User talk:Steel359/Archive 12

Spam on Monomyth
It's up to three instances now ( and since the first one). You might also be curious to read Elonka's findings here, where she points out that this site seems to have references on a lot of common spammer sites, so it seems unlikely he'll give up on his efforts soon.

An alternative measure would be to apply IP blocks immediately to any which is seen making these spam edits. I've noticed that while many seem to be used, some are starting to get reused (such as 172.159.179.173). This makes it likely the spammer is edited from a finite number of IPs, rather than some dynamic range which might be shared by others. Blocking in this manner seems unlikely to cause collateral damage. If you think this option is preferable, let me know and I can create a list for you of IP seen making this spam. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reprotected it. – Steel 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Rfwoolf
Would you please explain your block of ? Black Falcon (Talk) 05:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. User talk:Rfwoolf. – Steel 13:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I don't completely agree with the block (essentially for the same reason as Richard), but you're right that it's effective at getting a message across. I do not endorse JzG's actions or Radiant's deletion, but Rfwoolf's actions do not seem to match his stated intention to drop the matter. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 14:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

St Thomas More High School for Boys
Could you explain why you protected the information on this page and also if you have any connection to this school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirana22 (talk • contribs)
 * Libel, and no I don't. – Steel 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Turkish American
Hello can I ask why you reverted than protected? I thought admins can't do. The reverting was for pov material calling a historian a terrorist. The page should be named Turkish American not Turk American since that is not used and Turk refers to Turkish, not Azeri or other so Turkish is right. --Vonones 11:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please propose the rename on a talk page somewhere and come back in a week if there's general agreement for it. – Steel 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:album cover fur
Do you think you could protect the other version please, per my request at WP:AN this morning?

That template is being used, usefully, appropriately and in good faith on over 500 images, and by protecting "the wrong version", you're marking them all for deletion, as well as making various comments in various discussions at WP:AN and WT:FAIR incomprehensible.

We need to be able to see the template, and what it does, to fairly discuss it. Jheald 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Boilerplate rationales are being objected to vehemently and for good reason; it's not really my fault people started using these templates before they were accepted by everyone. If people need to see what the template does... well that's what page histories are for. – Steel 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Page histories will not reveal what the template used to do; they will only transclude the template in its present form, which is an instruction to delete any image that uses it. The template is just fine as a rationale; if you have a position on the actual issue over which people are fighting, perhaps you are not the proper one to use the administrative tool of protection to enforce one side or the other as a policy decision.


 * Will you kindly block the template in its final usable form, not as blanked? It is used in good faith, and properly, on hundreds of image pages. Editors seem to be blanking it as a way of enforcing their personal views of disputed policy matters.  Their replacing the template with an instruction to delete the images, and creates considerable disruption on a matter that should first be discussed.  Thanks.  Wikidemo 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who knows how templates work which is 99% of the site will be able to tell what it did by looking at the old revision. Most of your other points would still be equally valid if the other side made them. – Steel 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)The history doesn't help you see what it does, transcluded, on a page like Image:JeffBeckWired.jpg, the example in the discussion at WP:AN. The rationale that that template generates for that image is by general consent entirely compliant. As User:Seraphimblade writes "The Jeff Beck rationale is indeed well done".  User:Durin stalked every instance I applied that template to on Saturday, and pulled me up on just one.


 * The template has been broadly welcomed in the discussion at WT:FAIR.


 * Now, if you have personal objections to the template, wouldn't it be better to put it back, and rationally state your objections at WT:FAIR, and join in the discussion ? Jheald 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The next seven days would be better spent resolving the dispute you're in with Ned Scott and Thebainer than bugging me here. – Steel 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have branced a version of the template to Template:Album cover fur (development) with explicit instructions not to use it because it is under development and testing. I will at some point produce a more complete version of the template that incorporates various people's suggestions.  In the meanwhile you can use it to discuss the matter.  Meanwhile, 400-500 images are inappropriately tagged for deletion based on the patently untrue claim that they have no fair use rationale.  Wikidemo 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That page would be better off at Template talk:album cover fur/development or something similar. Do you want to move it there or shall I? – Steel 22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.  Wikidemo 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)....but now I've inadvertently created two redirect pages.  Would you mind deleting those?  Wikidemo 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Thanks for moving it. – Steel 22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AMIB redux
As you can see on the talk page of WP:Gundam, I have made a couple of attempts to arrive at a compromise concerning his edits to Gundam articles. However, as the page clearly shows, he is not interested in compromise and wants things done his way or not at all. Jtrainor 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

= Summer 2007 wikibreak starts =

Ashnard smiles at you.


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hey Steel.

Lady Aibell Press
Lady Aibell Press and its top organization are both listed in Writer's Market. Reviews are held on the books by various review sites and organizations.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theladyboo (talk • contribs).

Hello again
There is a small problem. I was forced to revert massive vandalism over whole Wikipedia this morning. There is a user who keeps disrupting articles regarding cities in Croatia. He posts either as anon or uses one of his two-three sockpuppets. I suspect this user has an original account named Inter-milano. The other accounts (sockpuppets) he uses are: Wermania and Benkovac. Bunch of other disruptions are made with anon accounts always with the IP beginning with 124.181.xxx.xxx. Check contributions: Inter-milano, Wermania, Benkovac and couple of anon accounts here and here. It is possible that he or she has more sockpuppets. Can you please help? I reported this right away after my reverts but the person was not an admin (my bad) so to here I am reporting it to you, hopefully you're still an admin :). I am not asking too muhch, just to check it out or to point me to someone who can do something, before I am forced to take this to WP:ANI which I hopefully won't have to do, meaning he stopped. Regards.--No.13 10:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What vandalism? The category is perfectly legal. sockpuppets? You don't know much about computers do you. No.13 goes around deleting pictures and links (This is against the rules of wikipedia. He deletes anything that's serbian eg: Knin (Serbian: Книн) is a historical town in the Šibenik-Knin county of Croatia. Just check his history!!!

