is to review the relevant conversation and see if there's any other incivility that requires comment. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You participated in conversations with very uncivil remarks, what sparked the sudden urge to fight incivility? Landon1980 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my actions on that page have been motivated by any desire to fight incivility as much as by a desire to help the editors have a productive and informed discussion. Now sometimes an editor is knowingly (even deliberately) incivil in discussions, and if I see that I will often leave a warning message on their user talk page, but sometimes editors un-knowingly step too close to the line. In these cases, I prefer to provide a more informal reminder (with a link to policy of course), in the hope that all editors will take the message on board, and that the discussion may be more polite and productive in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may chime in...Landon1980 has, frankly, now ventured into the realm of spreading deliberate falsehoods. Neither I nor anyone else called him "insane". What he is referring to is a now-resolved dispute between myself and Tznkai, the sordid details of which can be read here; User_talk:Tarc#Removal Tarc (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, the comment was directly under mine, and referred to my POV. If you were talking to Tznkai then what is his/her's POV that you were referring to? Like I said before, you were talking to me (but even if that is false) calling someone's actions insane is calling them insane. It really doesn't matter who you said it to. You were told by myself and an admin that it was a personal attack. The aqdmin only said that if it were directed at them they simply didn't care. Lots of things suggest that the comment was for me. I was the one that had been reopening the thread, I was the one that had commented, your comment was indented properly and directly under mine. You said that the only workable solution was for me to realize that my view was the minorities. The admin had not even yet given their opinion on the matter. You did no such thing as "debubk a PA" calling someone insane is a personal attack, end of story. Try reading over WP:NPA before you misrepresent it again. You are to focus on the content, not the contributor. The word insanity has nothing to do with content, but the contributor. Landon1980 (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, butt out, it had nothing to do with you. as I have explained on numerous occasions, it was an E-D-I-T C-O-N-F-L-I-C-T, that is why I placed it under yours as I did not think it mattered. If you persist in this flagrant lying across the project, I will cheerfully drag you before ANI. Just knock it off already. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack, what else

So, if I understand you correctly, you would agree to News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. — Would you mind repeating it in your #Suggestion section, for convenience and clarity? Everyme 20:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

okidoki SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, thank you for your efforts, but the current atmosphere there is worthy of a cesspool of epic, Talk:World War II-like proportions. Comments like this one, actually determining all input from non-US-Americans to be invalid, put me off too much. Incidentally, the same editor tried a funny stunt by changing the infobox, against consensus, back to Barack Obama (from Barack Hussein Obama II) and, I kid you not, cited the Infobox template documentation as the policy basis for his edit. I'm not putting up with aggressive idiots like that. At this stage, it would take several determined admins to rid the talk page of such detrimental forces and speaking from experience, I just don't see that happening. Everyme 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Im aware that it was even raised at ANI regarding Landon and his hardline beleifs of the wording, however he has agreed on occasions that he beleives that we can word it as Me and User:MartinUK have stated, "Why cant we identify both his backgrounds and then summarise he is African American?". Dont you think the conversation has went on long enough? Its really getting out of hand i beleive and there is just constant use of "straw poll" and "google results". How these can be justifiable to a mans credentials i dont know. Dont you think there is anything else we can do to just close this topic? CorrectlyContentious (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion arbitration

I think you may as well file for arbitration on the Cold fusion dispute. It seems that the topic ban discussion is deteriorating into a threadfest. If you make a request, be sure to mention the point that was brought up in the original ANI thread that people dispute the applicability of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This conflict is more about WP:NOT and WP:COI than WP:FRINGE. I will try to make that point if you file a request. Didn't we both participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS case? Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

COFS... yeah, that takes me back a bit.

I've never filed an RFArb, so I'm inclined to consider this a while more before taking the plunge. If enough editors seriously think there's insufficient evidence for a ban, I'm not sure an ArbCom case will be accepted. Also, it is more likely to be accepted if the AN thread is given time to run its course. So let's see how it goes for a while. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am an impatient sort. The WP:AN thread cannot really generate a consensus when there are multiple good faith editors, including administrator User:Jossi objecting. I have requested arbitration of the disputes surrounding Cold fusion. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning this edit, please don't remove other's comments in a case you've made a statement in. While moving the edit to Pcarbonn's section would probably not have been a problem, out right removal is just a bit on sketchy side. Your reasoning was of course solid, but we try to preserve statements out in the open on arbitration requests. Also feel free to ping a clerk on IRC, noticeboard, or talk page if there is that sort of problem.--Tznkai (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Barack Obama

The holocaust happened by popular convention, but that doesn't make it right. Read the constitution, just because this website wants to call him president-elect does not make it so. The real election has not happened.Adamc714 (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that this website wants to call him president elect, as that every website does so - and every newpaper, TV show, and so on. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a collection of information from reliable published sources, not an arbiter of truth, and certainly not a publisher of original material. Indeed, the basis for inclusion of material here is explicitly stated to be verifiability, not truth. If the overwhelming majority of sources refers to Obama as president-elect, then we will probably do so too. Of course, if you know of a reliable source that clearly states exactly why everyone else is wrong about this (as distinct from arguments that you make yourself) then by all means say so at Talk:Barack Obama and I will be glad to assist you in correcting the article. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a source - the United States Constitution. Could you assist me in properly citing this? Thanks!Adamc714 (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

...at Talk:Barack Obama please. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop being my nanny

