Jump to content

User talk:Steel/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Advice

I advice you regarding violation of user:DIREKTOR for this restriction. Always DIREKTOR persists in several edit wars pushing his POV statements. Articles involved:

You can control history of these articles for evidence! Regards and best wishes. Nemo, 1 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.84.15 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory content and abusive language again

lots of text

Hi, Steel.
The unregistered inflammator strikes again.
In order to make text shorter, I'll refer to that unregistered user that posts inflammatory messages, and generally, behaves as troll, as user "Cheers" (because he mostly signs himself with "Cheers").
If your remember, several months ago (on 15 Jan 2008), I've reported you an unregistered user, because of his abusive language, posting of inflammatory content, misbehaviour (use of capital letters) [1].
You've blocked one of his accounts [2], account Special:Contributions/24.86.110.10, on 15 Jan 2008, on 3 weeks.
However, he hasn't changed his behaviour.
He still uses Wikipedia as a forum.
He continued to post inflammatory messages (mostly his politically motivated wishes, his personal point of view).
Despite being long enough on Internet and Wikipedia, he still shows no basic knowledge of decent behaviour on the Internet: he still writes the whole sections of text, as well as titles with capital letters.
To make it easy for you, here're his obvious sockpuppets:

Now, a new sockpuppet of his has appeared. I dare to say this is the same person (writing style, signature, behaviour).

He agitates from that account since 26 March 2008.
Same behaviour. No contributions to the articles, exclusively posts on the talk pages, sending insulting content. Here're the examples of user 24.86.127.209:
- [3] 06:58, 25 April 2008, Talk: Balkans:
he attacks the political opposers, by calling them as nazis. ".... Your cro-nazi pathetic stuborness will cost you a lot.".
Then, in that same message, he posted inflammatory content. "'...Croatia is Balkan and will always be Balkan....". Sole purpose is to provoke Croatian users (and disrupt normal flow of any fruitful discussion)- he is supposed to know by now (since he reads Balkans related topics), that Croats don't like to calling their country (Croatia) as part of Balkans, and that posting of such messages 'll cause (for sure) the reactions of Croatian users. He did that before the block, now he has continued. He hasn't improved his behaviour. So, he knows very well what he's doing. Since he repeated that message several times, despite being blocked once, I dare to say that that unregistered user is a troll.
Then, his misbehaviour continues, showing lack of basic cultural habits on the Internet. He continued with whole section written in capital letters. To make it worse, that section was direct referring to the opposing user, in fact, he repeated his insults towards opponents (he used the plural, he wrote "liers"). "...NO MATER IF SOMEONE OF YOU-MENTALLY UNSTABLE LIERS CHANGES THE CONTENT IN THE ARTICLE AND PUTS CROATIAN FLAG OUT OF THE LIST OF BALKAN COUNTRIES. ".
Then comes his political propagandism "It won't change the fact that CROATIA IS BALKAN, as well as SERBIA and BOSNIA. ". This is also inflammatory.
Then comes the part that is heavy political insult and provocation. "You (note: Croats) can become a part of us, the EU only with the other parts of your nation-Serbs and Bosnians". Telling to a Croat, that he is a same nation, as a Serb, is heavy insult (in fact, an idea, recently propagate by greaterserbianists and yugounitarists). If that's his attitude, he can keep that for himself, and he's supposed to know that he shouldn't say such things to a Croat. Unless he wants to insult him and to provoke his reaction. The latter thing is what trolls do, persistently provoke.
Also, there's another problem. Here's his actions from IP Special:Contributions/24.86.110.10.
He wants to put the blame on Slovenians. In the message from 10 March 2008, he didn't declined that he's not a Slovenian [4] (user Aradic wrongly thought, that user "Cheers" is Slovenian). Instead of declining, he "confirmed" that he's Slovenian ("Yes, we 'Janezi' or Slovenians ..."), obviously wanting to put the Slovenian users into the circus he caused and make even bigger flame. As you see, user "Cheers" has acted through IP-address Special:Contributions/24.86.110.10. Same message, same words, same dictionary.
Also, in that same message, he wrote taunting content "...for Slovenians and all other Europeans you will always be WEST BALKANS, ha, ha. ".
Does Wikimedia has to tolerate someone's self-curing by provoking/insulting others? Kubura (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actions as 24.86.127.209

  • 03:51, 26 March 2008 : reposting of inflammatory content. He's supposed to know that Wikipedia is not a forum. I've removed that content (then user "Cheers" posted from IP 24.86.110.10 before being blocked), but he reposted it (from new IP) and defended such behaviour, 3 days after my action [5]

For that behaviour, I've also reported him to admin Future Perfect at Sunrise on 27 March 2008 User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/Archive_10. Despite Future's warning, he continued with his tirade [6] (02:45, 27 March 2008).

