User talk:Steel/Archive 15

Category:user female
Please see User_talk:VegaDark which is related to you're deletion of Category:Wikipedians_by_gender oh so many years ago. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My involvement here is quite small but I won't be G4'ing any recreated categories on the basis a 2007 CfD. – Steel 19:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. DRV now at Deletion review/Log/2012 August 27. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men protection
I see that you declined page protection for this article. This was probably a wise choice. When I made the request last night, the situation was getting out of control. Today, however, reasonable discussion has commenced, and we are moving toward a resolution. At this point, page protection is unnecessary. Thanks! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah the talk page was also a factor. Thanks. – Steel 19:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thxthx. – Steel 21:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Android operating system
You might be just the guy who can get this to Good Article status =P You thought about attempting? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe... but there are too many edits I want to make which wouldn't go down well on the talk page. Thanks for the vote of confidence though! – Steel 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Well it's a touchy subject to put your way and you're never going to please everyone. Be Bold and if anything is controvertial then discuss it first. Go on, give it a try! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll draft something offline and save it all in one go. That's bound to annoy someone. – Steel 00:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have my support! Just keepin mind it's about Android as a whole, not just features or models it runs on. Almost half of the current article i'd say is easily chuckable but reliably sourced. Also if you could clean up and simplify the table charting the growth of both the amount of apps and activations it would be brilliant! Thanks and good luck! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines
Hello Steel. The IP has reverted this article again after a talk discussion was opened. It has not participated there. Would you reconsider your decline of protection? The use of a fluctuating IP in a war probably violates WP:SOCK anyway regardless of the quality of discussion. I agree that the registered user should not simply 'win' when there is a good-faith IP working on the other side. In my opinion the socking takes away the good-faith argument. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I've responded at RFPP. – Steel 16:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken edit?
Your "minor edit" to the Android article rewrote a load of paragraphs and reduced the article by 2800 characters. Were you accidentally working from a much earlier version here? --McGeddon (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine. – Steel 21:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind shedding a little more light than just "minor edit" and "it's fine"? Skimming the diff, it has introduced at least one spelling mistake ("capablities"), so I assume you've reverted at least part of the article to an earlier version. Is there a discussion I've missed somewhere? --McGeddon (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I challenged him to get the article to Good status and warned him he wouldn't please everyone with far-reaching and potentially controversial edits McGeddon. I actually can't bring myself to look at his complete edit as i fear i may revert him (joke).
 * Is the 2800 actually anything important because it is a big article to be fair? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 21:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no objection to the content, it was just puzzling to see that much alteration to an article under an edit summary of "minor edit". I just thought I'd better check that Steel hadn't accidentally been working from an old version of the article when making what he intended to be a genuinely minor change. Mystery solved. --McGeddon (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually hoping that "minor edit" would draw less attention than "significant undiscussed changes" :P And you're right, I was editing from an old revision which is why a few edits from the last couple of days have been undone (eg, this). I'm about to go through and redo some of them. – Steel 22:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A wilfully misleading edit summary for a potentially controversial edit, because you're confident that the only attention it would attract would be unhelpfully negative, and it's sufficient for you and your friend to double-check your amendments? That's a new one on me. Is this tacitly accepted behaviour in some editing circles? --McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone reviewing the diff in a non-superficial manner will notice that it consists mostly of adding new content and rearranging existing content. Some content was split off into a new article where it can be expanded further without having to worry about keeping the detail at a level appropriate for the main article. I was a bit concerned that someone might panic and knee-jerk revert due to a large change being made in one edit (regardless of its merits) but that doesn't appear to have happened. In fact it's been a couple of days now so I assume it's been quietly accepted by everyone. As for the edit summary, I thought it was clearly tongue-in-cheek (wikilinked for your convenience) considering the -2,833‎ next to it, in bold red letters no less, but apparently not. I guess I can understand that someone might think it was an accident, and I will consider this in future edit summaries. However what you appear to be doing now is ascribing to me a malicious motive where there was none, and, worse, to Jenova20 who is not responsible in any way. I won't be responding to any more of that on my talk page. Frankly, "It's fine" should have been enough to make it clear that I hadn't edited the wrong version by mistake, which was the original concern. – Steel 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to suggest anything as strong as "malice", I'm just pointing out that this looks worse than you intended it to. You made a bold edit and decided to give it a misleading edit summary so as to "draw less attention" to it, and only sought feedback from a single other editor, Jenova20, brushing off the inquiry from a third party with "it's fine". I don't see how you can say "it's been a couple of days now so I assume it's been quietly accepted by everyone", from that - if you want to feel confident that you have consensus about the quality of your edit, you should at least mention to other editors that such an edit was made. --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the requirement to get feedback at all? I expect he did because i suggested he try and improve this article to Good standard. The only person complaining i've seen is you McGeddon and you've not suggested any improvements or changes but have made questionable comments and tried to draw me into something i don't want to be a part of. Look at your own behaviour here before you comment on others' ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement to request feedback, but there is a requirement to make edit summaries which are not deliberately misleading. --McGeddon (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh i'm not complaining about that, just your conduct here ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in this McGeddon, and i'm not double checking his edits as i'm very busy and also unaware of any policy that requires me to do so.