Please read the title. I enjoy contributing to music pages but with all due respect I don't give a <whatever> if my edits make you 'happy' or not, and really do not require your comments every time I clean my own talk page.Reqluce (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you had a problem with my choice of words. Perhaps I should have simply said that your edits were disruptive and that this disruption needs to stop. When writing that post, I made some effort to extend an olive branch to you, and to provide advice which would help you to contribute to Wikipedia without causing further disruption. You are quite within your rights to reject that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM

re Frankly, I'm surprised you'd post a link to that MOSNUM debate here. You really don't come out of it looking good. I don't understand this remark. What did you mean? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear to me that consensus was to go with the version of the guideline that was most consistent with our policies on verifiability and original research. The link to WP:DEADHORSE were already posted, so... if you can't see it, I don't think I can point it out to you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments about V and OR are valid ones, but I don't see where the consensus is documented. And I don't see the relevance of dead horse when there has never been a (civilised) debate in the first place. Or are you arguing that Greg_L's use of ridicule to gain support is legitimate? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I had the impression that you were arguing that there is consensus for the present wording. Was I mistaken? Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2 you know precisely where the consensus is demonstrated, stop asking questions that you know the answer to because it wastes the time of other editors. Also stop misrepresenting Greg by trying to use ad hominem instead of tackling the substance of arguments presented by him. The fact is you refused to give valid answers to questions directed to you and that is why your point of view was demonstrated to be weak and was refuted by the many other stronger arguments made in the talk archive where the consensus is demonstrated. Fnagaton 09:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you all know where to discuss this. Take it to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/IEC please. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Polite reminder to SheffieldSteel: you haven't replied to this question Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I try to avoid answering questions which seem contain contain an inherent logical fallacy e.g. "Are you trying to be disruptive, or are you just stupid?" SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that, but I don't see the logical fallacy. Please explain. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The question was worded in the form "Are you saying A, or B?" There are rarely only two possible interpretations to a statement, even one as brief as mine. I quickly decided on reading the question that, either it was intended as a rhetorical device, or that the meaning of my statement would become readily apparent on re-reading, and in either case, that it was best left unanswered. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case you have misinterpreted my intentions, so let me clarify them. You made the claim “In a nutshell, we use the units, and the definitions of those units, that our sources use” and the purpose of my question was to seek clarification of the extent of that claim. In this context it is an important claim, because, if you can show that there is a generally accepted consensus for your position, the logical implication would be that use of IEC prefixes should indeed be limited in the way suggested by the present MOSNUM wording. Let me ask you a different question: Can you substantiate the claim? Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see my statement as a bold assertion of anything. Rather, I felt that it was an observation, or comment, on the close correlation between the guideline, as written, and our cornerstone neutrality, verifiability, and no original research policies. As such, I believe the statement to have been quite uncontroversial. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation SheffieldSteel. If your assertion is correct that would make a difference. I have invited comment here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2: It would be nice if you had the courage to explain precisely what it is you want. Is it any of the following(?):

1. For Wikipedia to exclusively use the terminology all computer manufacturers use in communicating to their customer base and which all general-interest computer magazines use for their readership, thus retaining the status quo. (I doubt that it’s this one)
2. For Wikipedia to convert exclusively to the IEC prefixes wherever it has a binary meaning (pretty much always unless it’s hard drives) and have a bot facilitate that task so we quickly have project-wide consistency. (Is it this one?)
3. To go back to the old wording, which *permitted* the use of the IEC prefixes so you two can slowly start converting Wikipedia into a bastard mix where “megabyte” means one thing in some articles and has a different meaning in other articles. Thus, replicating precisely what Sarenne did until he was banned for life. (My guess it it may be this one, yes?)
4. You just want to stop by here and WT:MOSNUM/IEC and post nonsense for no particular reason until Headbomb, Fnagaton, SheffieldSteel, or I expose the logical fallacies of your arguments and shut you down for a couple of weeks, after which you come baaaaack to post another round of baffling horseshit—you know: just for fun. (It certainly might be this one.)
5. You just hope to be so damn annoying, that one of us finally blows his top and you go file an ANI and get one of us blocked for a week so you can have some modicum of satisfaction in a life you apparently feel has little purpose without the IEC prefixes. (I doubt that it’s this one, but is it?)
6. Other (be very, very  specific as to what precisely you would like to accomplish).
7. None of the above, because you will claim that you are addressing SheffieldSteel here and you will once again duck having to put your cards on the table and admit what your fundamental objective really is here on Wikipedia. By the way, if you simply claim that you object to whether or not there was ever a consensus for the current MOSNUM guideline, then that would have the force and effect of option #3 above, which doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening.

Please answer below. 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg L (talk • contribs)

This is not the venue to discuss IEC prefixes, nor what Thunderbird2 wants in respect of MoS guidelines. T2 asked a question which I have answered. This thread will be archived in a few days, hopefully automatically and due to inactivity... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI was best

Hi SS,

I saw you retracted your question to me on my talk page; I assume you saw my wikibreak notice. I kind of fell off the wagon, so I've been editing on and off today, but going to ANI was still a good idea, as I'm not sure my "just indef block" opinion is mainstream enough to stand up. Better to get some add'l input. --barneca (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You were quite correct about my retraction. Interestingly, the user in question is now behaving rather better. Perhaps the spotlight is good for some things after all. Anyway, we'll see what happens. Thanks for your help. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Autism Speaks, Cure Autism Now

I saw you did an edit at the Autism Speaks article. Things have developed since then...appears to me there is a lack of neutrality among the main editor involved Eubulides, and less involved Ombudsman (but even less neutral). Appears I'm the only one with my position toward neutrality. If you have time, please see my comments in the Talk page...I write my main criticisms about what I think is a neutrality problem...more recently I've added some new and possibly better sources...appears they object to press releases always...even for simple issues...anyway all of this I discuss there...sorry for the length at the Talk page there...just checking if anyone perhaps more neutral could get involved. I'm not familiar with the dispute process but will try to learn about that shortly. I thought your previous edit was useful and neutral...they keep adding negative and contentious content and sources where not necessary, I believe.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you take part in the new Criticisms section of the article? There is a lack of other users adding and revising content, and providing input, besides Eubulides.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Florentino Floro

Hi -- as I usually agree with you, I was surprised about your comments about an unblock, especially in view of what I think is pretty definitely sockpuppetry, i.e. Laa Careon created a few hours after his block, and probably User:Lux Lord. I think the problem goes well beyond civility. dougweller (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyking made a post saying that we shouldn't indef someone without any stated conditions under which we would consider an unblock. In response, I proposed some conditions in order to start a discussion. I didn't think anyone was seriously proposing unblocking at this time - or I would have worded my post quite differently - and I agree with you that civility is not the problem. It's not the reason for the block, and it really isn't what people have been complaining about. Reading the discussion on User talk:Everyking, it seemed that civility was only mentioned in passing, which was taken out of context. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That's a relief. dougweller (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The RfC/U has now gone live.