Guivon
Hi,

user:Velebit aka user:Purger aka user:NovaNova aka... has new name:. I warner anotherr admin, User:Lar, but since You dealt with this vandal last time, I'm writing this note to You to.

Please, if you could help us to deal with this vandal, I would be very grateful. I'm a checkuser on hr wiki and I learned that he rarely changes his IP addresses. This mean that he propably have limited IP range to operate in and that we might find a way to get rid of him for good. It wouuld mean more time for all of us.

Please, help.

--Ante Perkovic 12:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatia problem
user:Zenanarh and user:DIREKTOR insist to impose POVs by mean of unsourced and undiscussed edits. They revert my edits, ignore the inserted sources. They don't discuss their changes and do not provide sources (not to say the insults). It is no possible to impose such POVs by mean of a group action. Furthermore the new user:Raguseo, has started massive edits without provide any kind of discussion and ignoring my warnings. The rules has been broken, I can tell you where and why for each single case. I have refrained myself to be involved in edit wars, I tried to contact a third part, but is currently off line. Meanwhile a moderation intervention is necessary. Best regards.Giovanni Giove 09:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further accidents occurred on Zadar and Maraschino. I refuse to be involved in an edit war, but I also refuse further undiscussed edits. Please, contact me ASA. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Steel, this man is using his favorite tactic: finding Wikipedians to support him by slandering his opponents behind their backs (I think that is against the rules, BTW, isn't it?). I have tried on numerous occasions to talk to this guy in a normal way, telling him that he needs sources and to compromise, he does neither. I am not going to fill your head with this, I simply ask that you do not become biased, and for God's sake, do not believe a word he says before getting a chance to form your own oppinion. P.S. Welcome to the Balkans! ;D DIREKTOR 01:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can prove the above lies?... I can show, point by point, all the discussed concepts.--Giovanni Giove
 * Like I said, he deeply believes everything I write is a lie :D. I hope I am not being pretentious, but do not let him influence you beforehand, that's all I'm saying. If you decide to let him drag you down into this mess, that is. DIREKTOR 14:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR
I beg you to check ASA the destructive behaviour of User:DIREKTOR. Among all his POVs against the RfC on Zadar. I've deleted my name from RfC, imposed by another user, and deleted it from a comment, because a RfC MUST be anonymous and neutral. User:DIREKTOR has started another edit war to make my name visible. He is also imposing new edits under RfC, again using edit war. Feel free to give me some suggestions about my behaviour. Thank you. --Giovanni Giove 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention the edit war in Republic of Ragusa, under RfC.--Giovanni Giove 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The man simply will not stop. I did not do anything but stop him from editing other people's comments on the RfCs (some people mentioned his name and he started editing other people's words to his liking). He posts a Request for Comment and then edits the article to his liking, in hope that that way his version might stick and that other Wikipedians might be persuaded that those who tuch his (unsourced and undiscussed) views are vandals, or Nazi/Communists, or something (not the first time he tried this)... Like I said, do not let him biase you, (should you allow him to drag you into the Balkans mess). He has been blocked for this sort of behaviour before and has a very strong Venetian POV. DIREKTOR 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case
While not named as a party, I know you've previously been contacted by the parties in this arbitration case so I thought I would give you a heads up. Regards,--Isotope23 talk 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection script problem
I love what the protection script adds to the Protect/Unprotect pages (three cheers for dropdowns). However, protection tags feature (which is also quite nice) completely removes any interwiki links from the sidebar. Is there any way to have both co-exist or, if not, break the tags out into a different script? I do a lot of work with interwiki links, and not being able to see them at all just plain sucks. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation user:DIREKTOR together user:Zenanarh
See  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 21:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

unblockabuse
Hi Steel. Can you please consider adding unblockabuse to the protection tag script when you get a chance? --After Midnight 0001 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like Steel has been gone since July 16th...  Majorly  (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

= Summer 2007 wikibreak ends =

hindsight comment
in hindsight, you've really left a dent on my record with your commentary on a past block.

there was an issue of two users who were tag team reverting and openly and repeatedly insulting me in the process.

being that the issue was far more complex than you've noticed, i now find your commentary that "Constant, baseless accusations of personal attacks, reopening closed discussions, borderline harassment. Ongoing for several days.", really makes for a poor and undeserving impression for people inspecting my block history.

to be frank, i believe the way this block appeared was due mostly to my mistake - which was missing a comment you've left upon closure of the subsection -, and the responses to my asking you about it were... very unresponsive (understandably, but it resulted more friction and eventually the block).