 * That being said, Steel i have noticed a sentence you should reword in the "updates" section:
 * "As of 2012, this alliance has never been mentioned since."
 * That's clearly not reading very well and it is still 2012. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I rephrased this sentence several times and that was the best I could come up with. – Steel 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Android (operating system), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Read-only and Jailbreaking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disneyland protection
Hey there! Whilst you were declining that, I was protecting it. I don't mind if you want to undo that as you seem to have some additional knowledge re the sock. Ged UK  12:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine. – Steel 13:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mttll again
He's edit-warring again. He removed a source and the 25% figure that I had added a while back , then he re-added a highly dubious source and the 9% figure  that I had removed a few days ago. I believe this is a violation of the 1RR he promised to abide by for the article in question. Also note how he sarcastically uses the same exact edit-summary I used a few days ago. I posted on the talkpage, but another Turkish user is tag-teaming with him so no sign of either of them on the talkpage. Athenean (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This does appear to be a 1RR violation there are probably mitigating factors here too - the edits are more or less a day apart and your original edit was a while ago (any removal of content is a revert of someone's edit if you go back far enough). Plus a discussion has since been started involving multiple people and I don't want to disrupt that, so blocking would be OTT at this point. Not impressed with the edit summaries though. – Steel 21:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Android version history + Android (operating system)
Steel these first few per-cupcake names are important historically, please decipher this link and include them as we have become a primary source perpetuating the myth of "Astro" and "Bender" and it needs to be rectified. The link lists around 3 different name and even tells how the first 2 names were not alphabetical. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what needs deciphering? The articles haven't mentioned 1.0 = Astro or 1.1 = Bender since last week, and adding the new information is non-urgent and can be done by anyone at their leisure. – Steel 18:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh it's been removed? I knew that =P
 * I'll get round to it at some point then. Thanks and keep up the great work Steel! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Compromise found
Please see here my last post. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the articles are currently protected in the consensus version I'm just going to let the protection expire by itself. There's only a few hours left and this leaves time for last minute objections, though I don't expect there to be any of those. – Steel 18:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Brown (talk • contribs)
 * ...which you can ignore as the poster has been blocked as a sock. Nobody Ent 23:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow look how much he wrote. – Steel 00:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sock
Hello. I think a blocked user has come back to Talk: Sultanate of Rum. Thanks and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your thinking is wrong.. if you have doubt, go do a sock-puppet check. --140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be best if you didn't turn up as a new user to a page which has recently had sockpuppet issues. – Steel 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Steel, you have checkuser tools, right? Could you have a look at this IP around the neigbourhood of QatariHistorian, Thinkfood and TremoloKid? Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have CU I'm afraid... though I'm not sure anyone would check that on the basis of just those two edits. – Steel 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a magic crystal ball... Sorry to disturb you. I offer you some Turkish tea to compensate. Also watch this video, if you like, as a gift. --E4024 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Is there something that can be done about the continued disruptive editing on Sultanate of Rum, Seljuq dynasty, Ghaznavids, Hunnic language, Khwarazmian dynasty(I'm sure I missed a few), by 46.184.173.12? This is getting ridiculous. --Defensor Ursa 13:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was deliberately trying to avoid protecting these for as long as possible (for various reasons) but I've done so now. – Steel 14:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Emil Kazaz
Thank you. I know if I had tried to make such an overhaul of the article it would have led to an endless back-and-forth. Much appreciated, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to be helpful. I'm sure the article creator will log in to revert me before long so look out for the inevitable WP:AFD nomination. – Steel 23:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right you are. I've requested help at AIV . 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In reply to your message
Wikipedia, as far as I was concerned, only required one reference to make my article. But apparently, I need more reliable sources. Everyone's so quick to attack all three of my articles about these Armenian artists. Your comment of, "This is really not the place to go on at length about the achievements of people you know", has already drove me to a point of frustration. These artists are very notable in the Armenian community, and you make it sound like they have to be as famous as 'Picasso' to be on here. If that's true, then I worry about Wikipedia. Alright, if it's the tone of the article and more reliable sources that I need to fix, I will look into it. I do not have all the time in the world. I'm a full-time student and I work, so if time can be spared, that would be dandy. --Amuradyan12 (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above user is currently blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

