User talk:Steel359/Archive 10

"Rubbish" Hell
Why did you bother reverting Richard Hell page to a version that serves no purpose??? I've been unable to make any edits anywhere for 2 full days (one day reprieve) due to oddball IP blocks that list an IP # that isn't even mine and apply to multiple users from what I see. You may think it rubbish (from your history tag) but a brief explanation of why that occurred would have been better. Either way, there is no point in protecting that version of R.Hell, as you conceded yourself in your "rubbished" history. 4.236.12.42 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article
Log

-- 12:29, 18 April 2007 Steel359 (Talk | contribs) deleted "MP3 Tag Editor" (CSD A7/G11 (advertisement, not notable)) --

I've spent 30 minutes to write and format this article, why did you delete it? It was a description of software product (www.mp3-tag.com) nothing else. Article was formated as other Tag editors software. So what is wrong?

How can I restore article? How can I get the source back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karpolan (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Restored, I was probably a bit hasty there. – Steel 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes to self
Naruto article images. – Steel 03:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA (2)
I apologise for the unnecessarily sharp wording of my oppose. I hope you accept this, though you'd be justified in ignoring me. – Steel 12:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all - in fact, I find it refreshing that somebody can stand up for their opinion in such a way, even if it goes against the majority. There is no need for an apology - I think you are an excellent editor, and I thank you for voicing your opinion ~ Anthony  17:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, no hard feelings then. I might retract that oppose anyway. – Steel 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, dude, try harder.
Did you not notice there was a concern about the MOST image? I posted both on the tagger's page and the copymedia question page, and you deleted anyway. Maury 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was high speedy backlog clearing and didn't check every page (or any, for that matter). Restore it, or something. – Steel 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Abusive Admin
I can't cut and paste your actions as returning to this page they aren't stored. If you are having a bad day you should refrain from posting and deleting. If not, please inform me where to take a formal complaint re your actions; fyi "go away" is not civil.4.236.15.182 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

19:23, 29 April 2007 Steel359 (Talk | contribs) m (13,871 bytes) (Reverted edits by 4.236.15.182 (talk) to last version by Maury Markowitz)  WHY
 * Try the admin noticeboard, or something. Now quit posting here. – Steel 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Posted to Third opinion was a two part request for a third opinion. The frist part of which was:
 * Admin. User: Steel359 has been extremely uncivil (see archived history and history log comments for his talk page, relating to posts and content by user 4.236.xx's). Referred to legitimate post as "rubbish" and said "go away"


 * The user talk page belongs to Steel359. I suggest .4.236.15.182 that you create an account so that there can be a two way dialog because then Stell359 can reply on your talk page. For the rest of your request see Talk:Richard_Hell  --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I want nothing more to do with this. – Steel 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
Sigh indeed. I don't get how he sees the impossibility of the request and yet doesn't realize it's irony :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Captain Australia
Hi, i created and own my own comic here in Australia. Ive put a few articles on wiki and i know one came across as self publicity and was deleted but the others were just an article on the comic and the hero. Not for publicity but to have it included in wiki in general. Can you tell me whats going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt Australia (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I have no idea which pages you're talking about, obviously not Captain Australia because I didn't delete that. – Steel 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE
Hello, I am the poor soul who's just deleted a tonne of your recent image uploads (and I expect more will go tomorrow when I rummage further). It seems your idea of acceptable copyrighted content is at adds with en.wiki policy and foundation resolutions. Please cease uploading so many copyrighted images. – Steel 01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. How many are so many images? If you needed it to delete something you should have talk to me first, so we could have sove the problem without messing up the .hack//Sign article. The use of images there was not different of that in many GA and FA articles. Some images you deleted were important to illustrate how the main characters of the series look, or to describe main plot points. Also today I was uploading images to replace the ones in the list of episode with lower resolution version of the same stills. We could have deleted that, or whatever. What it is just rude and unrespectful is to go messing up an artilcle without a warning and the opportunity to fix the problem (WP:NONFREE says 48 hours must be given before deletion). I want you to apologize for that, and I want you to indicate to me which images are not acceptable and why before any further deletion, as wikipedia policy states you should do. Kazu-kun 04:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, "messing up the .hack article"? I haven't messed anything up. The wording the board resolution linked above uses is "within narrow limits" &mdash; 15+ images in one article (.hack//Sign, in this case) is clearly not within narrow limits. As one of the other people involved in the nonfree content cleanup keeps saying: "This is the free encyclopedia. Did you not get the memo?". – Steel 12:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change tha fact that the same policy you are trying to enforce is clear about giving 48 hours before any deletion. If you had followed the policy, I would had time to fix the article myself, selection the images to delete while arranging the prose and such. In any case, you violated WP:NONFREE; you did wrong, and I want you to apologize for it. Kazu-kun 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If an image on which fair use is claimed is not used in any article (Criterion 7), it may be deleted immediately. - WP:NONFREE
 * On a side note... "fix the article"? I didn't break anything. – Steel 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the whole paragraph:
 * Images that do not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor, or another Wikipedian, will need to provide a convincing fair-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria.
 * This is the first part of the paragraph and is clear; you have to give notification and 48 hours prior deletion.
 * If an image on which fair use is claimed is not used in any article (Criterion 7), it may be deleted immediately. For images that were uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days.
 * This don't apply because you're the one who left the images orphaned and you should had given 48 hours of notification before this point. You violated wikipedia policy. Apologize. Kazu-kun 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