Per the earlier talk archive the Thunderbird2 RfC/U is now live. Fnagaton 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To SheffieldSteel: You state that you cannot find a proposal to change the guideline. The last time I made an explicit proposal it was met with such a torrent of abuse [1][2] that I requested mediation. I did not see any alternatives then (to mediation) and I do not see any now. Do you? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that proposal. It would certainly not have occurred to me to look back seven pages into the archives.

As for how best to pursue dispute resolution now, I am not sure what route is best to follow. I am inclined to let the above RfC play out, in the hope of seeing some positive results, although it seems that most of the pro-IEC editors have decided to boycott it. That's a shame, as RfC is potentially a useful tool, but to be most effective all points of view need to be represented. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It is worth remembering that the "proposal" Thunderbird2 has attempted to cite as an example is actually just another attempt to forum shop the same already refuted issue one month after the consensus had already been reached and after Thunderbird2 repeatedly refused to give a valid answer to Headbomb. Fnagaton 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To SheffieldSteel: I am happy to debate with any editor who is prepared to assume good faith. That is why I am here talking to you. Greg_L has made it abundantly clear that he is unable (or unwilling) to do so. His use of ridicule as a tactic to further his cause has the effect of stifling debate. And that is the real problem here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your willingness to discuss this on a good faith basis, this is not the place to do so, and it is certainly not the place to repeat allegations of misconduct by others. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2 needs to prove good faith (claiming to want good faith while demonstrating bad faith is obviously still bad faith) by complying with the RfC and correcting his bad behaviour. For example, by stopping all allegations of misconduct by others and by removing all the misrepresentation from his talk pages. Thunderbird2 has made it very clear he is beating a dead horse (hence why his point of view is so easily refuted by others) and needs to correct this aspect of his behaviour as well. By the way Thunderbird2, what you point to as "ridicule" is actually indicitave of how fallacious and weak your point of view is. You Thunderbird2 keep on repeating that weak point of view and harassing other editors so it is no wonder that your posts get short shrift. Fnagaton 05:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To SheffieldSteel: Fair enough - this is not the correct forum. The logical place would be MOSNUM, but past experience shows that mediation by an uninvolved editor is called for. Can you suggest an alternative? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Experience on MOSNUM has shown that you Thunderbird2 have refused to give valid answers to valid questions put to you and that you Thunderbird2 failed to support your point of view with strong arguments and that you Thunderbird2 then continued to use ad hominem instead of providing any valid argument. An uninvolved editor is not needed, what is needed is for you Thunderbird2 to stop repeating the same old refuted point of view every couple of weeks. Fnagaton 05:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Given Thunderbird2's latest edits (repeatedly editing old case pages after being told they are archived), detailed in the RfC, I think the user demonstrates they are intending to continue their disruptive editing pattern so moving the case to ANI for sanctions against Thunderbird2 might be a good idea. What do you think? Fnagaton 05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite warnings to Thunderbird2 not to edit archived pages he is still continuing to do so. Fnagaton 05:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Block

There is a difference between edit warring and attempting to make a working contribution. I've tried a few (3?) variants of the wording over the course of 3 days. In the latest I was asked to use the talk page, and did so to explain my edit. This isn't edit warring. It's also unclear how blocking someone making sparse edits for 3 hours will prevent anything. Is it a symbolic block? You're much more likely to escalate tensions, annoy, or discourage. Next time you consider issuing a block to a user for this type of editing, first try to inform the user and resolve the issue. If you do block, please provide feedback beyond the template. Thanks. –M^T 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing that distinguishes edit warring from bold-revert-discuss editing - and other collaborative forms of content discussion - is not whether the parties use the Talk page, but whether they continue to revert other editors' edits to the disputed content, disrupting Wikipedia. The block was not intended to be symbolic but to prevent further disuption.

This raises the question of whether the block was necessary. In this edit's summary, User:Snowded asked you to take it to the talk page, and said that you had violated WP:3RR with your edits. Your response was to post on the Talk page, but not to stop editing the disputed text. In this message, User:Guettarda also asked you to discuss the matter on the talk page rather than just in edit summaries. Clearly Guettarda would not have sent you that message just because you were not contributing to Talk:Intelligent Design - there are many editors who are not posting there, yet did not receive such a message. The problem, then, must have been in the edits you were making. Your response, again, did not involve leaving the disputed text alone; you continued to change the text from the prior consensus version, even though no new consensus had emerged. Indeed, the only response to your Talk page post was opposed to your edits.

I felt that you showed every sign of being only interested in getting your preferred text into the article, not in working with other editors towards reaching a consensus on the best form of wording, nor in creating a harmonious editing environment. In retrospect, I suppose a block would not have been necessary if, instead of writing a polite personalised message on your Talk page, Guettarda had used a templated message such as {{uw-3rr}} and if it had had the desired effect - or indeed if I had felt that after ignoring those polite informal requests, you would respond better to a formal warning, and if I'd been correct. Again in retrospect, you probably would have stood a good chance of being unblocked if you'd posted a request saying that you didn't intend to cause disruption, that you weren't formally warned, and that you wouldn't continue to edit war if unblocked. However, things are as they are: the block has expired, and you have returned to editing without, I am glad to see, any further disruptive edits to Intelligent design.

Apologies for the delay in providing this feedback. I hope this explains my actions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I made changes on the 24th. Raul654 reverted the use of "hypothesis". I removed "hypothesis" from my wording, and tried again. Guettarda reverted citing archives. I reverted on the 25th giving reasons. Snowded reverted, claiming 3RR. I tried a very limited version of my changes on the 26th. Note that 3 reversions over 3 days does not qualify for 3RR. Further, 2 of those reversions were attempts to adjust the contribution. You don't have to explain yourself to me, but do think about whether the block was the correct course of action. I don't see my initial edits as disruptive - your block (which didn't directly affect me, since I only periodically log on) does however dissuade me from making any edits to that article. –M^T 05:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to dissuade you from making any edits to the article. I would prefer you to consider whether those edits reflect, or go against, consensus.