whats ur problem?
why have u protected champions league 2012-13... it has 100s of changes to be made. remove immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.244.230 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you create an account and post here I will confirm it so you can edit the page. – Steel 20:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks! this is my account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masterpasa.Masterpasa (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. – Steel 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let me know if u need help with anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpasa (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment...
...here: quite the contrary. My short break allowed Hyperionsteel to continue adding BLP violations to the articles - adding controversial quotes that could not be verified, referring to a BLP subject as a "race-obsessed paranoiac" and another as "lacking basic general knowledge," etc. Your decision was a poor one. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Basil L. Plumley page you protected
His death has been confirmed by the media - http://www.wtvm.com/story/19785743/2012/10/10/retired-csm-basil-plumley-dies-fort-benning-mourns-loss I would appreciate you updating the page with his death as I am not a wikipedia editor/user. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.249.198 (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I have updated the page accordingly. – Steel 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Only thing you can do is to lock pages. Because you are afraid of different opinion. There is a reason why Wiki is open for editing even by unregistered users. You know why? No, seems like you don't. Weak person. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.212.102 (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

12th man (football) - RFPP
Hi, re your decline of the RFPP - another bout overnight. It looks like a set of Aggies who either think the article is about the trademarked term or don't want to admit that the term was used in a similar context elsewhere. There's a couple of us have the article watchlisted but it's getting a bit monotonous :-) Semi protection would be a help but I accept it's only a slow burner. NtheP (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what an Aggie is but I've given the page a short protection. It would be good if you could drop a note on the talk page explaining your position, and the IPs can contribute to that if they so desire. – Steel 13:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ElPiloto
Can you take care of, this user admitted to be User:ElPilotoDi, and as you protected three pages against him in the past, it would be possible to block him? Thank you. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  01:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. – Steel 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the incovenience but he returned as . This guy really doesn't understand. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  03:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out the /16 range is basically used only by El Piloto, so I've blocked it. At the very least it will mean two weeks of respite from this whack-a-mole with different IPs. – Steel 14:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Solid-State Drives
Thank you for your work to ensure the integrity of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.122.28.217 (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for unprotection
Hi Steel,

I had posted here earlier requesting the unprotection of the Humanitarian Coalition Wiki page. I noticed you deleted this post, but your comment was unclear. Sorry to bother, just curious. I would really like to see this page unprotected ASAP HCIntern —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have some new and improved content which addresses the problems Syrthiss explained, then it would probably be best for you to paste it into the talk page where somebody who isn't associated with the Coalition can review it first. – Steel 18:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Advice Steel, I will start by including content that should be in no way be contentious. Thanks again HCIntern 14:32, 17 October 2012 (EST)

Some content deleted
Hi I saw that you deleted some of my contributions to wikipedia and noted that as linkspam. See, I added the genuine references, you can see the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlyanil (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I noticed that basically all your contributions have involved adding links to widefide.com to any page you can find. When people do this it makes it look like they're more interested in getting visits to their website than actually improving Wikipedia. If you want to re-add the content, that's fine and there are probably hundreds of sources online available to use, but please don't keep fighting to include widefide.com links per the guidelines on external links and conflicts of interest. Thanks. – Steel 15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

you deleted the page: Computer Engineering Technology. Assuming it had information on it you should have it restored.
hey steel,

i tried to create a new page for Computer Engineering Technology because it was missing from Wikipedia. after i made the page it said the original was deleted by you. Assuming the page had information relative to the degree program you should have it restored.