would you be willing to go over the past records and consider some steps in removing or correcting this issue?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read through the old ANI thread and stand by everything I did there. What would you consider "correcting this issue"? – Steel 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Nice to see you back. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What, with both RFPP and Allie's talkpage fiercely watchlisted? Never :) Hope the break went well! ~ Riana ⁂ 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Protecting?
Hey, why did you protect user talk:Alison and Kyoko are suicidal maniacs? Just block him/her. We shouldn't have to put up with that. At least semi-protect it so I can add an extra | to the template (I typoed it). Thanks.   - ђαίгснгм    таιќ   16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I blocked the account ten minutes ago. – Steel 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why?
People will not leave me alone. It's admin's jobs to tell me things, not regular users. So why did you decline my request? Wwefan980 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are used for communication between users, whether they be admin, non-admin, unregistered, or whatever. I think you need to start co-operating with other people because you're being very confrontational and it's really not necessary. – Steel 19:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What if I don't want to communicate though? I am a minor so I can only trust people who are qualified to talk to me. Wwefan980 19:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative project to create an encyclopedia. If you are worried about the people you might interact with because you are a minor you would be best off leaving the site. – Steel 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to protect my talk page opposed to me leaving the site though? I have good contributions to offer, especially correcting spelling in articles. You protecting my talk page would keep me contributing without fear and would still keep bad people off my talk page too. Nothing bad can happen....... Wwefan980 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I'm just going to leave. Wwefan980 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Kraków
(You wrote)

Hi, I saw the comment you left on WP:RFPP so I just want to clarify a few things. Matthead provided the contributions of an IP that was apparently indiscriminately reverting edits of his without any kind of explanation. Matthead claimed this was an IP stalking him and having no reason to doubt this (dynamic IP harassment and wikistalking happens from time to time) I reverted the lot of them. I know precious little about Polish history and the rollbacks certainly weren't intended as endorsements of his edits and I will revert any of my rollbacks on any of those articles if you want me to. I understand the feeling when people parade into an article you've worked hard on and start making wholesale changes and I apologise if I've inadvertently helped this to happen. I'm a bit concerned, though, that you feel that "no-one can stop him now" - there's places where you can bring in outside editors: Poland notice board? Third opinion? Requests for comment? Formal or informal mediation? – Steel 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing back. I like the tone of your voice and suggest that you distance yourself from everything that originates with Matthead, if you want to keep your reputation. Here are but a few examples of other non-Polish editors’ opinions of his work on Poland related articles. The least you can do is to take back your rollback for Kraków to make sure, that it doesn't come through as an endorsement of his edits. Matthead is an experienced POV warrior who knows how to work the system. He’s quite capable of making Polish editors’ lives miserable, so don’t be surprised by a string of adverse reactions to his contributions. I will consider your advice if the problem escalates, and I will enquire about  Formal or informal mediation. Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk  23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm OK. Incidentally, I can't undo that edit so if anyone does interpret it as an endorsement then they're best linked to this thread. – Steel 23:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Blurry
I contacted him about it, but if he reverts again, I'm gonna need your help. Thanks in advance. FMAFan1990 23:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. You do your part and I'll do my part. – Steel 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

restore radiotime?
the radiotime page has been deleted, restored, and deleted. Can you restore it? The company has nearly a million unique monthly users and multiple contributors to the wikipedia page. Thanks. 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We need sources to write the article. Has anyone outside the company itself written anything non-trivial about it? Media coverage, perhaps? – Steel 15:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the entry had links to a few articles. There have been dozens including the NY Times, Seattle Post Mariner, Washington Times, Wired Magazine, Playlist Magazine, PC Week, plus many radio and a few TV shows. None recently. If there is any way to recover the old entry it has some, or I'll send a list. Thanks, Bill 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiobill (talk • contribs)

Spam blacklist
Experience on the meta:Spam blacklist has shown that it's important to keep some sort of record as to why sites are blacklisted -- otherwise a whitelisting request comes in a year or two later and the site is removed unless someone can find the original reason for adding it. This has happened with many of the old domains that were added in the early days of the blacklist before admins started logging their additions.

If you don't mind, could you maybe leave a brief note on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist‎ as to what the history (diffs, editors) of the teamicogamers.blogspot.com spam is? Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes I was wondering whether there was any paperwork to go with the blacklist here like there is on Meta. Simply put, there is someone with a habit of spamming his various blogspot sites on Ico and Shadow of the Colossus (amongst others) of which teamicogamers.blogspot is the latest. Having been dealing with this since 2006 I am just a little tired of it now. Would it be better to simply link my username next to the url in case people need the reason rather than cluttering up the already long talk page? – Steel 00:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means, feel free to clutter the talk page -- it'll eventually get archived but it will still be indexed and searchable. By contrast, you may not be available 2 years from now, having died, gone to grad school, moved to Borneo or won the lottery.


 * I've wasted a lot of time trying to track down the reasons for various 2005 Meta blacklist entries made before meta admins started recording their reasons. Whitelist requests come in and nobody knows what to do with them. Just links to contribution histories works in a lot of cases:
 * Special:Contributions/A. B.
 * Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS Thanks for fighting spam!


 * That's fine! (I hope three lines is enough.) – Steel 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great -- thanks! -- A. B. (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Osprey
Hi Steel359: I notice you made some changes to the Osprey article, including removing the cultural references section. While you may not agree with this section (I note you put "removed unsourced trivia" in your comments) it's generally a better practice to add a notice to the article or talk page asking for citations rather than to just remove other editors' work. We at the WP:BIRD project have been working to bring this up to FA standard (it was a recent collaborative article) and a cultural depictions section is something we've included in our other recent FA articles (see, for example Bald Eagle or California Condor). While your request for citations is certainly appropriate, I'm not sure removing the material is! Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's understandable, but to be honest there's a world of difference between the text I removed and, say, Bald Eagle. The cultural depictions section of Osprey was little more than a list of sports teams that have an osprey as their mascot. See also: "In popular culture" sections. – Steel 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Signature
I have only personally recieved two complaints about my signature prior to your message, and I have complied with both. The first user has not complained about my signature since then despite us both working on similar articles, so I assumed he was okay with it, and I have yet to recieve a reply from the second. Please do not accuse me of going out of my way to be inconsderate; I merely adopted a gimmick which nobody else seemed to care about. I'll alter my signature regardless, but I'd appreciate that you assume good faith the next time that you have a concern with a practice of mine.