my RfA
Thank you for your comment on my RfA. It made me look at your talk page where I found the link to the new licensing policy, which I think is a step in the right direction, as I've explained in an update on Q3. Er rab ee 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm umming and ahhing about this at the moment, I'll get back to you before the RfA closes. – Steel 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please reprotect WP:BAN until WP:CSN's MFD is resolved
After you unprotected Banning policy, the cycle of deletion/restoration/deletion/restoration resumed, affecting the "Community ban" section underlying the community sanction noticeboard, which is under discussion at an MFD. If the MFD results in consensus to delete the noticeboard, clearly that should also be deleted from policy. But meanwhile, it continues to function, and its policy basis should remain in place, not be deleted in advance of such a consensus. Since unprotection, it has been boldly deleted, restored, deleted again, and restored again. This isn't within a 24-hour period, but it shouldn't be happening at all. This slow-scale-edit-war is why the policy was protected before, though I haven't found the discussion to unprotect it. ("However, unless consensus has been reached, pages should not be unprotected soon after protection without prior consultation with the admin who first protected the page. This is particularly important in the case of controversial pages, where the conflict may start up again and the protecting admin may be in touch with the disputants.") Would you please reprotect the policy, currently reverted to the version last protected (13:13, 23 April 2007, by Phaedriel)? Once the MFD is closed, with any luck we'll all know what the consensus really is, and I hope that'll end the editing dispute. See also WT:BAN. Thanks! -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 09:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is: "There is an edit war on this page because I'm continually restoring disputed content that Tony Sidaway and Dmcdevit remove. Please revert back to the protected version by Phaedriel, against policy, which just by coincidence also happens to be 'my' version"...? – Steel 11:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't write it; that provision had been stable for five months, since before I ever had an account or edited here, until it was deleted without consensus. Navou and Durova had each restored the same provision before I restored it too, the only sense in which it could be called "my" version. Did you consult with Phaedriel before unprotecting the page? If not, then it should not have been unprotected, and the version up now should still be the version protected, namely the five-months stable version, until consensus is reached to change it. Notice that this also wipes out my own edits since the unprotect. -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 00:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no rule that the protecting admin must be consulted before reversing their week-old protection.
 * Still against policy to revert back and protect.
 * That you, Durova and Navou are the ones restoring the disputed content says a lot about the dispute itself.
 * – Steel 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:PROT.  2. Cite?   3. Really? What does it say? --  Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 02:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6 days is enough, especially as progress was being made on talk.
 * "Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version." - WP:PROT
 * You, Durova and Navou are strong advocates of the community sanction noticeboard. How interesting that the same three people are trying to make the banning policy and process unnecessarily convoluted and bureaucratic.
 * – Steel 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the section in question was originally posted by Jossi on 7 November 2006, and here are all the differences between that and the current version -- notice how few of them are to the "Community ban" section, notably the move from WP:ANI to WP:CSN in February -- how does retaining the section (with its "should note the block on [noticeboard] as part of the review process" and "should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users" provisions intact) constitute "trying to make the banning policy and process unnecessarily convoluted and bureaucratic"? How does this constitute trying to "make" it anything at all, when it's not changing anything? We're supposed to ensure that any policy revision reflects consensus, otherwise the policy should remain stable. The deletions are contentious changes, not consensus changes. By WP:BRD it was fair play to make them once, and if they stayed they stayed, but if they were reverted then discuss them and don't repeat them until you get an agreement on the matter. These repeated deletions without consensus    are not following WP:BRD; and cutting out the community discussion vs. handful-of-admins provisions does not make anything less "convoluted" or "bureaucratic", it only changes "who decides community bans" from the community to the admins. But you've made your own position clear. Thank you. --  Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: csd.js
By all means. And if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. ^ demon [omg plz] 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Coca-Cola
Thanks for the long term pp -- another article that has the same level of problem is Renaissance. -- Stbalbach 13:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected. – Steel 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

who are you?
The Wikipedia police?

I was trying to inform the planet about the works of this wonderful group of people. I don't know what you didn't like, but you didn't even have a chance to hear about this group. I'm not trying to solicite donors or participants. I was simply offering information.

I'd like to know what problems you saw so I can fix the posting and make it appropriate.

Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onemaryred (talk • contribs) 00:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The page was really quite spammy. Just to give a sample of of phrases to avoid: "We...", "Dramatic Adventure Theatre provides the opportunity for actors to perform around the world, to explore the unknown and the familiar, and to become intimately involved with distant communities in order to build a platform where ideas, talent, and original works can be shared.Dramatic Adventure Theatre provides the opportunity for actors to perform around the world, to explore the unknown and the familiar, and to become intimately involved with distant communities in order to build a platform where ideas, talent, and original works can be shared.", "Dramatic Adventure Theatre is a theatre company that doesn’t tour...it ACTS!! It collaborates, educates, builds, inspires, encourages, shares and grows.", "DAT will constantly strive to find new ways for artistic collaboration.", etc. If you intent to recreate the article please ensure you adhere to the neutral point of view policy, and attribute all content to reliable, external sources. – Steel 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Y did u delete my article? (Round #46,675)
Why was The Dig Beach Volleyball Bash & Festival deleted? It is an annual event that will soon be added to the Central New York region's "notable" summer festivals. I don't think it is fair to delete it just because it is in it's first year of conception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dig (talk • contribs)
 * This is a one day event that hasn't even happened yet. How many people other than those associated with it have written about it? – Steel 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of people have written about it so far--other than those associated with it. We are just starting the public relations for it now so hopefully we will have several more articles written about it coming up. We are getting a lot of buzz about it already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dig (talk • contribs)
 * Let's wait until then, then. – Steel 11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
After I saw that Patsy Moore created her own account specifically to complain about the vandalism, I felt that I had to ask for semi-protection. I took the liberty of adding the tag.Blueboy96 00:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that the vandalism was present on the page for two weeks before someone (a non-Wikipedian, of all people) noticed. Anyway, there are eyes on it now. – Steel 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So how long will it be semi-protected--is it gonna be longer than the two weeks I asked for?Blueboy96 00:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of unprotecting it. At least not for a good while. – Steel 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I think of it, I can understand, given that this was a WP:BLP issue and there was the possibility of legal action by the subject. I've already dropped her a line to let her know she doesn't have to worry about it anymore.Blueboy96 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd gone down to her talk to leave a similar message and noticed you already had. – Steel 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you indef'd Boofbaby, one of the guys who was on a rampage through the site, even though he'd made two edits to that page and had only been Level 3 warned (by me). I want to be an admin eventually, so I'm wondering if that's the normal practice when dealing with a BLP issue. I know that BLP violations are taken pretty seriously here (more than anything except copyvios), so I want to know for future reference.Blueboy96 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't normally go through the warning process anymore purely out of laziness, though the AIV and RfA folks like you to do that. BLP is probably the exception; anyone who opposes you for being too harsh in cases of potential libel ought to be troutslapped. – Steel 01:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, after sleeping on it, I proposed a community ban for Boofbaby at least until he publicly apologizes to Ms. Moore. Even though he's a newbie, this is the most egregious case of libel I've seen on Wikipedia.  Even more so than the Siegenthaler controversy, I think.  Proposal is here. Blueboy96 14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A Colorful Thanks
Thanks for the speedy admin help with the article on Paint. Your assistance is appreciated. :) --James52 04:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do try and make myself useful occasionally. – Steel 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My talk page
Please block the latest JB196 sock editing it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sir. – Steel 21:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Memphis University School
This page, Memphis University School, is getting vandalized almost daily... Could it be semi-protected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frog47 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Sorry for not being around when it needed it. – Steel 11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Wow ... thanks ... I'm going to have start !voting on AfD's a lot more often if that's the new rule-of-thumb, as up till now I've probably been on the losing side of the AfD's and MfD's I've participated in as often as not. :)

The article does need a lot of work, though. Maybe a mention on the Project Law page? Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to leave you a message asking whether you could clean up the tone, especially since you seem know a bit about it. Of course, a note to WP:LAW would work as well. On a side note, I was wondering what you'd make of the close - make sure you use your new Jimbo-like powers for good!. – Steel 00:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think it counts as a nominator withdrawal rather than a binding precedent. :) Newyorkbrad 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bah, technicality. – Steel 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the note you posted at Project Law so hopefully someone will do some article improvement here. It's not really my area, but if it's still a mess in a few days, poke me and I'll clean it up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. – Steel 15:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Limboot
Thank you. I understand part of being an admin, and one whose religious background is obvious, is taking a certain amount of abuse, but the above user was very much over the line and a disruptive force. Thanks again for your actions. -- Avi 14:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome. Let me know if you see any Limboot-like IPs or brand new accounts. – Steel 15:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You da man.
That is all. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

United Kings Studios - Deletion Inquiry
Is it possible you could give me a reason on why the United Kings Studios page was deleted? United Kings Studios are one of very few game companies which offer people with no experience a job. This gives them a chance when applying to bigger games companies as they have had the experience which is required. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hystlen Caeth (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Have you and your three friends done anything to warrant an article in an encyclopedia? – Steel 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We have produced 3 games for free and one of those games was described as "awesome" on www.gamespot.com weekly podcast "the hotspot." And in the next to weeks is the release of the retail game, Savage Sewing 2 --Hystlen Caeth 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone written anything substantial about United Kings Studios? A few good-sized web/magazine articles would do it. – Steel 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an article found here which was posted by the Official Leader of Gamespot's hotspot and there is reference to us in a hotspot pod cast found here United Kings Studios are talked about during and after the 48th minute.
 * Haven't checked the posdcast, but we need more than someone giving you a passing mention on a forum. – Steel 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. We will have one of our games under development at the moment officially published by an official PC Indy publisher. Will that be sufficiant enough for a wikipedia article once that has happened? --Hystlen Caeth 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * United Kings Studios needs to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial works. If having a game released by these people draws attention to the company, great. – Steel 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gene Poole block
Hi. I'd like to register a formal objection to the block. I've already replied on ANI as well, but Gene's comments were nowhere near the usual insta-block incivility threshold, he only made a couple of comments, and Kingboyk and Radiant have been harrassing Gene as well. I am not going to touch an unblock button on this one, as I'm involved in the middle of it, but I believe that this block (and Kingboyk taking it to ANI in the first place) were inappropriate admin intervention. The discussion wasn't that bad, rude, or disruptive before Gene was blocked.