thanks, c1c2c3c4c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.62.132 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

??
Do you have a problem with the term Persianate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.184.191.86 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way steel, you are clearly on a powertrip because nothing justified protecting the seljuk article after my edit, even though i was correcting the info that was ruined before me, but it seems you didnt care about the previous person who edited the page. I dont know whos back youre trying to scratch but your abuse of admin power is resulting in the corruption of true and neutral information in the seljuk empire article, and your reverts are favoring the turkish oriented agendas. You should know something, as a life lesson, because perhaps youre too young and immature to realise it. What goes around comes around. Abusing your power just because you think you are the authority in a silly internet site will come back to bite you one day in the outside world. When it comes back to bite you, youll know you deserve it. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.184.191.86 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

RFPP archive bot
FYI - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection that you might be interested in contributing to. Thanks. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Android (operating system), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

De-linking...
Can you explain the rational behind de-linking the CEO's bios (who do not have personal wiki pages) from the Humanitarian Coalition page? I really cannot understand what the issue with that.

Also, why would you remove "member agencies" and links to their Wiki pages. This is critical information, and is a neutral statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCIntern (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the links, see Manual of Style ("Do not use external links in the body of an article. Articles can include an external links section at the end, pointing to further information outside Wikipedia as distinct from citing sources."). The member organisations are named and linked in the very first sentence of the article, so the section I removed was just duplicate information. – Steel 18:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahhh yes. Okay thank you for the justification.  Appreciated. --HCIntern (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The bible and slavery
Could you explain the rationale behind this page, Trying to a put the correct wording into place and keep being asked to provide evidence. Cleary the dictionaires, encylopedias have the rationale that its slavery and not servitude. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453916 states its slavery not servitude.

The idea to state 'that Paris is in France' is not OR, a citation is clearly not needed. To have confirmation from Teritary sources, that its slavery and not servitude, also confirms its not OR. See talk page. I believe people are purposely getting in the way of this page being changed.

I have also been attacked by a sock-puppet on the talk page whilst trying to make these changes.

Currently taking a Masters in Philosophy at a top 100 University, and recognise that this is problem with the philosophy of language, rather than asking for OR to confirm what I am saying.

What I am trying to change is not even sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.25.129 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Books
I tried to add "Personal Experience" as my source, and it didn't take. You can disagree if you want, but don't stop my voice. "A number of problems" is more with google's arrogance. Don't imitate them. FawnWilson59 (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Android version history
What would you think of a Peer Review for this article Steel? The reviews seem promising with 500 reviews+ with 5 stars. That's unprecedented! Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There were two last year if you remember (here and here), though obviously the article has changed a bit since then. You can put it through another if you like. – Steel 14:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, can you make the tables all a consistent size? Right now the "version", "release date" etc columns are different widths on each table and I'm not so good with the wikiformatting to fix it. – Steel 14:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how lol...And i'm already getting Citroen C3 Picasso peer reviewed so i can't request another atm. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll try and figure it out (maybe). Also lol wtf I never had you down as a car person... – Steel 14:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely hate cars...but i sell car parts for a living and so i learned quite about them and decided to put it to use. It's still dull and technical but i'm not bad at it =P
 * Other than that i work on Birmingham Gay Village which i photograph regularly when i visit for a drink and my Resident Evil project User:Jenova20/Resident Evil Creatures.
 * What about your interests? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from our favourite mobile operating system, I previously worked on Shadow of the Colossus and Metal Gear Solid 3. Those were a while ago now, though. Also I never knew Birmingham had a gay village. That's interesting. I'll have to go there next time. – Steel 15:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm always up for making new wikifriends and Birmingham is very local to me =] If you ever want to meet up then drop me an email. Also i never realised you were an Admin before, you kept that quiet...Thanks for the block, it was much appreciated ツ Je no va   20  (email) 16:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok, I don't live nearby but if I'm ever in the neighbourhood I'll let you know. – Steel 16:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Hopefully when it's warmer =P
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice edit by the way to Android version history but you missed a few: Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Android 2.0.1
 * Android 2.1
 * Android 2.3.3
 * Android 3.1
 * Android 3.2
 * Android 4.0.3
 * Hmm. They're definitely different widths aren't they, but everything looks fine in the edit window. I dunno... – Steel 15:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe because there's no images? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It's close enough for me though. – Steel 16:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's good enough and certainly an improvement. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Africa
In case you're no longer monitoring the closed WP:AN3 discussion, the anonymous LGBT rights in Africa user is continuing the edit war from  which is outside your range block. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw it, just checking the activity on these ranges. One sec. – Steel 16:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked user back on Torah after semi protection expired
On October 11 you changed the protection level for Torah because of consistent sock puppetry. This was done to prevent a user who was blocked from WP from continuing to disrupt the article. This user who went by the name Robot wagner who, was determined to be a sock puppet of Dalai lama ding dong who was banned from WP, kept disrupting one particular passage, a cited source, that gives the basis of the traditional view that the Torah was written by Moses. He kept revising this, injecting his POV and otherwise kept distorting it and completely disregarded what the source said.