Is this visible enough:  You Can '  t See Me!  23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: It seems I did recieve a reply from the second user (Betacommand) and that I hadn't watched his userpage. Sorry about that.  You Can '  t See Me!  23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I had only been approached once prior to Betacommand's message today. I had altered my signature, and the that user had no apparent problems with it afterwards. That's why I didn't feel the need to alter my signature too much. Based on your most recent comment, I'm assuming that you still have a problem with my current sig tone . Going down in proportion another three steps would result in the following: Is this tone fine? By now, the color is rather dark; I can't imagine that it blends anymore, but at the same time, the similarity in hue should at least give others an idea of what I had previously attempted to do.  You Can '  t See Me! 
 * That one looks alright and Betacommand doesn't seem to mind either. – Steel 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Thank you for remaining patient and civil throughout this. I aplogize again for any trouble I may have caused with my signature. Regards,  You Can '  t See Me!  04:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones Picture Deleted
Steel359, regarding the picture you deleted. I'm been looking for about two weeks and I can't find any non-copyrighted images of Alex Jones. Everything I've found is deemed fair use. What do you suggest about finding free images for a living person? FYI, I thought the image I uploaded was considered free content. Was I wrong? Noahcs 00:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you tried searching flickr? That's a good site for finding free images and if it turns out that the only photos there are copyrighted as well you should be able to contact the photographer and ask whether they'll consider releasing it/them under a GFDL-compatible license (as far as I know anyway, not used it myself). – Steel 20:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
I'm not going to revert you, but in the future, do not remove my posts anywhere on Wikipedia, especially under the guise of some obscure essay such as Deny recognition. That is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination, and I consider it extremely inappropriate. - auburn pilot  talk  02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really wish you wouldn't make comments like the one I removed. That is how these people get their kicks. – Steel 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Spaghetti, and Monsters.
Hello, dear fellow.

I'm afraid I think you, sir, are not grasping the implications and arguments claimed by Pastafarians. I am very aware, I assure you, that reductio ad absurdum does not use absurdities to make a point (this being an appeal to ridicule), but that is not my aim. And, lest you assume, I am not one of these fellows to adamanly assert the FSM's existence. I will make no claims as to His veracity, so just follow me here.

The premise of reductio ad absurdum is, as you said, a sort of 'hijacking' of arguments used by the opposition to reach a certain end. When the argument is left incomplete, you get your standard "Hitler liked art, so art must be bad." But when complete, you get the same argumentative set leading to a conclusion that either makes no sense, or makes so little sense that its inherent ridiculous quality is realized.

This is the case with the FSM. Pastafarians use many arguments used by creationists to demonstrate an inherent faith that must be required to make the statements, in effect reducing the statements to subjective determinations and making them useless for use in a classroom. The Omphalos hypothesis is one example; Henderson said that, like God, the FSM created the fossils, earth strata, mid-route light from stars, carbon-dating readings, etc. to point out the baseless statements made by creationist opponents. The association between pirates and global temperature mocks experiments in which ID advocates have claimed to find causational prohibitions to certain events, without accounting for various other influences that may or may not have been deliberately ignored (take into account the fallacy of specified complex information).

Essentially, the arguments for the FSM are a sample of arguments otherwise used for God. The whole point here is to demonstrate that many ID claims are without foundation.

And, if you don't mind, discuss the change in the FSM discussion board, not on my Talk page. That will permit the input of other users, and will help create a consensus opinion. Until you discuss it, the statement concerning a reductio ad absurdum will remain on the page.

Regards, EarthRise33 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The ground is there, but you seem to not want to stand on it. The contradiction lies in the fact that an alternate god, besides the Christian-Judeo one, was supported in the 'logical' arguments. Indeed, any creator can be substituted into the equation with these declarations; the FSM was the most absurd example Bobby Henderson wanted to pull. It does have to do with the topic at hand, but if you wish to feign ignorance at everything I say, I can't really help that.
 * Here is the topic at hand: FSM is a reductio ad absurdum. Here is your claim: FSM does not actually assume the same position to reach a contradictory conclusion. Here is my assertion: FSM does assume this position, and pulls off statements, from the same reasoning, that support something completely separate from what was intended.
 * 'Original research' is not so original when the conclusion is apparent. The FSM fits into the mold of a r.a.a. argument. Try a quick Google search if you must, but the glove fits.
 * And stop changing the article without discussing the change on the discussion board! You have no right to modification unless a consensus on the change has been reached. Otherwise, reversions will be repeated ad infinitum, until you are banned for not following wikipedia policy. -EarthRise33 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One: There are few sources when conclusions can be derived easily and logically. The relationship between the FSM and a reductio ad absurdum is apparent; when such is the case, there is little need to reassert it.
 * Two: You seem to forget that you are the one disputing content that is already present. The burden of this argument rests on your shoulders, not mine.
 * Three: Aye, no previous discussion to remove a piece of information already present. When removing a significant point, discussion is warranted. This is why you must provide reasoning and reach a consensus.
 * Four: I beg your pardon? Petty threats? I am making references to past occurrences, whereby users have removed content consistently with little reasoning and, as such, been removed from the community. I have no incentive to ban you. On the contrary, I'd prefer you actually get a common agreement before acting on that which is already established.
 * Good day. -EarthRise33 20:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey,
Listen, I'm apologize for the way I acted. It wasn't very dignified a treatment, I recognize. As way of explanation, TMLutas above you had gotten my blood pressure up rather high, so I was slightly twitchy at any other suggestions.