My two cents. Georgewilliamherbert 21:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I took it to ANI, and asked for an admin to check Gene's contribs and my contribs. The outcome may well have been for me to be told to back off. In fact, more than one admin checked both our contribs, and concurred with the block. I don't think Steel can be faulted, and I don't think I can: I felt he deserved a block, and it would have been inappropriate for me to issue it, so what else to do? The only way this was a bad block imho is that it wasn't long enough! Without his disruption we've made good progress today, with both sides of the debate able to discuss the issues sensibly and without resorting to name calling, reversions, tag removal etc etc. --kingboyk 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's opinions have been noted. – Steel 02:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Can you please, please, please use descriptive edit summaries explaining what you're doing and why, especially when you edit pages in the MediaWiki namespace. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm being hounded for one edit without a summary? – Steel 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's "hounding" you -- I'm just making a request. Making edits to protected pages, such as those in the MediaWiki namespace, are a sensitive matter, and, especially given recent events, those without edit summaries tend to raise suspicions that a simple edit summary, such as "removing link per talk," would greatly help to alleviate, as well as saving me and others of the time needed to figure out what you did and why you did it. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Conversation taken to IRC. Result: AmiDaniel is slapped with a fish. – Steel 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
 * =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics semiprotect
Thx for semiprotect on Economics. I see that the template is not there yet. It is my impression that only administrators can make the template effective. Can you help? -Thomasmeeks 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The template doesn't actually do anything, so anyone is free to add it. – Steel 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thx. Many would-be vandals will be in for a big surprise.  --Thomasmeeks 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Euroleague
Hi! The guest in the Euroleague article, removes from the opening paragraph the line about the club which is most successful in the competition and adds as an information that the attendance record of the competition belongs to his favourite team (20,000 in a stadium of 18,000 seats- how is this possible?). So, to sum up, in the first case he moves important infos from the top of the article, while in the second, he adds statistics for his team using an unreliable source (in fact the record belongs to his team but the number of 20,000 fans is false). If both are accepted then it's ok... - Sthenel 08:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing the trivia section entirely would probably solve this problem. At any rate, Future Perfect has protected it. – Steel 11:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for semi-protetion
You have declined my request for semi-protection (for August Willich) because "no-one's actually tried to discuss the changes with the IP", I wanted to do just that but the IP does not use a single IP address, they all start with 84.140.***.***; all five of them! What do you advise I do? --09:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Plot Thickness! The same IP (84.140.***.***) has been vandalising German American, User:Chincoteague requested semi-protection for that article but was declined (by User:Michaelas10). I know it is low-activity, but it is really annoying!


 * Ok, so he's using multiple IPs. Which one is the one you contacted? – Steel 11:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Don'tAccelerate.png restored
I've restored the image you've deleted because we need it at Google Web Accelerator for demonstration purposes. The amount of email we get over Google Web Accelerator at unblock-en-l is not insignificant and deleting the screenshot will only unnecessarily increase our workload when dealing with confused users. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Per an IRC discussion, I have re-deleted this image because it violates WP:NFCC #9. This image should not be placed on that page unless there is wide consensus for an exemption as outlined on Non-free content criteria exemptions. Currently the only exeptions are the various images-to-be-deleted categories. – Steel 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Being anal over the fair use criteria here is unhelpful. You do not help out on unblock-en-l so you don't have to clean up the mess that comes with blocking Google Web Accelerator. The workload at that mailing list is large enough as it is. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