Now he appears to be back. He made a change to it on Nov. 6 using the IP 109.148.243.87. Yesterday i found this change and reverted it back to what the source said and the very next day it was changed back, this time by IP 101.175.46.8. The only edits both of those address made are to this article, and only 1 and 2 edits respectively. It is extremely unlikely that 2 first time edits made by 2 different IP addresses, both of which made edits only to this article, would focus on this particular change. There was nothing wrong with the statement by the source "this is based on what was transmitted as a historical narrative" and in fact it stood like that for well over a month. It is almost inconceivable that 2 different 1st time users had a problem with this part of what the source said, the 2nd time reverting it in less than 24 hours. This is certainly the work of that banned user. In addition a 3rd IP 86.140.133.179 also reverted something in that article, this one also a first and only edit for that IP. That revert was also on Nov 6, a mere 45 minutes before he used the other IP to make other changes. If that is not enough, the 2nd and only other edit to IP 101.175.46.8. was right before he undid my reversion to go back to the revert of Nov. 6, and in that 2nd edit he undid another "edit" made by IP 108.52.23.101 about an hour and half earlier. That IP is also a 1st time edit and to this article and a check of what he undid turned up that he didn't undo anything at all and both versions have the exact same wording. This would make absolutely no sense of these 2 IP's were in fact different users, and I think that its obvious that the first undo was only because he didn't want it to seem like he was only there to revert the same thing that he reverted on Nov. 6. Therefore I think that its clear that this banned user is back and request that semi-protection for that article should be reinstated. The protection was till Oct. 25th and this new user started his edits soon after it expired. This shows that this user is obsessed with this issue and will not forget about it. So perhaps this time the semi protection should be indefinitely. All has been peaceful at that article until what is no doubt this banned user started his disruptions again. Learned69 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping we could avoid having to reprotect this page, but it seems necessary now. Especially as the reverts are getting silly - eg, "no reason given for revert," when, in fact, there was. – Steel 00:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk on Torah Blanked
Somebody blanked the whole Talk page on Torah. This was not done through a normal edit because it doesn't show up on Edit History. I cannot figure out how to restore it. Learned69 (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

PS The same thing was also done on a new article Operation Pillar of Cloud, which is about the recent Israeli operation in Gaza. It was completely blamked, and this does not show on the Edit History. That title should also be changed because the name of the operation is Pillar of Defense. See http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/live-blog-iron-dome-intercepts-rocket-near-tel-aviv-3-israelis-hurt-in-south-1.478624 for example
 * Someone on Talk:Torah opened a  tag but didn't close it, so anything written after it wasn't displayed on the page properly. That's why the latest edits weren't showing up. I don't think there was any blanking of the whole page, maybe your browser just messed up. Operation Pillar of Cloud seems fine as far as I can see. You'll need to head to the talk page if you want it renamed. – Steel 13:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. My browser is messed up I guess, which is very strange because those are the only things that come up blank. Learned69 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)
Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Android.) Tuntable (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Android version history talk page
Your opinion would be most valuable. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 01:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Birmingham gay village
Hi Steel. Did you edit just because, or did you see the reward board entry i added? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just near the top of my watchlist... – Steel 16:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Might want to check the reward board then. Thank you for the addition Steel ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * lol you're giving away a game you don't even like. Maybe after I'm done with my current project... – Steel 02:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It's critically acclaimed...OK, i can't pretend it's not shite for that long. If you want it then you know what to do =P
 * I'll stick with Civ3, at least that one's good. And good luck with Android, it's looking better. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 00:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Jovan Belcher
he is not confirmed dead or have done the alleged crime yet, there has been no factual news of this yet, although it might be true, the source does not confirm this action and should be deleted [[User:winsnerb1942| 12:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