Sorry about being an ass. -EarthRise33 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Steel, thanks for looking into the issues I brought up at ANI, and just wanted to let you know that I've replied further at that page. R. Baley 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

SotC
Theres a refference and fine, no bullet points but if that mentioned piece must go then wouldn't the film refference also have to go? It seems to be the same piece of info. I can see your concern but I doubt it will become a trivia section, those 2 are probably the only ones the game is going to get. Stabby Joe 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but you'll have to check back and post in the disscussion considering other people will want to include anything new. Stabby Joe 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't what —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxpule (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Art of Problem Solving
What was was the reason of deletion? It was before I joined, I'm afraid, so I don't know. I'd like to know this because I'm considering recreating the article, and if there are notability or other issues, I won't. However, if the article was just poorly written/an advertisement, then there's no reason not to recreate. Temperal xy 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason given in the deletion log refers to WP:CSD. "CSD A7/G11" would mean that the article was a promotional piece for a questionably notable organisation. If you want to recreate it with a more encyclopedic tone and a clear claim to notability, then go for it. – Steel 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Majorly
Why did you delete Majorly's RFA? hbdragon88 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Majorly's actual RfA is Requests for adminship/Alex9891. Requests for adminship/Majorly was an unwanted and unnecessary nomination that he asked me to delete. I ought to have put something in the summary... – Steel 15:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for the e-mail. I've been sitting on it for a while. I don't think I have time to spread my effort further and would prefer to try to improve content here, for now at least. Best wishes, DrKiernan 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Veropedia isn't a fork in the way, say, Citizendium is. The content is written here on Wikipedia and then a specific revision is uploaded to Veropedia. In fact, the site has gone public since my email. The FAQ here has more information. – Steel 15:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Source question
Great. An unmanned Oerlikon GDF-005 just killed nine people in test use. I'd like to start an article on this - breaking news or not breaking news, this and other events of its ilk are a significant issue in IT ethics and only likely to grow. Quick: Do you think that the Wired Danger Room blog is a referencable source on this? It's the best in coverage we have at the moment.

This message has been used to bug other people. If you see it a hour or more after it's left, please disregard. Thanks. --Kizor 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't, personally. – Steel 00:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I just would like my archives and subpages semi-protected just in case vandals vandalize them. Why do you not want it semi protected!?! NHRHS2010 talk  23:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They do not need it. – Steel 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WHY do you think they not need it? I explained the reason why I believe my subpages and archived talk pages need semi-protection on WP:AN. NHRHS2010  talk  00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For closing it on the UCFD discussion page too. I had forgotten it was even there until Equazcion posted a reply to it long after. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  22:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Let's put it behind us. – Steel 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking on reason for deletion
Greetings. A page I created was deleted, and the summary is the brief notation, (R1). I am writing to determine if R1 is a reliability-related note. Could you elaborate, for my reference?

Thanks! Knorlock 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * R1 is to do with redirects - see WP:CSD. This link might be more helpful. I apologise for simply deleting it with no notice to anyone anywhere but the article was esstentially a list of departments offering various postgrad degrees with a guide to the academics in each, and not something that really belongs in an encyclopedia. WP:NOT and WP:NOT are the relevant policies. – Steel 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Equazcion
Hi,

I have unblocked early. An ongoing discussion at his talk page leads me to believe that the circumstances surrounding his block were confused. Although I agree the 3RR was violated, lenciency seems in the best interest of fairness. I have given advice which should prevent any recurrence in the future. Sorry not to have discussed this first; but, with the block expiring soon, this is just a matter of an hour. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just dropped by to say that I endorse Xoloz's action.  DGG (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hysteria, indeed
What a mess. I am not sure I want to be getting myself involved in this. Normally I would suggest a user conduct RfC except it's not entirely clear who the problem is here, and there seems to be a few longstanding grudges that nothing short of the ArbCom grenade will solve. – Steel 13:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Feel free not to respond to this message here. Anything more you want to say to me, use email. Nobody can edit war over emails.