IAR
Thank you for unprotecting WP:IAR! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looked like a drive-by edit war to me. – Steel 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being a dick
Tantrum over Steel, sorry for taking things personally - just had a crap day at work (I'm sure you know what it's like), I'll try and walk away before I act in future, cheers for the words on my talk page.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Man in a skirt
Several days ago, you blocked User:Man in a skirt as a sockpuppet. The evidence in the ANI thread seemed very thin to me -- indeed limited to focus on an issue. It is clear that he is a single-purpose account, but we have lots of thsoe, adn i don't see anythign he did as particualrly disruptive, much less worthy of a block. What is the evidence of abusive sockpuppetry? I don't see it. DES (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also said he was a single purpose account for promoting a subject. We need less of those. – Steel 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but that is not a policy based reason for blocking. If it is, then we can block most of thsoe who edit on the Palestine/Israel conflict, for a start. Should we do that?
 * I would prefer not to wheel war, but I see no reason to let a block with no policy basis stand. Not that another recent block of an SPA has been quite contentious on ANI and seems to have been overturned, if I read the thread correctly. Please reconsider the block or provide clearer evidence of abusive sockpupetry or soem other block-worthy violation DES (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy which says that this is a neutral, sourced encyclopedia, and that users shouldn't use it to advocate movements they support. I vaguely remember being that one or two of the Five Pillars, in fact. I'm not sure what this controversial block on a different SPA has to do with Man in a skirt; I expect that a number of SPA blocks have been less than controversial. – Steel 23:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield United F.C.
Ooops! I think I stepped on your RFPP decision. Sorry. What would you like me to do? - A l is o n  ☺ 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Resign. – Steel 23:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * *meeps* :( - A l is o n  ☺ 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtle
But I like it. One Night In Hackney 303 10:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like how everyone's thoughts on the matrix17 thing can be summed up in four letters. – Steel 14:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there's plenty of four letter words to choose from. I forgot he was due back actually, I had a quick check on his talk page and saw he didn't last particularly long.... One Night In Hackney 303 15:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. One Night In Hackney 303 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I blame myself for not remembering to block her IP. – Steel 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rogers High School
You named the reason for deleting the article "Roger's high School (Arkansas)" as CSD G2, this page was not a test page at all and contained information on my school. I find it outrageous that you would delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.25.43.165 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The entire content of Rogers High School (Arkansas) was:
 * Hey cool. I'm making a page on wikipedia.
 * I somehow doubt that can be considered information on your school. – Steel 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Samahang Ilokano
The vandalism I was referring to was the addition of words "aswang" (witch) and "kuripot" (greedy) to the name of the fraternity, which are used to demean its members. The lists I restored were "removed" in the past by a revert action. Brownspank 04:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw your edit summary and assumed it was talking about me. I only realised it wasn't afterwards. – Steel 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral decision making on AACS encryption key controversy
I noticed that you have unilaterally reverted edits that were reached by a consensus of editors on AACS encryption key controversy and have then fully-protected the page from editing. I strongly urge you to immediately un-protect the page and to revert it to its agreed-upon state in which the key is included. You should then familiarize yourself with the discussions that led to the consensus in which the key was first allowed to be linked to, was then allowed in the screenshot of Digg, and finally was allowed in the article itself. Please see Talk:AACS encryption key controversy. Also, you should be informed that previously an administrator took nearly identical actions as you have and was brought up on Requests for arbitration. The arbitration committee decided not to hear the case as they felt it was premature and that he had acted in good faith, but acknowledged that he took the wrong decisions and that a caution or reprimand was in order. I hope you take the time to familiarize yourself with the issue, unprotect the page, and involve yourself in the discussion before unilaterally preventing editors from contributing to wikipedia. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit before protecting the page, that isn't the procedure is it? ≈  Maurauth  ( 09F9 ) 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I was hoping not to get drawn into all this. See WP:ANI in a minute. – Steel 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't impose a protection for no good reason and not expect to be 'drawn into it'. ≈  Maurauth  ( 09F9 ) 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He HAD a good reason. There was an edit war going on. Do not blame Steel for trying to stop it. Ugh. --Ali&#39;i 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - on consideration, the block was a good one because it stopped the edit warring on the page. Will (aka Wimt ) 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Law of Attraction
Please reconsider your protecting of the page. The use that requested it has been engaged in an attempted to convert any discussion contrary to what they want into an abuse. They have personally attacked me on my talk page and claim to be leaving wikipedia in disgust. The article needs continued development, and I have made every effort I can to talk about it on the talk page, and am met with nothing but resistance and attacks, little constructive feedback. Protecting the page is just going to make this that much more difficult. Thanks. Tmtoulouse 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. – Steel 13:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you please reconsider your declining to protect the Law of Attraction page? The user who began this section on your talk page, Tmtoulouse, seems to be causing a lot of problems. If you look at the history of the site and it's discussion page since the weekend, he is causing a lot of problems. He has completely rewritten the article and the discussion page. On the discussion page for the article, there has been a lot of anger vented over this user and the changes he has made. More than one person has complained that the article is now biased. On Tmtoulouse's talk page, he states that rewriting this particular article is one of his goals at Wikipedia. I looked at the talk pages for everyone who has been involved in arguments with him and he constantly asserts that he is acting in good faith, while no one else is. He also claims to be adopting the broad editing encouraged by Wikipedia, but based on the discussion page for the article, he wants all changes to be approved on the discussion page before they are placed in the article. He has also violated the three revert rule multiple times on this article and the Vision boards article. I think it's an example of tendentious editing and everyone could use a bit of a cool down. Similar things also seem to be taking place on the articles for Vision Boards and Wayne Dyer (also listed on his user page as his goals). Thank you. Svery 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
You deleted the external links of "The L Word", "The L Word Fan Site", "3 in Love", "StrangersinParadise", and "AfterEllen" that I added to their topic articles' "External Links" or "Media" sections. In each case, the link to 3rd party sources was good resource material to the topics of homosexuality, bisexuality, polyamory, etc.. I'm inquiring because you did not mention a rationale for deleting those references to media on those specific topics, in the correct article sections. In some cases, like with the L word and AfterEllen, those links already appeared in Wikipedia articles and I added them to other related articles. Do you object to those sites' content? Do you object that I added the same links to several relevant Wikipedia articles? I don't understand why you didn't give a rationale in any of the instances. Are contributors supposed to leave a brief rationale, especially with reversions? – OneMoreOption


 * Those links are utterly irrelevant to the articles they were added to and have absolutely no encyclopedic value. – Steel 17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. You and I respectfully disagree.  I will explain reasons for being more inclusive.

The L Word is one of the most, if not the most, watched media representation of Lesbian, Homosexual, and Bisexual issues in American media. If a "Media" category has encyclopedic value, then both The L Word's official site and it's very active, primary Lesbian Community site have encyclopedic, cultural, historical, and anthropological relevance to the discussion of how Lesbianism was perceived and practiced in this era. If a person researching Lesbianism (or analogous sexual topics) in the first part of the 21st century wanted to get a sense of practical Lesbian lifestyles, issues, controversies, laws, and political movements, then those two media sites would be two of the best resources, providing comprehensive information on those topics.

If someone wanted to measure popular perceptions and social standards of our generation, those links would be exceptional. The same is true of online Lesbian, Homosexual, and Bisexual communities and popular artistic expressions of AfterEllen and StrangersInParadise (historically prominent and leading in their respective media categories). These are some of the best quality media sources that exist in these popular media categories. I encourage you to visit the websites and verify their informational, encyclopedic, and diverse attributes.

Deleting "The L Word" link from "Lesbian," would be analogous to deleting "The Sopranos" or "The Godfather" from "Mafia," or deleting "M*A*S*H" from the "Korean War" article. Popular culture and media are interwoven into the primary discussion of these inherently cultural & social issues.

Here are almost identically analogous Media links that exist in the same articles we're discussing and other Wikipedia articles:

Bisexuality: The British Columbia Bisexual Network - Vancouver BC, Canada Bisexual Resource Center (USA) Bi Tribune Magazine (USA) Bisexual Women's Forums and Resources (USA)

Homosexuality: One National Gay & Lesbian Archives Sexual Minorities on Community College Campuses Hidden Sex Directory

Polyamory: Polyamorous Percolations An online resource and community about Polyamory, Polyamorous relationships & lifestyles. World Polyamory Association A synergistic network of polyamorists. PolyOz - Polyamory Resources Australia Online Community providing Resources, Information and Support Network for Australians - by Australians Polyamory in the News website (a part of the Polyamory Online website) Polyamory Weekly Podcast A podcast regarding polyamory and related issues. Loving More A quarterly polyamory magazine that also runs two national poly conferences on the East and West coasts of the USA.