he is not confirmed dead or have done the alleged crime yet, there has been no factual news of this yet, although it might be true, the source does not confirm this action and should be deleted [[User:winsnerb1942| 12:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"not a Streisand"
This incident http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streisand_effect&diff=529906551&oldid=529879547 seems to be a textbook example. Information was released; the subject complained about it; their objection generated even more publicity. Can you clarify? (I'm not disputing, just asking -- perhaps I have misunderstood.) Thanks. Josephgrossberg (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea really with the Streisand effect is that someone has to try and censor or hide the released information. As far as I'm aware (although I haven't been following this closely) she was just annoyed about it, and the resulting publicity came from the fact that not even Randi Zuckerberg fully understands Facebook's privacy settings, rather than because she tried to censor anything. I've just realised that a lot of the examples currently in the article are pretty crap and unclear, so I'm going to dig up some better ones from the page history. – Steel 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect -- those were exactly the sort of distinctions I was looking for. Thanks! :) Josephgrossberg (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Torah becoming common
HI, Steel

Over the last 2 weeks or so a few vandals have been vandalizing Torah. Two of them vandalized only Torah and no other articles. This has been going on for 2 weeks now and it would make sense that the 2 IPs that focus only on Torah are the same user. In all there have been 5 separate IPs involved in this; 190.88.196.231 2 times, only edits on torah 109.148.120.118, 72.164.117.2, a noted vandal who has already been blocked, 207.71.212.169, 3 times, only edits on torah and 90.219.233.109, also only on Torah. And these are pretty much most of the edits that are being done on the article, the vandals doing their work and editors having to take the time to undo them. Please have a look at the recent edit history. Since Torah was not an article that has in the past drawn vandals, so its not one of those articles that is subject to persistent vandalism, it is possible that this is being done be somebody who is upset that he was blocked from the being able to edit the article. So perhaps another semi-protection for Torah is warranted. L69 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected shortcut
Hi Steel. Back in 2006 you protected the shortcut, WP:C, with this edit. I wonder if you would consider removing that protection? If you would prefer that the shortcut remain protected, perhaps you would make the following category updates?: The Unicode category now has other uses, and R protected has replaced the use of the linked category on redirects. Thank you in advance! – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  10:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * from this...
 * to this...

Never mind. – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  01:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblock review
Can you provide come context for the block on ? I don't see any deleted edits or filter entries, or any hints as to what prompted the block. Who is this a sock of? Reviewing the unblock request is a little difficult without additional information. Kuru  (talk)  14:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It is likely that this was a false positive. I've unblocked. – Steel 18:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Steel359/MGS
User:Steel359/MGS, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Steel359/MGS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Steel359/MGS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Steel359/MGS
User:Steel359/MGS, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Steel359/MGS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Steel359/MGS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For the diligent work protecting the Android version history from inappropriate or vandal editing. Thanks

ツ Jenova  20  (email) 14:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Android (operating system), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rovio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sadia Dehlvi article is being compromised NPOV
My edits were removed and reverted to the self edits by the author. No reason cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs)
 * Please try to avoid adding tabloid fodder to the article just to further your own opinion of the person. This page has been subject to long term WP:BLP issues and I have zero issue blocking you for violations of the policy. – Steel 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

RFPP script
Any chance you could update User:Steel359/protection.js to offer the option to reply to RFPP requests with pending changes protection and template-editor protection? These seem to be the two that get used that the script does not support at the moment. Thanks! Courcelles 17:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. – Steel 19:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Priyadarshini Park
Greetings. This article about a park in South Mumbai was tagged G1 and deleted by you in 2006. Is it possible for you to move the article into my userspace so i may work on it? The park has developed and improved a lot in the past years and can now safely support its own article. Thanks. --Trinidade (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've pasted the entire article below. – Steel 19:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Prashantparikh 00:41, 25 October 2006:A rocky wasteland near the sea has been reclaimed and transformed into a large park, which can only be described as a feast for the eyes, amidst the concrete jungle of Malabar Hill. It lies to the west of Napean Sea Road. Besides acting as a lung for the city, it has a large track for joggers, several tennis courts and a fully equipped gym and a health club.
 * LOL! No wonder it got deleted. I might as well start afresh! Thanks a lot! Cheers!!--Trinidade (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please check before deleting the changes
Please do check what you had deleted. I had added more information to this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish2470 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Shottingham listed at Redirects for discussion
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shottingham. Since you had some involvement with the Shottingham redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. This is Paul (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England
Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in: If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!
 * Leeds on 12th April 2015
 * Manchester on 26th April 2015
 * Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Common abbreviations
Hi Steel,