GameFAQs
OOps - looks like we clashed. I reduced prot to move only per that request but when I returned, you'd declined! What do you wish to do? You can re-instate the prot if you like, but the vandalism is only staying up for seconds. Over to you ... and sorry!! - Alis o n  ❤ 00:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * :( You put me in such awkward positions... I'm going to re-instate it, I think. – Steel 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know whose stupid idea it is to have date relevance to FAs. Will (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sorry! But good call. I was just about to do the same. It's mayhem over there right now & I should have left it alone - Alis o n  ❤ 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm confused. Why was a main page article semi-protected?  I just undid that before I saw this discussion.  We never protect main page articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be done in cases of extreme vandalism and then only for short periods of time. I think we all agreed that earlier today was one of those times. Vandals were constantly hitting the article ever couple of seconds and reverters couldn't keep up - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the discussion at WP:AN when I unprotected. The vandalism level doesn't seem that bad now.  Only a couple edits every ten minutes.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to take issue with a few things here but I'm a bit late responding to this and everything seems to have resolved itself during that time (GameFAQs was semi-protected for a bit longer but now it's happily unprotected with average or less rates of vandalism). Just one point though. Wknight, your first comment suggests that you unprotected the article before arriving here at my talk page. It's a bit discourteous, even concerning, that you would reverse an admin action before reading the discussion that the other admin referenced in their summary (i.e. "Per my talk" here, and had you checked my contribs you'd have found the WP:AN discussion too). There could have been anything in this thread and knee-jerk unilateral reverts based on false reasons ("Main page article [therefore] no sprotection") are not helpful. As it happens there wasn't much going on here so in this instance it didn't really matter too much, but that's not the point. I hope you don't make a habit of doing this. – Steel 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw the hand-slapping here. I've seen enough admin's accidentally protect main page articles not realizing they're on the main page that yes, I will likely protect first and look for a better explanation second in such cases.  Otherwise, anonymous users cannot edit the main page article while I'm looking for a better explanation, and that's a worse sin than possibly offending a protecting admin IMHO.  (I.e., I will proudly "make a habit" of thinking of the general Wikipedia populace before a single admin's sensibilities).  Then, if a better explanation does present itself, I will immediately reverse myself and re-protect.  I did not find such an explanation at your talk page so I did not reverse myself.  I apologize that you've been offended to the point where you felt the need to make a statement 13 hours after the fact but I do not apologize for putting out what I consider a fire (i.e., a semi-protected main page article) before trying to find out what started the fire.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice Non-apology apology. Seriously though, if you consider the main page FA being semi-protected a situation so dire that unprotecting cannot wait two or three minutes for you to briefly check for discussion... well, I don't know what to say to that. Your fire analogy is a little inaccurate, too. – Steel 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Block
Thank you. Wildhartlivie 15:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * np. – Steel 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I know that you have blocked ChocolateLover96 forever. Can you delete her page?

Just asking. Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.220.237 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Starscream box art image
OKay, you said I could come to you if an old image came up where there was a problem. I'll try this out. The image I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Starscream-hasbro.jpg was nominated for speedy deletion, but I think it can be fair to use. It formerly lacked a FUR and got deleted, but I added one when re-uploading it. If there is no way it can be used though, I have an alternate for it. I have a similar image of the same character from a comic book, drawn by the same artist. I can offer it as an alternative, with a FUR about comic book art. Let me know if you want to see it. Thanks Mathewignash 17:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That image has no source information. Per Image talk:Onslaught-boxart.jpg, it was deleted the first time for inadequate sourcing (the image was claimed to be promotional, but the only source was a fansite which had clearly taken it from somewhere else). – Steel 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, HOW do I source it properly? I can tell you what box it came from and the URL of the web site. I just don't know how to write it. Instead of "Promotional" isn't there a toy box image tage of some kind? I think it's Mathewignash 20:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a product cover. It may be an image on the product cover, but it on its own is not the cover, if you get me? This particular image (i.e. jpg file itself) must have originated somewhere. The discussion also raised the point that it could be replaced by a photo of the toy itself anyway. Could that be done, in theory? – Steel 13:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. Maybe I can take a Photo of the box cover myself. I had another question. The image here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Beast_Mode.png uploaded by some other user is about to be removed because of the lack of a fair use rational. Can I write one and you let me know if it sounds correct or not? Mathewignash 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah of course. – Steel 01:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OKay, they didn't like me posting it on the page, sorry about that. This is what I had come up with and you were going to offer me pointers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mathewignash (talk • contribs)