Those are also all relevant and encyclopedically valuable links that have maintained consensus, and I hope you don't censor them.

Many Wikipedians are looking up topics of "Homosexuality," "Bisexuality," and "Polyamory" with questions of: What was it like to live that lifestyle in previous generations? What is it like to live those lifestyles under current marriage laws and sex laws? The narrative and community forum pages speak specifically to these important encyclopedic questions.

Quoting from the Wikipedia Forum for Encyclopedic Standards:

The guidelines must be flexible because of the broad range of topics that they must apply to. Citations of academic topics may benefit from more rigorous standards than popular culture topics. The guidelines should encourage better "quality" sources. The guidelines should encourage more references rather than fewer (within reason). The guidelines should encourage a broad range of types of references (ie., book, journal, Web, etc.).

I'm going to respectfully disagree and restore the diverse and relevant content links - allowing more Wikipedia community members to comment further on what they believe should be the consensus position.

Requests for protection
Ok, thank for your time Arnon Chaffin 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr:
What does tl;dr: mean? --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Too long, didn't read. It's my (failed) attempt at humour. – Steel 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that I do tend to write too long, a failing brought home to me when I asked one Wikifriend a few weeks back whether he'd seen my !vote comment in the Mackensen RfB, and he responded "yes, I read your book." This is one reason I find it useful to spend some time occasionally workshopping an arbitration case, where the format calls for short declaratory paragraphs. Newyorkbrad 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This was just my way of trying to lighten things up on the RfC, since people are really getting far too worked up over it. I don't consider writing too much a problem in itself, unless it's absolute drivel (of course your comments generally aren't) in which case this sums up my thoughts nicely. – Steel 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding University High School (Los Angeles)
Please discuss your edits on Talk:University_High_School_%28Los_Angeles%2C_California%29 - They have not been reverted yet, but there is a huge debate about them, and we need to clear up the section :) WhisperToMe 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_High_School_%28Los_Angeles%2C_California%29&curid=1986599&diff=133027882&oldid=133021731

Mondegreen reverted your edit. Please get on the talk page and discuss this WhisperToMe 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RFVWSXEDC
This editor has requested unblock, and I see from the block log you believe him to be a sockpuppet of a banned user - is this due to editing style, etc, or ? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That user is unquestionably a sockpuppet of User:Safwwefe. If you need evidence, I can email it to you. – Steel 22:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When it is convenient for you, I would much appreciate it. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Give me a few minutes. – Steel 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, whenever it is convenient. Take your time, and thank you again. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Already sent. – Steel 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read and admired (your evidence was compelling and very well organized), denied unblock, and I have protected the talk page to prevent yet more unblock spam. And now I'll stop bothering you. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the second opinion. – Steel 23:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Smile, you are very gracious. Now that i have seen the pattern, I can compare should the subject arise again, and not have to trouble you. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you looking at the evidence and coming to the same conclusion. It lets me know my sock-detector is working. :) – Steel 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

info concerning User:65.93.216.56
Hello Steel359, that IP you blocked yesterday has just been banned for two weeks from the german wikipedia, too, due to vandalism. Best regards, --PvQ Mailbox 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That user really needs to find something else to occupy their time with... Anyway, it's helpful to know that s/he's around on de.wiki too. Thanks. – Steel 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry accusation
Your reference to meatpupperty is rubbish. From the page you reference: Meatpuppets are "single-purpose accounts". Who "come to Wikipedia with one agenda". I do not know any of the people I have posted to. They are existing accounts. I have not had anything to do with the creation of these accounts. I do not know if they are going to agree with me or not. I am just calling to peoples attention the discussion that is taking place on this issue. I want to widen the debate so that it is not just admins taking part. The other side of the debate is how non-admin people like myself come up against the semi-protection policy and may wonder how it works or does not work.

What I have done is Canvassing. Canvassing is "overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial"

On this page it says "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem."

I have not tried to upset anyone. I am communicating about issues.