  • That same day, he continued with political paroles on the talk:Serbo-Croatian language [7],[8]-scholar example of POV-izing.
  • [9] 05:23, 9 April 2008. Talk:Ivan Gundulić. He finds Wikipedia as forum. Also, he etiquettes the opponents' contributions as "senseless cro-nationalist crap".
  • [10]. 05:43, 9 April 2008. Talk:Ruđer Bošković. He obviuosly wants to reactivate arguing, by sending inflammatory post to the message almost 2 years old, by using abusive language. There he said to user:Marinko "what you wrote above is a thought of a defective brain; a poor, washed brain...". Also, he repeated the yugounitarist paroles, that are heavy insult for Croats. Obvious attempt to provoke the reaction of Croat users. Trolling. An hour later, he tries to "mask" what he did, but the insult remained [11]. He cannot spit someone at face and then lick it.
  • [12] 06:31, 22 April 2008 Image talk. What's the purpose of that message? Using of Wikipedia as his bulletin? Freely using space that Wikimedia pays for? Of course, his style is inflammatory. Not to mention that that image is of dubious copyright status.
  • [13] 06:58, Talk:Balkans, described above.
  • [14] 07:00, 25 April 2008 , Talk:Balkans. Taunting attempts. Adding with capital letters "It kills you..." and "ha, ha". What level of communication is this?
  • [15] Talk:Gusle, 07:02, 27 April 2008. Another attempt to provoke the counterreaction (he gave more support to one of his older insulting messages).
  • [16] 05:54, 30 April 2008 , Talk:Valencian. Problem in this message is, that he calls the politicians, who lead the nations in their own independent way (respecting the wishes of their nations), as ones that "offer hatred and division". I won't mess with relations of Catalan-Valencian, but he has no right to say such things. If some nation wants to go its own way (not to be in forced unity), that doesn't mean that that nation propagates "hatred and division".
  • [17]of 05:34, 2 May 2008 . He spat, he cannot lick it. Further part is a burst of insults. "Language" part is a set of insults to Croats. Negating one part of Croats as part of Croat nation, and on the other side, his POV wishes: other Croats as same part of phantomic "same people" (with Serbs...).
  • in same message: If a person tell to Croats words like these "...You, CROATIANS are SAME PEOPLE with SERBS and BOSNIANS. You have same language, just the religion is different...", he may expect to be phyisically attacked (beside verbal answer). In other words, that user intentionally gave false information on Wikipedia (and persistently pushes that), as well as he insulted Croats.
  • same message: This section "It's good that all the world can see what a UNNATURAL and FAKE creation you are, trying to present yourselves in a way that is far from the truth...". This is a heavy insult to a whole nation. Boldened with capital letters. That means, expressing insults in shouting way.

Actions as 24.86.110.10 (after the block) to follow.

Kubura (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you take this to WP:ANI have someone there take a look? I don't feel like jumping back into these Balkan fun-and-games for a while. Sorry. – Steel 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have written my message above much more shorter, instead of a novelette above:
unregistered user writes insults again, uses capital letters in communication (=shouting), and give diffs.
Much shorter, isn't it? :)))
However, I thought, you'll recognize this as a general problem of bad behaviour, not as some Balkan and neighbouring stuff, this is generally bad: directly calling other users as "mentally unstable persons", "defective brain", "unnatural, fake creation" (calling someones ethnicity like that!), and that this user 'll get a block (for a longer period than previous time, because of repeated bad behaviour).
But, OK, if you're feeling tired, I respect that. I'm still exhausted from the case Giove.
Thanks anyway, and for all understanding you had. Kubura (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people around willing to look into it. Just, not me right now... – Steel 10:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User 24.86.110.10

Hi,

User with the IP of 24.86.110.10 keeps inflaming edit wars on various talk pages for more than 9 months now. He is strongly pro-Yugoslavia, with some strange ideas of reunifications, and spams people with messages in that tone. Look at his contributions. He made over 190 contributions but virtualy no contributions in the main namespace.