 * That would probably be adequate for a FUR. Personally I wouldn't have uploaded an image like that in the first place though, but still... – Steel 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uploading a GFDL image
I have a 1986 Transformers Air Raid action figure I took a picture of. Can I see about uploading it for his page?Mathewignash 04:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it is a free image I would rather we waited a bit. Part of the point of this exercise was to try and take your mind off images for a while. – Steel 15:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image needs FUR
An image I uploaded a long while back needs a FUR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Optimusprimal-raging.jpg Can I add one of have you do it? Mathewignash 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, Optimus Primal has a tonne of fair use images on it. I'm going to orphan most of them and then the rationale problem will be moot. – Steel 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Optimus Primal was given a completely new body in each of the three seasons of the animated series, so there were three pictures of him, one from each season. Mathewignash 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have many of those toys in my collection. I could donate GFDL images to replace the toy images there. Mathewignash 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm... ok. Let's do that. – Steel 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have this toy and took a picture of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Optimusprimal-ultra.jpg Can I replace it with a free image? Mathewignash 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ok. – Steel 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a free image to replace a non-free one of the above toy. Now I have a book cover I had uploaded a while back that needs a FUR. Can I add it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Losttreasureofcybertron-cover.jpg Mathewignash 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another couple of images I uploaded have no FUR or they are missing the "Article" tag in the FUR. Can I fix this as long as I don't remove anything in these image, only add it? Mathewignash 10:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've just deleted a truckload of images from various pages. The ones BetacommandBot complained about on your talk that aren't deleted, but still need rationale fixes are:
 * That book cover,, needs a source and a rationale. – Steel 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That book cover,, needs a source and a rationale. – Steel 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That book cover,, needs a source and a rationale. – Steel 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That book cover,, needs a source and a rationale. – Steel 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That book cover,, needs a source and a rationale. – Steel 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That book cover,, needs a source and a rationale. – Steel 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That book cover,, needs a source and a rationale. – Steel 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for letting me try to fix some of them. I want to focus on free images of things I take pictures of myself in the future. These FURs and all are too much hastle, and I can make free images of many of them if I get off my behind and take photos for myself. Mathewignash 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw you removed all the non-free images from the article Optimus Prime (Unicron Trilogy) - I have some of those toys. I can add some free images I took myself to replace them. Mathewignash 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken some pictures of my collection, so I could replace these pictures with free ones:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vectorprime-micro.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Backstop.jpg Mathewignash 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brushguard-cybertron.jpg Mathewignash 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dirtboss-cybertron.jpg Mathewignash 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright. Go right ahead. – Steel 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQs nominated for Featured Article review
GameFAQs has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Life, Liberty, Property 11:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Same old story
is back causing problems again. First off there's the creation of two sentences stubs from IMDB such as Tanya Gingerich, Hope Harris, Alexandra Sapot and Melissa Hanson. Then because User:Kim Dent-Brown tagged one for speedy deletion (see here), there's this bad faith AfD !vote in retaliation. Don't know who's dealing with this editor, but I know you have ample prior experience. One Night In Hackney 303  15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont you have bette rthings to do one night in hackney. im contributing to wikipedia. you just causing problems. that the difference between you and me. and dont revert messages from other as that not according to wikipedia rules. i apologize to you steel who has to read all this.--Zingostar 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And no one can tell me what to vote at a afd and not what my opinion is in a matter of deletion either.just because i have another opinion doesnt make it wrong.--Zingostar 16:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion of Kieferism, but it's wrong, 110% wrong. I have no further comment to make on this subject. One Night In Hackney  303  16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain to User:Zingostar a few days ago about supporting AfD opinions with actual reliable sources, but he wasn't very receptive, and just insisted that he had a right to his opinion... I wasn't able to help him understand the difference between 'opinion' and 'verifiable fact,' and gave up trying. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please fisherqueen keep me out of your and one night in hackneys strange vendetta fight against me and other users. Be productive not the opposit.--Zingostar 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And again i have to apologize to steel who has to read all this hate.--Zingostar 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And im sorry if i tried to do something productive instead of fighting i will try to do the opposit form noe on fisherqueen and one night in hackney makes it impossible for me to do anything productive or good for wikipedia.--Zingostar 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have indefblocked Zingostar per the concers raised here. The following is a slightly edited version of the email I sent to FisherQueen and Isotope, who both support the block. These concerns are not out of the ordinary for this editor. Zingostar creates and edits articles on biographies of marginally notable people, but unfortunately approximately 0% of these edits involve citing sources. This is a problem in itself. What makes it worse is that anytime he is taken up on this kind of thing he is typically takes the criticism badly and becomes confrontational. He will go on little harassment and stalking campaigns, yet accuses the *other* user(s) of harassment and/or wikistalking *him* in classic WP:KETTLE fashion, and spites them by causing trouble on articles they like to edit. This includes bad faith AfD nominations and the more recent bad faith retaliatory keep !votes, as well as having hissy fits on ANI and throwing veiled insults in Swedish. Zingostar has been blocked around *seventeen* times across more than one wiki since December 2006, all for pretty much the same stuff.   My opinion is that Zingostar is the paradigm of everything Wikipedia does not want in an editor. Wikipedia is not some tabloid's gossip column for the latest reality TV show. The articles I saw him create back in April were not really articles but rather libels waiting to happen. It's now November and it seems that very little has changed. He is still making poor quality edits to BLPs of non-notable people and still goes on wikistalking campaigns everytime someone tries to explain basic policies to him. Enough is enough. – Steel 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Transgender
Hey there. Do I know you from somewhere? ;) I reworked all the refs in that article some months back in a fit of boredom. Right now everything looks great over there. It's on my watchlist as it's a vandalism magnet (as well as the corresponding Transsexualism) and saw your name pop up. New straight away what you were up to. So yes, go ahead and upload, I say. It's reasonably NPOV right now - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 00:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whey http://en.veropedia.com/a/Transgender – Steel 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RadioTime
Checking back on our September discussion asking to undelete the radiotime page. The page had links to coverage across major publications including NY Times, Washington Post, etc. Thanks 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Radiobill 18:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If they're online could you link me to them? – Steel 02:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this page list some: http://blog.radiotime.com/archives/press/index.htm Radiobill 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well out of about five deletions only one of those is mine  and back then (January 2007) is was more the tone of the article that was the problem more than its lack of press coverage or whatnot. Your rewrite of it back in June actually looks kind of alright so perhaps the best way forward is to recreate that and politely request on the discussion page that the article is sent through the full deletion process (as opposed to the speedy deletion process) if someone still doesn't like it. – Steel 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Making 100% sure I understand my options...
Greetings. I appreciate your explanation as to the speedy deletion of "Graduate programs in feminist philosophy," but since students actually refer to it, I'd like to recreate it elsewhere at another wiki site, somewhere non-encyclopedic. Do I understand correctly that there's no way to "recover" the data deleted? That article was added to by other scholars before deletion, so any backup I have would be quite dated. I'm sorry to tax your patience on this, but for the life of me I can't determine if it's 100% certain that there's no 'copy' of the old data anywhere. (If you recall the size of that entry, you'll understand why it's impossible for me to recreate the work of so many others from memory.) Thanks! Knorlock 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can email you the text to the address you have set in Special:Preferences, if you want. – Steel 20:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that would be absolutely, what's a good, flattering word here? That would be absolutely fan-freaking-tastic.  I would sacrifice several cookies in your honor.Knorlock 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. I've sent you two emails. – Steel 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RV British National Party page
Hi Steel, Just wondering, proof of vandalism of a certain set of wikipedia article themselves can be used as a source to point a "news section on vandalism" by a group supporter. There is no reference to anything else, the title itself is "vandalism of wikipages" Please help me to understand this better. Smet 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know that edit was made by the BNP or BNP supporter? – Steel 15:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They couldn't spell? ;) One Night In Hackney  303  16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking account creation
How do you do that? I've been watching Afrika parika and his account creation is just endless. Last time I counted, he had over twnety sockpuppets. Best, --Gp75motorsports 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By default, when an IP is blocked, account creation from that IP is also blocked. To stop someone creating sockpuppets, every IP the user access to would need to be blocked. In a lot of cases this is isn't feasible; maybe all the user's IPs aren't actually known, or maybe the IPs are shared with others and blocking them all would lock out too many productive editors. I assume one or both of these is the case for Afrika paprika. On another note, I appreciate that you're only trying to help, but some of your recent actions, mostly regarding the Dalmatia conflict, haven't been that helpful. For example, there is no need for a second ArbCom case when so far the remedies passed in the previous case haven't proven themselves inadequate, particularly after just one month. Secondly, you tagged User:Cherso with an 'indefintely banned' template, when the user isn't blocked or banned as far as I can tell . Thirdly, you've just left a note at User talk:ErwanGirard explaining how to edit. I am pretty sure they already know this since otherwise they wouldn't have been able to leave me the message in the above section. As I say, I appreciate that you're doing your bit to help out, but try and look before leaping. – Steel 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Open AT
Steel,