I noticed your undoing of my edits on the article Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. As a huge gamer myself I'm familiar with terms like MGS, LoZ: OoT or FF7. But when are these abbreviations 'common' enough? Do they appear in mainstream media as such, or only in video game magazines and websites? If so, how often? This is all very tricky, so let's skip this part and focus on Wikipedia's guidelines.

The reason why I usually take abbreviations out is that Wikipedia maintains a formal tone, doesn't use insider terms and is written for the general reader. Because of these guidelines I'm very active in trying to make sure that video game articles are for everybody to understand. For some abbreviations you'll have to explain them again and again in articles, like downloadable content (DLC) or massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). Does the reader gain any new knowledge, knowing that for insiders the term MGS is used?

Now, concerning Snake Eater, did you notice that the only time the abbreviation MGS3 is used, is in the reception section, when a review is cited? The article itself uses Snake Eater, not MGS3. Even if it is fact 'common' enough, what good does it do to introduce the abbreviation in the lead, only to find it once in the article? --Soetermans. T / C 08:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The guidelines you've linked are important, and I fully agree with them. Some articles on this website are indecipherable due to difficult concepts being explained with technical jargon - computer science articles are particularly bad offenders, and if I had the time and motivation I would go through and fix them where I can. Similarly, I wouldn't want an article to open with "XYZ is an MMORPG with lots of DLC" any more than you would.


 * Luckily, the Metal Gear Solid 3 article has none of these problems. Simply stating that the abbreviation 'MGS3' exists does not change the tone of the article, nor does it make the article difficult to understand due to the introduction of technical jardon. Your assertion that it does is not credible. – Steel 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

MGS3
Hi Steel, I'd like to understand your reasons for deleting:

The game has had numerous re-releases, starting with Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence, which included a new default camera which was released on Playstation 2 that was then ported over to the Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and Playstation Vita (whilst retaining the original moniker Snake Eater) in HD compilations of the series, whilst a Nintendo 3DS version which made further mechanical changes was also released

From the first section of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.118.7 (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I rolled back a number of edits in one go so apologies that there wasn't an explanation for everything. This particular paragraph is a long, run-on sentence that reads poorly, and contains detailed info about the remakes that's covered more clearly in the relevant sections. Having said that the lead paragraphs probably ought to mention that remakes exist, but don't need to elaborate for example that it was Subsistence in the HD collection, just renamed back to Snake Eater. That can be saved for the relevant sections. – Steel 09:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Referenced content removal at Nexus 5X
Could you explain your removals at Nexus 5X? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmartinsons (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for registering.
 * to the point where it is not competitive with similar devices - There is nothing in the article that even remotely claims this. This is entirely you looking at the prices and making your own judgement about the relative merits of the Nexus vs the OnePlus device.
 * The device is more expensive outside the United States Google’s Nexus 5X and 6P pricing outside the US is ridiculous - Doesn't serve any purpose when the second half of the sentence is removed.
 * The phone has issues with lag. - Nothing in the article confirms there are issues with lag, the claims are qualified with "seems to" anytime it mentions lag
 * It seems to stutter and slow down way more often than its predecessor. - Again, not confirmed by the article. It says that speeds tests have 'proved' (which speed tests specifically are not clarified) that the Nexus 5 outperforms the Nexus 5X in 'a number of tasks' (which tasks specifically are not clarified), but not that 5X slows down and stutters 'way more often' than the Nexus 5
 * There are also encryption and camera slow-downs. There are also throttling issues where the phone is not capable of maintaining proper running speeds on its Snapdragon 808 system chip. - Performance drops due to encryption is a real thing, as is throttling on the 808 and 810 but neither are limited to the 5X. Could potentially be incorporated into the article somehow.
 * – Steel 17:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitteh for you!
Personally, I think cats suck compared to huskies, but you appear to like them, so enjoy! Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 09:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)