Ttguy 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what pages each of us are reading, sending notices out to multiple (14 in this case) people who you hope will agree with you is not how we resolve disagreements. If we're going to quote policy pages at each other: "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate." and "On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible". – Steel 13:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quoting from the Sockpuppet page. And as such that is refering to advertising pages outside of wikipedia to attract NEW users onto wikipediea to act as Meatpuppets. That is not what I have done. I do not have meatpuppets and your reversion of my canvasing is highly inappropriate. Quite clearly what I have done is Canvasing and it is legitimate if not controversial. Can I ask you to please not to revert these edits again. It is legitimate for me to let people who might be interested know that such a discussion is going on. I have not told them what to say. I don't even know if they are going to agree with me.
 * Can we please just both of us work to improve this policy and clarify it for people? I have added some compromise into my proposal after considering your points. Can we come to middle ground?Ttguy 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it'd be best to drop this and work towards agreement on the Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. – Steel 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrix17
Is there a reason you refused to unblock this user, other than "Yawn"? Yamla did indeed block Matrix17 for creating a non-notable article, but then the article survived AfD as a strong keep. If the reason for the block is invalid, why is the block continued? That doesn't seem fair and at least requires a better explanation than the one you've given. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Matrix has done a touch more than just create a few non-notable articles. Examples from bother her English and Swedish wiki block logs include: incivility, bad faith nominations, impersonation, harassment, block evasion, deliberately provoking users, personal attacks in foreign languages, etc. Several admins have been involved in the whole thing and so far none have felt the need to unblock. There was a long discussion on ANI a while ago which I don't have the link to right now. – Steel 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. Thank you for that.  The user's block expired, she returned and did not actually do anything wrong, according to the record, but was mistakenly re-blocked.  That's not following policy in my view.  This user isn't banned (yet), though that may be the ultimate result if she keep up her bad behavior.  Do you agree that she should be unblocked until she actually does something wrong (which probably won't be long)? (adding) Sorry, am I wrong that Swedish blocks don't carry over to English Wikipedia, or is it the case that somebody blocked on one should be blocked on all?  Jehochman  ☎ / ✔ 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot in good faith unblock Matrix17 given her behavior that has continued since at least December. I note that the current block isn't even mine. – Steel 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely fair. You have no obligation to unblock this person. I've posted something on WP:ANI about Matrix17's block evasion and disruption of WP:AN, and we'll let them sort it out. Jehochman  ☎ / ✔ 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Hello there, I'm sorry to bother you directly but I've noticed you've been active on the page protection effort. The reason I writing is that this page protection request has been moved by the housekeeping bot without an administrator explicitly specifying if the requests are to be allowed or denied. I've moved the request back up to the pending list once already but the bot has eventually moved it down again. :) Background on the problem: Recently the consensus behind WP:MOSNUM changed and apparently an editor didn't like the change, so as can be seen by the edit history of the articles listed in the request the disruptive anonymous proxy edits have been continuing from yesterday to today despite the best efforts of editors to revert those changes. This isn't really a content dispute since the user isn't interested in talking, it's more like a full scale vandalism attack by a user with an anonymous proxy. :) We (the editors) could do with some help and have asked for the pages to be semi-protected for a while. The IPs being used are most likely Tor exit nodes, but there any many many of them and edits are being made quicker than can be tracked. The anonymous user is also making spurious 3RR violations against the editors who revert the vandalism. Fnagaton 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to go now, but I'll remember to check it when I get back. – Steel 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've updated the request with the latest pages the user has been valdalising by adding links to the note at the end of the request. Fnagaton 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, there's a lot of articles there and most have next to no activity besides this proxy guy. I'd rather not do blanket protections across the lot; appears to be involved and going through blocking the proxies as they appear so he's probably a better person to ask anyway. – Steel 16:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * as well. This situation seems under control. – Steel 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Under control, very much indeed. :) I only wish I had admin powers to help you guys out with all the IP blocking you're doing. Fnagaton 17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection for Economics
Dear Steel: I don't know if you can help (before someone), but it so, please consider Requests for page protection for Economics. Thx. --Thomasmeeks 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response at the above. FYI, below is my response there (with "[feel]" inserted for clarity):
 * Will do. I was under the impression that administrators were subject to the same process as others for removal of semiprotect and that previous semiprotectors were to be contacted. I had also thought that discussing removal of semiprotect on a Talk page section for that the subject (such as the one indicated above) was standard practice, as suggested by one of the templates. Maybe I'm too close to the disruptive effects of vandalism & not-so-good Edits on the progress of the article to [feel] particularly chastened.
 * I did take your advice & contacted the unprotector. I think it's quite improbable that evidence will change his decision. It didn't the first time, though the evidence on the Talk page was very clear.  --Thomasmeeks 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
The block template on my talk page says, "This template should be removed when the block has expired." I don't know proper etiquette/procedure for who removes the template. Should the user do it or should it be done only by an admin? Is there a standard contrib comment for that type of edit? Onemoreoption 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now the block has expired nobody's going to complain if you remove it yourself. – Steel 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting Image:DBL.jpg
Thanks for deleting that image, It was the only copy of it I had, when my computer system crashed it wiped out my hard copy :( Nightwolf 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope there is another copy of it somewhere, but I'm not holding much hope... Nightwolf 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas . – Steel 12:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much :) Have a cookie :) Nightwolf 06:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection policy
Dear Steel: I normally would not write the reverter but go to the relevant article Talk page. In this case, however, I'm stumped by your Edit smmmary and think it would be unprofitable for other readers if I used that Talk trying to discover what you meant by:
 * Unprotection - but it *is* ok, this is what we've just been discussing

I suppose that you mean that your Edit expressed just what you intended it say. My Edit summary, however, tried to fix what is seems to me is an implausible interpreation. Here is my Edit summary:


 * Unprotection - 2nd para., 2nd sent.: rm "content dispute" to clarify & avoid (wrong) inference that rm semi-protect for vandalism discussed on Talk p. is OK

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. My point was that it is not only Talk page content disputes that the prospective unprotector should consider. If there is discussion of semi-protection for vandalism on the Talk page, current wording suggests that the "free-lance" admin should ignore that in deciding whether to unprotect. Is that what you intended? --Thomasmeeks 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it implied that admins should ignore talk page discussion. I mean, part the discussion on WT:PROT is from people opposing "admins should..." type language. Perhaps the unprotection paragraph is best reverted to the way it was before people (including me) started fiddling with it (check any old revision before today to see). – Steel 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, please do revert to May 25 (or allow me to). I still have problems with that Edit, but I'd try to offer improvements on that better version but on the Talk page first and to keep your comments and those on the Talk page in mind. --Thomasmeeks 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free. – Steel 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Thx. That was queek! --Thomasmeeks 01:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

template:uw-deletionpolicy1
An editor has asked for a deletion review of template:uw-deletionpolicy1. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -N 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR against Taharqa
By the way, the three-revert rule violations against come from the fact that  is apparently him. Note that when accused Taharqa of having a "vandal sockpuppet" on the Al Fayyum article, Taharqa said in the next edit summary that he just "wasn't logged in". A similar series of events occurred at Fayum mummy portraits. In fact, the (recent) histories of the two articles looked so similar, I had to double check to make sure I didn't just look at the same article twice. --  tariq abjotu  00:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the info. – Steel 01:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

David J. Tholen
Why are you deleting sourced and factual information about David Tholen's Usenet activities? Tholen's Usenet reputation is considerable and an important part of his story.
 * The current sources were not adequate, especially for less than flattering information. – Steel 12:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels
The future name and direction of List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels has been discussed and nearly everyone is agreed about keeping the focus purely on comics and the majority favour my suggestion of also moving it to Warhammer 40,000 comics - if you can unblock it we can move it ot you are welcome to do both if you like.