I'm not familiar at all with Wikipedia editing and deletion so I hope this is the right place for that comment. I have seen that you've been deleting a page on Open AT and was wondering why? I looked for the reason but couldn't get to any piece of information (as I'm not very familiar with the whole process). Could you please just tell why you did so?

Thanks Erwan —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErwanGirard (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I deleted it once back in January. Essentially the article was written in corporate website lingo and it wasn't clear that the product met Notability. Someone else commented that the article read "like Wavecom's product promotions website area about the self-named material" and was "very spammy, with no useful information for anyone geniunely interested in evaluating the OpenAT OS described herein". I agreed with him (or her). – Steel 23:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Steel, quite clear! thanks for the quick answer. --ErwanGirard (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not Giovanni Giove
I want to notify you that I am not a sockpuppetry of Giovanni Giove. Please, verify with IP check up. Sincerely.--Cherso (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove
I dropped his block to 2 days, as I feel there are extenuating circumstances, described here. Thatcher131 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the note. – Steel 14:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Steel acciaio =steel in Italian

I just wanted to inform you about that. Also please take a look at these comments here in Italian :  You can see some beautiful words towards yourself and Croatian wikipedians.

Regards

--Anto (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And here they come in English: . I wonder whether doing anything here would be worth my while... – Steel 14:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need your objectiveness in this case, or somebody else's too. I can only proclaim your recent removing of these silly argues. Too much energy is lost in wrong direction. Also I don't think that Giove is persecuted by Cro users for nothing. His engagement in Dalmatia and Istria related articles made impossible to edit anything objectively. Just see Marco Polo article - I was hard working (translating for hours and days) to present just a part of references for Korčula theory at the talk page (Marc Pol section) - but it was never recognized by an user mentioned above led by his totally biased political attitude. It's question of honesty. The same situation is in Mikalja article and others. Is there any wiki policy for such behaviour? Actually it's not hunting of a person it's seeking for peace to write down something properly. I wonder is there any similar situation in any other Wiki area? It's such a shame. Once again every cool head is welcome, by my opinion... Zenanarh (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Giovanni's post further down this page has put me off the idea of withdrawing from this conflict. WP:NPOV, WP:DE, WP:EW, MPOV and Dick would probably cover it all from a policy point of view. This kind of dispute is not uncommon, unfortunately; Macedonia is at ArbCom now, just to give one example. – Steel 21:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess who?
seems familiar. First off there's the recreation of Charley K Uchea, see Articles for deletion/Charley Kazim Uchea for a certain editor's history with that person. Then there's Tina Watson, and from what I saw before it was deleted (Articles for deletion/Tina Watson was ongoing before it was speedied) the spelling, grammar and terrible formatting looked awfully familar. One Night In Hackney 303  07:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Banhammered by Alison. The evidence was elsewhere, I'll tell you next time you're on IRC to avoid WP:BEANS. One Night In Hackney  303  08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be in Alison's little tree house. – Steel 12:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. And btw, LOVE the userpage kitteh! :P All the best, ~ Eliz 81 <sup style="color:#1E90FF;">(C)  02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WWOR Gallery
You delete the images? That's how you settle something? You "claim" they are orphans and then you delete them with no consensus and no discussion? I am pretty sure you just broke a couple rules there. I will watch yourself. - <font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer T:C 18:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You do realise that fair use galleries like that are prohibted by WP:NFCC and it's not just some random "policy of AMIB", right? – Steel 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and you do realize that is a real gray area in the NFC rules, right? AMIB made it his policy to go through and delete all the galleries (on TV and Radio stations only) without discussion or consensus.  He didn't do it on any other section, hence it was his policy.  Probably the beginning of the downfall of WP:TVS and WP:WPRS.


 * But deleting the images, without moving them into other sections of the article, without discussion, is silly and is wrong. - <font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer T:C 11:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking to post a few pictures
I took a few more pictures of my own collection of several items that have articles on Wikipedia. All my own original GFDL-self work. Can I post them this weekend? Mathewignash (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ok. – Steel 14:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Two of my old uploaded pictures have missing rational. Can I add them? Mathewignash (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just deleted a few images that BetacommandBot was complaining about but the others should be fine with a rationale, yeah. – Steel 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)