As an aside, you might wish to read more about the Three-Revert Rule. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama

If you check my second edit, you will see I did not undo your edit re mixed race. Please check your facts and do threaten people falsely. You strongly believe Obama to be black, while my reading of the sources says his mother was white, making him mixed race. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Best wishes --Ret.Prof (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I already struck out the text that said you'd be blocked for edit warring; that was not a threat but a warning based on Wikipedia policy. I have never stated my personal "belief" about Obama's race, nor is that relevant to the article content. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks striking the edit war warning adding info about arguing in edit summaries--Ret.Prof (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No Calton

Hi. I see that you've picked up on this suspicious looking id. Fyi, I did have a go at getting him checkusered a little while back, but the results came back negative.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your warning

I find your warning a tad odd, especially seeing as how 1. the other person called me a drunk. 2. Accused me on being crack. 3. Constantly cussed among countless other things. I know that when I use my admin authority, I would definitely not be looking at my actions in the situation to warn about blocking. But I guess that just shows a obviously different approach, especially when I stopped responding to him quite a while ago, and not once did I attack his person or resort to cussing. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

YOU LIE. You lie and lie and lie. You attacked me several times, you called me a hypocrite, you claimed I said things I never said, you kept on and on and on and on when you had NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO ATTACK ME.

Sheffield, obviously the warning wasn't enough. Where is his block? //roux   editor review 04:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have mail. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you want me to say? I agree that your provocation of Roux was successful. But as far as a he-said-she-said analysis is concerned, I'm not interested. I just want this disruption to stop. My warning to you is an attempt to ansure that there will be nothing further from you that could be seen as harassing or provocative, and no further incivility from Roux. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want nothing that could be seen to be "harassing" or "provocative" to Roux, then I think that his comment demanding that I be banned is enough to say that it may not happen in the way that you want. The rest is all opinion and philosophy. I can't log onto irc because of a java error. Otherwise, this probably would have been nipped in the bud quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking policy says that editors can be blocked to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. If you don't cause disruption, you should not be blocked. Roux will accept that, I think, if given time to calm down. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, if it was about preventing disruption, I would have been banned ages ago. :P Hell, Moulton has been calling for my head for months, and I was a good friend of his and all I did was saying a little simple thing. I'm jinxed. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself, but that's my number one principle when considering (or being asked to consider) blocking an editor. As for Moulton... meh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh is a good word to describe 99% of life. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LE tag

Shouldn't it be "he or she is lawfully evil" ? :)Mrathel (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but surely fear is enough without also introducing doubt? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A Review

I wanted to send you this quick message wondering if you could take a quiet look into this admin's actions regarding this user. He reverted the block back from an indef block all the way to the original three week block and from an outside look the admin seems to have ignored most of the user's actions. I sent him a note with my warning/concerns and he mainly blew me off and in response, the admin just talked down to me, which I am ignoring. If you find nothing wrong here then that's that. However, if you do find something I ask you to do whatever you feel should be done. I was just an outside observer noting something wrong with it, nothing more. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Brothejr (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Real world matters are taking too much of my time right now, and I don't think I can afford to spend the time it would take to go into this matter in depth. It seems that your conversation simply took a turn for the worse, and I don't think an outsider can or should speculate about exactly why, not just from a quick read-through. If you have concerns about the conduct of an admin, and raising it with that admin hasn't resolved the issue, your next step should be to post on the admins' noticeboard with a brief summary (I'd just name the parties and say that you're concerned about the shortening of that block and couldn't resolve it on the admin's Talk page.) Sorry I can't help you more with this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll think on it tonight and decide if it is worth taking it further. I'd have to say his attitude and the way he handled the block situation just got me really mystified. Thanks again. Brothejr (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I took a quick look at the admin notice board and saw this conversation: [3] and looked at the last comment from Islander to Graz11 and from the look of the thing, I have decided not to step into that. This seems way too strange. I feel that if I bring it up there, either nothing will happen or it will rebound back on me. I feel like there is some kind of inside dealing going on here or something not being made public. But I as a lowly editor will most likely be pushed off to the corner or made a scape goat. (Just a feeling I got after looking at the recent events on the admin board concerning various blocks, these admin's, and related editors.) Brothejr (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI case (70.79.65.227/Ramu50)

Hello, SheffieldSteel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Problematc editor

Hey, Sheff. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping me out on this matter. User:Onelifefreak2007 (P.J.) is an editor who refuses to follow Wikipedia's most basic rules when it comes to editing with other editors. He consistently feels that things have to be "his way or the highway" when it comes to articles, particularly images, even going against consensus edits. He also shows disregard for information that has valid sources, and displays gross uncivility. Several editors are fed up with his behavior and it is becoming increasingly evident that he really should not be editing Wikipedia.

Just recently, he changed the main image of the Téa Delgado article without discussing it over first (seeing as I am the uploader of the original main image and he knew/knows that, I feel that he should have discussed it with me first). I reverted his change and explained why I did, asking him to talk it over with me. He basically, like he always does, said it's his way or the highway. Another editor, editor TAnthony, also reverted his change and gave valid points as to why he objects to the change. P.J. basically said to him the same thing he said to me. After that, I reverted P.J.'s change yet again and gave more detailed reasons as to why I object to his change. He simply reverted again.

Any help you can provide on this matter will be 1000x appreciated. This discussion has all taken place on P.J.'s talk page.

Thanks in advance. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry it took me so long to get around to dealing with this. Real world issues demand somewhat of my time. Having reviewed the matter, I see from their talk page that the editor in question has been blocked for a month. I hope this resolves the issue, but I am still here if not. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sheff. Yeah, I just got back and received a message about his block. Don't worry about the late reply. It's understandable, and was not really that late, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Neurolanis (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Final decision

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available here. Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Intervening with Mooretwin

Hello, you tried to counsel User:Mooretwin on is talk page following a request from both SirFozzie and myself, followed up later by an agreement with our request from User:Domer48. Mooretwin has continued to disrupt various pages, particularly Talk:Sinn Féin today, where he has been reinserting a message which contravenes WP:TALK in that it is largely a personal attack upon Domer48. Donmer48 has asked me on my talk page what to do, and I have him advice on his talk page. Moorewtin has also alleged on his talk page that I am engaged in personal vendetta; though he does not mention me by name, it is clear that it is me he is referring to. Similarly, Mooretwin has continued to post messages on my talk page despite me requesting him not to. Can you look into this? I've posted some updates on WP:AN, and I think it has got to the point bwhere some more firm action is required, though I am too involved to do this myself. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Blocked for a week. The combination of block log, edit warring, personal attacks, and article probation just adds up to too much. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Tag-teams; I'm guessing that this block should be logged on The Troubles RFAR page... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've updated that log. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama article probation

OK. Help me understand your point.Newguy34 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I was really just trying to find an adequate transitional phrase. Perhaps I should have thought through how NPOV would negatively impact the ability to use good grammar, and improve readability. Newguy34 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My Arbitration Case

You said if I ever had any questions regarding the supposed arbitration case against me to ask a question here, so I came to ask what's up with it? Seems like it's been a very long time and I've yet to hear a word from it. Was a decision reached or is there some reason for its postponement? Neurolanis (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the message I left for you. The arbitration case was held before I posted that notice, the case was not "against you" but about the 9/11 related articles, and you can read the final decision on this page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Final_decision. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha, indeed it should have been better worded for me.