I warned him 2 times on his talk page and third time just minutes ago.

I don't believe this user will ever make usefull contribution to wikipedia, if he didn't do so in the past 9 months.

Please, either try to bring him to his senses, or just block him.

Regards,

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply to Kubura above. – Steel 10:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan Kaminsky

Hi, I just wrote an article Dan Kaminsky and saw that you had earlier deleted an article there under CSD A7. Two questions: 1) Are you ok with the new one? 2) Could you please take a look at the deleted difs and let me know if there was any material there worth incorporating into the new article? Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you the deleted text via email, you'll be the better judge of usefulness. And yeah, your version is a big improvement on the last. – Steel 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

yo what up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utyie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Input request

Hiya. In the fall, you had a hand in addressing User:mathewignash's problems with WP:NFC. I stumbled into some of his more recent image uploads, and for images since late March, he's listed an incorrect source -- and, I suspect, knowingly so. I tagged them and he's posted accurate sources for them, but a) probably there are other images from October to March I have marked and b) it's once again an "oops, my bad" claim. I find the whole thing/editor frustrating, so before I post something at ANI asking for broader input, I thought I'd ask you -- is having to review all of his image uploads worthwhile? Given their limited use and his ongoing problems with accurate sourcing, would it be better to stop him from uploading images at all? Am I too much of a stickler for NFC? Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mathewignash was at one point last year under a restriction to ban him uploading images. This was later relaxed to free images only, which was in place for a while until it turned out that the images he was uploading were not actually free but rather an obscure class of non-free. Three separate ANI discussions took place but nobody could decide exactly how his images could be tagged and this irritated me immensely. Mathew came to me shortly after (here) with a reasonable-sounding agreement and I remember, in my frustration and confusion with the ANI discussions, giving him the OK to that before walking away from images altogether.
That's basically the history. If he's slipping back into his old ways - your recent experiences with him are all too familliar - then perhaps reinstating his ban on uploading anything at all might be in order. I would support it since he's had every chance, opportunity and incentive to sort things out. – Steel 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, this isn't "slipping back into old ways". Mostly I just needed to be more specific about my source page. I would, for instance, just list www.transformers.com as the source, not the specific page within that web site, since www.transformers.com now redirects to various www.hasbro.com pages (like here[1]). There were also a few I did get wrong, I'm fixing those (the box art came from a related site, which I'm now siting specifically). I've fixed every one he asked about, most were okay, but I needed to be more specific. I'll be looking for any others that I can improve on my own, but if you have any that don't look right, just post it to my talk page and I'll fix them. Mathewignash (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have honestly lost all the patience I once had for this. Given the sheer quantity of images you upload and the length of time you've been doing it, "post it to my talk page and I'll fix them" just doesn't cut it anymore. It's no-one else's problem but yours now: get it right or stop uploading. – Steel 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem then. Like I said, every one he complained about is already fixed as soon as he pointed them out to me, and mostly it was just siting the specific URL they came from (not just the site). There is no need to make a major issue about it. I'll spend some time and look through all my backlogs and see if I can improve on any other old pictures I should have used a specific URL on. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Question for you. For instance this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MIRAGEIMAGE.jpg was from the www.transformer.com web site a few year back, where I saved it, but they long since removed the picture and the page it was on. Do I still list www.transformers.com as a source or is that going to get me in trouble, since the picture isn't on that site any more? Mathewignash (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Someone like Hammersoft (talk · contribs) would know. – Steel 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Unb-c

Template:Unb-c has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 06:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New SSP case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (5th)