As it happens the creation of Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) has helped in some ways as it has helped establish clearly what the current entry isn't and the two should be complimentary once we can edit them both.

Thanks for the help. (Emperor 02:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
 * I'll unprotect but leave the move to someone else. – Steel 12:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks that's great. (Emperor 13:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods
I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Random Cookie
Jehochman Talk 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent revert
Dear Steel: Would you kindly respond to your most recent revert at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy? --Thomasmeeks 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Come again?
".usermessage { display:none; } in your css." - how would I do that? One Night In Hackney 303  14:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Add the above to User:One Night In Hackney/monobook.css, purge cache, reap results. – Steel 14:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although Riana has just fully protected my talk page now...I'll get her to unprotected it. One Night In Hackney  303  14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anything else that would be handy to have in there? I see people talking about them all the time, but I know nothing about them. Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  14:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a tonne of stuff in mine, mainly just removing clutter (like the copyright warnings in the edit window) and making things look nicer (like making the new messages bar white, not orange). There should be a few WP pages about this somewhere. – Steel 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:GeorgeMoney/UsefulCSS. – Steel 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your promt reaction and for the reversion, dear Steel - yes, it would have been prudent on my part to do it myself some time ago, but it seems that vandalism to my userpages has become particularly virulent in the last days, and they have been pretty active today... I plan to keep your protection to my userpage, at least until they calm down a little. You are a knight in shiny armor ;) Again, thank you! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Surprised
I'm rather surprised you reversed one of my actions based upon an unverified assumption. Actually I was aware of the discussion you supposed I hadn't been informed of and I'm quite surprised you reached that conclusion without consulting me. I don't intend to wheel war so I've proposed a compromise at my talk page that I hope is agreeable. Durova Charge! 23:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

History of Northeast China (Manchuria) template
You recently helped reopen the Template: History of Manchuria template. Despite recent agreements from the 3 parties involved (Whlee, Wiki Pokemon and I), one particular editor (Cydevil38) keeps reverting the template back to the previous name - despite the agreement (note that he was not a party involved in the discussions).

I have recently requested an WP:AN/I against him, but as of this posting, there has been no response from any administrator.

It seems to me that he wants to engage into a renewed edit war on the matter, hoping to have it re-locked under his preferred title and ignore the talk page just like last time. . He rarely included edit summaries in his reverts and does not present his case to the talk page, dismissing my attempts for communication as "pointless" and a "waste of time".

I was wondering if you can re-lock the template with "History of Northeast China" as the title on top. Hopefully, this may persuade him to discuss rather than to resume edit-warring. Thank you. Assault11 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution outlines several options. If you need a dispute resolved, try formal or informal mediation. If it's mainly one user being problematic, try a user conduct RfC. – Steel 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gee whiz
What an angel :) Can't wait to test it out. I knew my feminine wiles would win you over ;) Cheers mate! Riana ⁂  02:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It works perfectly - thanks a million :) Riana ⁂  03:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect request for Mitch Thrower article
Hi Steel359,

Hope this email finds you well. I just wanted to drop you a line about the protect request that was granted on the Mitch Thrower article page. I just wanted to detail that I have no connection with Mitch Thrower, do not have any agenda, and do sincerely believe that the edits I made were newsworthy. Specifically, I added news reports that his appearance on 'The Bachelor' were staged, and did in an impartial vein - citing references, linking to both sides of the story, and replying to his requests for comment. May I get some feedback why you locked the page?

P.S. This is getting a little strange, in response to the post below. From my correspondence with Thrower, I suggested arbitration, and have consistently agreed to it. Please see quotes below.

- I have no connection to Cele|bitchy, and the article is newsworthy in that you chose to respond to it - in fact, part of the posting that you deleted was your email to the web site. This is perfectly in accordance with Wiki policies - we can certainly arbitrate if you desire - either with Wiki or outside parties.

- Arbitration is quite fine. I'll post on the Wiki forums today about this, and there are a number of journalists as well that have done this before we can arbitrate in front of.

Steel, I'm a little bit weirded out by the fact that he's saying one thing to me, but something else to you and others...? My thanks for any feedback you can give. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwilco201 (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, right. Let's be clear that slanderous information needs to be sourced from somewhere reliable, not some "celebitchy" blog post. Come on. – Steel 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Thrower Article
Steel359 Thank you for your wise decision to include the citation in a fair and impartial manner and then lock the page Mitch Thrower until the dispute can be resolved -- your comments are well taken.

Emily Ashland lives in the same apartment building and we all use the same computer network, but I do not agree with all of her posts to my page, however they are, nevertheless correct, regardless of my desire to change some of her contributions.

As for User:Rwilco201 who was posting an biased view, which caused the post war on my cite - in my opinion to the article RWilco201 posted, as evidenced by his/her initial posts, sole posting of this article, and their tone and placement still seems to indicate harmful intent, rather than impartial posting.

As a relatively new Wiki person, I humbly defer to you're Wiki-Jedi terms and policies – because I believe in the project.

Would like to go into offline arbitration from Rwilco201, but he has not yet responded to my request. Any suggestions?

Thanks for the clarification & contribution. - User:mitchthrower