Thanks for the info. It's appreciated. Neurolanis (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Hey, you should be aware, there's a thread about you at AN/I. Another "admin abuse" case and I don't think it's really anything to worry about it- don't even feel obliged to respond. Just thought you should know. Happy Holydays- l'aquatique || talk 07:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a dum dum... here's the linky: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_ask_your_admin_friend_to_stop_his_personal_attacks. l'aquatique || talk 07:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Re your edits to the ANI archive

Question for you, if you don't mind. Following Ricky81682's post I was looking at those edits to the archive and wondering how best to go about removing them, when I saw you'd already done the business. Did you do that manually? I was wondering if there was an automated way to do it without losing the intervening bot edits. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to perform a single edit if possible, but the user's later edits prevented me from undoing their earlier ones, and I didn't want to undo the bot's edit in the middle of it. To cut a long story short, I did an eyeball compare of the two sets of edits and manually deleted the text that'd been added. Luckily, it was obviously a good-faith addition to the discussion, rather than edits to existing posts, so it wasn't too hard to keep track of. If you ever discover or develop the 1337 skills necessary to revert an arbitrary set of edits, let me know! Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that was what I suspected - I was wasting time looking for an easy way out and got pipped to the post by someone less indolent ;) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 23:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

fooling

I was fooling. I think you were fooling to. But to head off any understanding... i was fooling.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Sometimes I do the "ha ha only serious" response too well, and no one knows what I really think. If in doubt, provide the (ostensible) newbie with some good links to guidelines and hope they learn something - that's my motto for today. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not as much fun, but it's probably less dramatic for all concerned.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

CREATION-EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY

I replied to your admonition on my page. Someone else replied, but I'd love to hear your arguments too. Regards--Breslauer (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of 'rvv'

You're right, of course, I do tend to use it as an edit summary when I can't just 'undo' a single edit. In most cases I've used it for edits that I think really are vandalism, although I know that there's a grey area. I'll try to be more precise in future. Thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for reverting the... uh... unconstructive edits. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit of Autism Speaks by 68.74.28.200

hi SheffieldSteel it may not have been 100% related to the Autism Speaks article however the verifiability is true as i was the one who created NTSPEAKS i did that cause they put me through i year of misery of groundings, not being trusted, and heavy lockdown. i even was kicked out of BOTH parents houses. yes im still a minor. if you want verification i can send verification. also im offended that the page says autism is a diesease it isnt people need to understand that its more of lifestyle known to you before birth just like how people are gay, lesbian, bi, ect... so i request that either the negative be removed or my addition readded or atleast part of it. KellyLSB (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for replying, and thanks for getting an account - it's much easier to talk to someone as a name than as a number :-)

I looked at your contribution again, and I've tried to tweak the wording of the article a little. It no longer says "autism is a disease", although it does still state the views of those scientists (at least, as reported by the source). I hope this helps some.

If you want to discuss this more, you can use this Talk page, or post on Talk:Autism Speaks, or use the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. yah i had an account i just forgot the password... :/ i got it now. woops forgot to sign all better. KellyLSB (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW i think the email user is admin only KellyLSB (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Kundalini yoga, edit warring, dispute resolution, etc

Thanks for the heads up.

I agree totally regarding dispute resolution.

That's why I left a note on the user's talk page regarding their edits.

If you look at their contributions list, you'll see that they never chose to discuss their edits, nor did they ever leave an edit summary.

Perhaps your block will convince them to read my note on their talk page and prompt them to present a counterargumet.

Cheers.

TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and agreed. Thanks for the reply. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: 3rr

ouch.... I didn't realize I did more than three.. Really sorry about that and thanks for telling me. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply on Floppy talk page

Please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Floppy_disk#Kibibytes.2C_and_so_on

User:CadenS

Does changing one's username affect one's editing restrictions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm not sure if a change in name will be allowed. I'll let you know when I find out. Let's try to keep the drama to a minimum in the meanwhile. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sniper101"??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatev. It's up to the crats now. I'm sure it'll work out. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just as sure. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Shef for successfully blocking my new username request. You sure are a nice guy. Sniper 101 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The decision was taken by a bureaucrat, and I'm sure it was based on policy and a concern to do what's best for Wikipedia. My part in the process was ensuring that the 'crat's decision was an informed one. Certainly I could have kept silent about my concerns, but they might have been diligent enough to discover your topic ban and subsequent evasion anyway. Obviously you're unhappy at not getting a new username, and I'm sorry about that, but I really don't think that the fault lies with me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Plan 9

Thank you, I appreciate it! The Photoplayer 21:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square...

...was unprotected for about 2 1/2 days before the "homeless" vandal struck again. He's been blocked for 3 hours, but that means nothing, as he's been on this tear for about 4 years now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, although I seem to have missed the action: that sock was reblocked indefinitely, as was one other. policy says that rather than protect permanently, we should periodically lift protection to give normal editing a chance to resume. It's a shame that this editor isn't willing to change their ways, but we have to leave the door open to the possibility that they will. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The bizarre thing is that you expect trouble in high-traffic articles, like the Presidential candidates, or anyone famous/notorious. But these seemingly random edit wars, in seemingly mundane articles, are just hard to figure. There's no accounting for the thought process of trolls. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hit List?

Why do you have what appears to be a personal hit list located on your subpage User:SheffieldSteel/list? What is my name (along with four others) doing on your list? That list is unacceptable for an admin. Remove my name at once.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CadenS (talk • contribs)

A personal hit list? I have to ask you if you even bothered to read that page, it is obviously a way to keep track of other users who have broken policy. I hardly see why keeping track of editors who have both broken several policies, and sockpuppetted, should just be let loose on the encyclopedia without anyone watching them. You say the list is unaccceptable. Could you please list how exactly it is unacceptable to keep tabs on editors who have shown they have a clear disregard for people's patience, good faith, and policy? Lastly, you are in no position to be ordering people around.

I've struck through the hit part of the title, as this is no such thing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The original note above was posted by CadenS. Given his track record, he is in no position to be complaining about the behavior of other editors. My guess is that it's just a quick reference for problem-users that you're keeping an eye on. I advised him, after he posted his complaint on another editor's page, to take it to WP:ANI if he's got a problem with it. Personally, I think a quick-reference like this is a pretty good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given your track record of being blocked so bloody often, you are in no position to be preaching. In regards to the hit list, the admin should resign asap. Caden S (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was last blocked 14 months ago, and the list is simply a list of problem users that he's watching. I might be on a hundred such lists, but you don't see me squawking about it. You should either take it to WP:ANI or drop the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a hit list; it's a watchlist.

It is normal for administrators to review the contributions of editors. It is less common, though not unknown, for editors to review the contributions of administrators, which is presumably how CadenS found his way to that page in the first place, since I have made a point of not linking to that page from anywhere else in Wikipedia. Just to make this point clear: the list is not accessible to anyone who does not go to some trouble to find it, and it is not intended to be a public statement about any editor.

The reason CadenS is listed is of course (as is suggested by the annotation) that he is under a topic ban. That topic ban is being, and has been, monitored and enforced as necessary by various administrators including myself, and having a link to CadenS's contribs provides me with a convenient means of doing so.

If this were a "hit list", there would certainly also be links to various information about this editor - the multiple cases of ban evasion, the original ban discussion, the problematic on-wiki behaviour that led to the ban, and indeed the editor's stated personal history that presumably contributed to the on-wiki behaviour. That none of this information has been linked should be ample proof that this really is not anything personal.

I had planned on wrapping this post up by noting that I hoped this clears up CadenS's concerns; however, from the tone of the posts above I don't think this is likely. On that basis, I'm going to raise this matter at the admins' noticeboard (not ANI, because I don't think a hidden subpage is an emergency). If consensus is that this page should be modified, or removed, I'll take care of that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of calmness, I'll not post at AN - but Shef, the wiki is not intended for the convenience of its administrators. Remember, janitors, wield the mop? Any editor, troublesome or not, will be given pause by finding their name on a list, especially one maintained by an admin. And there are a grillion ways to find wikipages, as I'm sure you know. Seems to me that it's incumbent on you to exercise discretion, that's why you get paid the big bucks. :) Copy-paste from Notepad into a preview screen works just as well.

In addition, you are in a position to ask for technical tools. I've been thinking for a long while about how to make a tool that would pick up a file://name from your local drive and show the contribs of the users therein. In my case, it would be for IP editors who I want to watch over a few weeks to see if they get up to the same tricks. Rather than brush off the editor concerns, lets find a wizard to craft a quiet answer. Franamax (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in seeing how your idea develops. An alternative technique might be to simply import a file from the local drive and display it as a wiki page. In the meanwhile, I have deleted the page in question. Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, you did not need to delete your list. I thought about adding my own name to it, just to prove a point. You dropped the list as a gesture of more good faith than shown by some of the names on it. However, it occurs to me that an obvious way to keep such a list is to store the appropriate links in your Favorites list. That's probably how I would do it, if I kept lists of users. Of course, if you're working off multiple PC's, maintenance of the list could get kind of tedious. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My idea is to maintain a "hit list" of users/IP's along with "DTM-last-checked", then have a function to list the contrib history after the "last-checked" date and update the new date onto the hit-list page. For me, this would be useful when I come across an editor that twigs me "I should keep an eye on this one" - but some of them only pop up every two weeks or so to try the exact same tricks. There would need to be add/remove tickboxes and for pretty obvious reasons it would have to be stored on the local hard drive. Some of the technical bits are currently beyond me, specifically using AJAX like Lupin's popup tools, though I can handle most of the Javascript and forms. Lupin is long gone I think, but if you know anyone else familiar in that area, link me up with them, I'm always happy to be a learner and collaborator! Otherwise, it will stay on my list, four or five down. :) Franamax (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the block! Much appreciated. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Adoption ended

This is just to let you know that, as per our discussion on my talk page, we've ended the adoption. I've adjusted the wording on the topicban page accordingly. -kotra (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protection of National-Anarchism

Firstly, thank you for stepping in when you did. The edit warring really was starting to get out of hand. How long does this protection typically last? I am having a lot of trouble getting a hold of a copy of ref #16, which the entire article rests upon having been syndicated. Ottre 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this post - it reminded me that I was in the midst of making a post when the server (or my connection to it) flaked out. I've started a new section at Talk:National-Anarchism where hopefully the dispute(s) can be resolved. In this case I set the protection to last three days, which I think is fairly normal for a content dispute, although I've seen longer. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

Blocked user protesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.87.117.105

SheffieldSteel, would you please clarify on this users page what he should do if he wants to appeal his block. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken, this user isn't blocked. There is not a single entry in his block log.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He is User:Posturewriter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Posturewriter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alert at WP:WQA

I would state for the record that I do not feel the issue of Daedalus969's incivilty has been resolved. OK, sure, one or two people friendly to him may have left him gentle messages, or otherwise paid lip-service, saying that he may have overstepped the mark, making it not even a slap on the wrist. For your recollection, possibly three of the most direct and uncivil comments I have ever read on WP all within centimetres of one another on the same page. "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. (quoted from WP:NPA)". Notwithstanding, the discussion which was taking page in Gwen Gale's userspace, was a series of blatant attacks not only by him, but by BMWilkins, who is a regular at WQA. Moving the discussion into his ANI of Tony1 and my "disruption" is frankly a bit arse about face, and merely sidelines the incivility of Daedalus. Nevertheless, I have posted there. No need to reply to me here. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I or did I not request..

"Please use space below for".. ah, the hell with it.[4] Cheers. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Slainte mhath. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pioneercourthouse yet again

Over at User talk:Tedder, we've got some semi-serious ideas of how to pre-empt this kind of problem in the future. Feel free to weigh in if you have time or inclination. User:Barek added a good summary of the protection history to the PCHS talk page, that could serve as a good stock answer anytime someone (even a sock) asks why it's protected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll contribute there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Smratlik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Checkuser came back inconclusive, but he's playing a variation of the game he tried the last time, the "straw man" game. Note this complaint to Poter99, the previous sock: [5] The user who posted it was Yourmanstan. Now the latest suspected sock, Smratlik, is going out of his way to kiss up to Yourmanstan: [6] That's in contrast to the insults he's leveling at everyone else. Just thought you might find this interesting. My guess is he's going to get enough users annoyed at him that he's going to get blocked eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He gawn. Another admin indef'd him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprising. Thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And as with Poter99, not a peep once he was blocked. So we wait for the next one to come along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Taekwondo

Yes thankyou Mr Gonzalez, but the matter was cleared up about an hour ago. Possum Pint (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really [7]. I'm still not sure it's cleaned up. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Star-crossed couple article

Sheff, will you weigh in on a discussion about this on my talk page or at this article's talk page? It's about the best format for the section in debate per Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. Nice to know that I can always count on you. I responded on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have restructured the article as I said I would on its talk page. For the section dealing with famous examples, I simply took information from the leads of those articles (the ones with couple articles) and tweaked some of it to fit that section better, as well as other stuff. I also reworded and added to the section dealing with modern examples.

Anyway, I hope that that IP/"new editor" who gave me a tough time before about putting the modern day section in paragraph form will see that this new version of it is better than its old version...and will not revert it back to that old version. If he does, of course, I will see it as vandalism (since this has been settled on the talk page) and I will report him.

I have basically set that article up to incite further improvement to it, rather than further deterioration of it.

I thank you again for your help on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield,

I have two requests:

1. Would you review the new edit of the star-crossed page? Particularly, in modern-day examples: "IGN considers Buffy Summers and Angel from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to be one of the genre's most tragic and notable star-crossed pairings."

Note that an article [8] calls Jack and Ennis "one of filmdom’s most memorable star-crossed lovers." I'm providing this only to illustrate the editorial nature of the claim. Even if the source is given, it does not seem to justify adding the opinion for any particular pairing over another. (Otherwise, you might have conflicting sources which claim any of the given films/TV series are one of the "most tragic" or "most notable.")

Taken directly From Wikipedia, I found the following information on the Neutral POV page: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion."

It seems that the comment about Buffy would fall into the latter (i.e., "The Beatles were the greatest band") category. Even if you presented the information as "X-Source considers the Beatles one of the best bands," it still represents a "matter subject to dispute.”

Wiki notes, “The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular.”

However, to describe all/or even some of the conflicting views about which modern example is the more notable/tragic would detract from the true objective, which is really to provide a series of modern star-crossed couples. This is why a list is suggested as the optimal format.

2. What is the best/advisable procedure for seeking resolve? It is understood that Flyer22 seeks to limit un-cited additions to the list, and that is a worthy cause. Likewise, no fault can be found in the actual grammatical/organizational execution of the format transition. What I question is whether the paragraph format is best not for most Wikipedia entries, but for this particular page in regard to Classic and Modern examples.

Here is what I found on Wikipedia: Embedded Lists:Lists within articles:

“Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.”

It seems that the purpose here (Star-Crossed), however, is to provide modern examples. Little explanation is required. Perhaps there is a compromise whereby un-cited additions can be discouraged/kept to a minimum, yet a list or list style (devised by Flyer22) can be maintained? If not, perhaps a dual-arrangement could be worked out? Here is a helpful piece from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates:

“For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other.”

Perhaps, if Flyer22 and others agree, or if it is possible, a list page could be created, meanwhile maintaining the paragraph format on the main article?

Apologies for the length, however, as a rookie editor to Wikipedia, it is an unspoken requirement that assertions should be validated with direct reference for equal consideration.

-Eos/IP editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.200.247 (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A question:

Please note Flyer's reversion to paragraph form. It is justified according to the opinion of a source known to the editor versus a neutral third opinion. Even though said sources input is taken in good faith to be unbiased, it makes me uncomfortable to read his recent contributions include Buffy related articles...

• Is there someone who specializes in optimal format that could be consulted?

• How do I approach this best, or should I leave the issue? In the big picture, it is a minor matter, though I do think that there should be a fair/civil way to reach a consensus.

-Eos/IP editor

User:70.185.200.247 —Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

Goodness me, what a lot of stuff to appear on my Talk page. I can't promise when I'll have time to look at this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the IP/"new editor" about this on the Star-crossed talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DancingPhilosopher

So...are you blocking the other account then

Oops, forgot the password. CRIMSON CLOVER. See you at the next meeting, I'll be wearing bells made out of the suffering of children.

Is it worth protecting the page, given the storm of sockpuppets I'm expecting to arrive? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. I'm putting together an SPI case now. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

'Kay, thanks. I don't know if they're a sock or not, I'm expecting a lot of account creation though. I'll monitor when I can to see of a protection request is necessary (and you're busy with other things). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.

I'm sorry, I don't think so. I just got a racial slur from a banned user who has a grudge for my filing him to ANI/ RFCU files (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive521#User:غراوپ and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julius Ceasarus From Primus and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ) long ago and then he created a bogus report on me after harassing me with socks Shirvinak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). According to our policy Any banned user's contribution can be reverted. I marked his sock as "sock" and then he resumed to harass me. So would you remove his craps? Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that this is a banned user, you should do so at WP:SPI. I and other administrators will then gladly revert their edits and block them - whatever is necessary. Until then, it looks bad for you to remove complaints about yourself from ANI. I took the time to read the material in question, and was going to comment on the thread, but I am now unable to do so, since it has again been removed. I now have nowhere to state my support for your position, or to question the actions of the original poster, as a result of your action. Since this is apparently what you want, I'm not inclined to make any further efforts in this matter. Have a good day. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... sorry, I still disagree and other admins did a right job. I should've gone to AIV for such ongoing vandalism. What effort have you done for me? The activities by the vandal is not the first time doing so (too many similar occasions occurred). Have a good day. --Caspian blue 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Effort already expended: taking the time to read the material in question, evaluate it against WP:USER, WP:BLP, etc. and decide whether there was a case for speedy deletion, MfD, or neither. As a rule, I look carefully at all allegations made against editors who have since removed those allegations from ANI. Of course, if the thread had been deleted by an uninvolved administrator, I would have been far less likely to spend any time on the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA...

...short for "Request for Arrows". I have a high regard for your opinion, and will work on doing better. However, I will continue to be merciless on vandalizing sockpuppets like that one guy I can never forget... what's his name... something about a square. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing your note on Caspian Blue's page, his criticism of me for being an ANI drama queen is pretty funny. Too bad that happened after I pulled out of the nomination process. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're not feeling too battered by the ol' trial by ordeal thing. Keep up the good work. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Logger9

Hi, I notice, from their usertalk history, that you warned Logger9 for copy and pasting material from articles into other articles. I am just letting you know that they are at it again, as well as adding tons of their own personal essays all over the place. For example, the contents of Sol-gel can now be found in many of the articles that they have edited, often when just a simple wiklink would have done the job! I feel I'm wasting too much of my time clearing up the mess they are making of the Glass article and am finding work that I have done relating to glass being re-distributed in articles all over wikipedia (but this time lacking citations, context and even being modified such that it is no longer factually accurate). Unfortunately many of the articles the user is editing do not have much watchlist following and need general improvement in the first place but that doesn't make their actions justifiable. I'm wondering, as an admin, if there is something you can do. Thanks. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can warn them, and try to inform them of best practices. Of course, you can do this yourself, but if you think it needs an admin I will step in. The best thing to do is collect a few good diffs of problematic edits, and also some links to guideliness (the most relevant I can think of right now is Summary Style). These should be linked by a brief explanation showing how the edits are at odds with the guidelines, and in my experience, as long as you make it clear that you think the other editor is here to improve Wikipedia, they will be happy to do so - to work within our accepted policies and guidelines. Let me know if you need anything. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I did warn them several times and asked them to stop copy and pasting material from other articles. They didn't respond and continued to do so until eventually more editors stepped in and finally, after having pretty much all there work reverted, have decided to heed our calls to discuss on the appropriate talk pages. So I think for now this is under control but I will be sure to contact you if further problems arise. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion of linking to guidelines and policies - this has really helped - I don't normally like quoting policy but I think there a times when it has to be done for credibility of our arguments. Thanks Jdrewitt (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Glad it's working out so well! Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

Could you please indefinitely protect User talk:Polystyla and remove the personal attacks the user has made against me and several others?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the editor removing my response citing that he has yet to cite a single diff against me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me take a look at this. In the meanwhile, please stop reverting that user's Talk page. Thanks, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a random/unimportant question-

For these custom-formatted signatures, do you have to use basic HTML to bring them about? I dont remember. I'm only asking you because I saw that you have one, as well as you having edited today. Thanks. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about HTML. You can certainly use Wiki markup. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright I got it, I pretty much just lifted your formatting (the raw data off of here after having clicked "Edit"), and modified it until I got my desired results. Thanks for your time bro. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

This just show you that Tom harrison already reverted 3 times

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=279437760&oldid=279376844
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=279814804&oldid=279803473
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=279815947&oldid=279815457

As per your rule this is edit war. --Calgaco (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The first revert is allowed; per WP:BRD reverting a bold edit is not in any way disruptive, but an essential mechanism, establishing that a discussion is necessary to reach a consensus. It is the act of reverting a revert that marks the beginning of an edit war. By my reckoning, you have made three disruptive reverts to Tom's two. Again, stop reverting and discuss the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear SheffieldSteel please note that I started to discuss in the talk before to do anything in the article. Instead the user Tom reverted without saying anything in the talk. Is this an "essential mechanism"?

Regarding the change IMHO a disruptive change is when somebody deletes something not when somebody adds more information to the article. Tom is the latter.

Regarding the "wrong": 1) It was referred to something not to somebody e.g. "I'm wrong in reading", "She is wrong in thinking something", etc. 2) In the specific case it was with a smile

Happy to hear your thoughts --Calgaco (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Essentially: discussion good; reversion bad. Now the tricky part - discussion is not so very good that it outweighs the disruptiveness of reverting. Many an edit war takes places in parallel with a discussion on the Talk page.

Examples of what is generally considered disruptive editing may be found here. I would specifically like to point out that deletion is not held to be inherently disruptive. Indeed, part of our verifiability policy clearly states that in a dispute over whether to include material, the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to include or retain material, not the editor wanting to delete it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear SheffieldSteel, I reply to you because I strongly believe that you are in good faith and I find interesting to discuss with you. Please let me know if you want to stop our discussion. Regarding you answer first I fully agree with you that “discussion good; reversion bad” this is why I had a disagreement with Tom. Second, regarding the tricky part, the current version (reverted by Tom) is clearly POV. For example let us examine the incipit:

Before Tom’s revert “In 2006, a study of the long-term effects of eating aspartame in rats by the European Ramazzini Foundation Institute was published…” After Tom’s revert “In a controversial 2006 publication, the European Ramazzini Foundation Institute reported a slight, dose…”

I think that the NPOV way to present a scientific research should be

1. to say what is relevant in the study
2. to say if the research has been criticized

In the current version of the article the first word is controversial the second is publication. Do you still think that this revert is not disruptive? Do you still think that this revert is not flame seeder?

By the way I’m informing you that the controversies to the above mentioned research has organized and paid by the aspartame’s producer.

Bests,--Calgaco (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd feel the edit to be provocative, although that does not necessarily make it disruptive. On the one hand, given that the article seems to devote so much space to discussing criticism and controversy about that study, perhaps describing it as controversial from the start isn't a bad idea. On the other hand, you've made a case that it's more neutral to describe the study and then its aftermath. The thing to do next is present that case on the article talk page... not here. (I'm not here as a judge of which content is correct. As an admin, I'm more like a referee at a game, whose purpose is to make sure that the players don't commit fouls.) If you are having difficulty reaching a compromise or establishing consensus on the Talk page, consult our dispute resolution guidelines for advice - they really are very helpful. And if you feel that the conduct of other editors is hindering the process of dispute resolution, then please do contact me here for help. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi SheffieldSteel, as you can check today Tom tried "very hard" again. I left the field again but this time somebody else has restored the common sense. I think and hope that we don't need your service! :-) --Calgaco (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)