Hi Steel, as I am aware that you have had experience of GG, I'd like to ask you to have a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (5th) and bring it to a speedy close if at all possible. I know there have been a variety of such cases (mostly ill-considered) brought forward by various well-intentioned editors but I am sure beyond any doubt that this one is the real deal. I am also passing this message to Thatcher. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for closing that one out and for your kind words at AN. Perhaps while this is in the forefront of our minds, could you take a moment over a cup of coffee to have a look at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Brunodam_.282nd.29. It's a non-controversial case, I think, especially given, for example, "Cherso" signing off a 4.231 IP post. However, it has been there for a while so it can wait a bit longer if necessary, especially if other more urgent matters may be at hand as, looking at the activities of User:Tlilita this evening, it seems that this current show is not over yet. Many thanks once again, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
ok, Cherso = 4.231.202.49 = Brunodam seems clear enough, but I'm not sure the evidence against the other two is that strong (I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't feel confident enough myself to block based on what's currently there). Popovichi's edit warring, and then sudden wikibreak when the weather in Colorado is mentioned is suspicious, but not decisive. Also, in which post specifically does the IP (which does, after all, come from Italy) make this confession? – Steel 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To reply to your points, I've posted additional info onto the SSP case at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Brunodam_(2nd)#User:Brunodam_.282nd.29. I was going to put it here, but then decided it was more appropriate to put it there for the broader editorship to assess the merits (or otherwise) of. Anyway, it's there for you to consider whenever you have five or ten minutes. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've seen the results. Many thanks for taking the time to have a look. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
np. – Steel 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
As a final note, per the checkuser results [18] I'd say sock Merighi needs to be escorted to the exit. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish genocide

Hi Steel, it seems that given the length of time since there were any problems with the Kurdish genocide article, it would be good to unprotect, given that it would help pare down the list of permanently protected pages and perhaps allow a new consensus to emerge if warranted. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Expiry set. – Steel 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing

This category needs categorization, otherwise, it shows a red link. The page is protected, so only admins can do changes.
Here it is: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Giovanni Giove. Currently, there's one suspicious account in that category.
Greetings, Kubura (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather leave it as a redlink unless it really needs to be blue. – Steel 17:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Steel359/protection.js

I love the script, but noticed one problem with it. When it is installed, it, for some reason, disables something in Sysop.js. When on the Delete page, when you chose a dropdown deletion reason, the "Other/additional reason:" box should automatically blank itself. When the protection script is installed, it does not do this. Any way to fix it? Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The script conflicts with all kinds of random things like this and I'm (unfortunately) not good enough with javascript to fix most of them. I can't think of anything that might affect the delete page so the problem might be User:Steel359/^demon.js, which is included in the protection.js but wasn't written by me. But I really don't know, sorry :( – Steel 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected Page?

Hi, I was referred here by MZMcBride because of a protected article page "Sandy Dumont"

I wanted to create the article however it says the article has been create-protected. I was wondering if you would be able to explain to me what happened and if there's any way for me to re-create the article?

From my understanding there was too many repeated attempt to re-create deleted materials therefore the page was protected. Although the protection page states I should not contact the protecting administrator, on the request protection page it says if I want to have an article unprotected I should contact the admin first.


Much appreaciated for any of your help!


Sdumont132 (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. It seems that in January 2007 someone repeatedly created an article that was a bit too promotional, the kind of biography that would be more at home on a personal website. I'll unprotect it if you really want but I urge you to take on board the good advice at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Regards, – Steel 01:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it would be great if you could unprotect the page, although I have limited experience with creating wikipedia articles, I will strongly take into your considerations and follow the guidelines for biography/autobiography.

Thank you for your reply

Sdumont132 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Page is unprotected. – Steel 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your archive ...

Hi
Your most recent archive at User talk:Steel/Archive 14 isn't linked from your archive box, it only links to User talk:Steel359/Archive 14.
I just noticed when I was following a recent edit of your page and was amazed that MiszaBot appeared to have lost it. :)
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. Thanks. – Steel 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathewignash

Hey,

Sorry to bring this up, but thought it might interest you. I was going to leave a comment with user:Mathewignash over his continued failure to use edit summaries when reverting others' changes, when - well, look for yourself. You were his parole officer back in the day, so thought I'd give you a heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if there was a problem. I'll make a note of giving a summary if I revert something. Mathewignash (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Same old same old... – Steel 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to get out of joint about it. He's right, I'll add more detail on reverts. I got used to not noting reasons because I had a couple people making sabotages to pages, and I just automatically reverted their work, and just got into that habit. It was wrong. Mathewignash (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not getting out of joint over it. Didn't mean to sound as if I was. – Steel 23:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks muchly then. I've been dealing with some user who likes to add nonsense and rumor to Transformers articles again. I think he recently changed identities after being banned. Suddenly a new user registered the day after he was banned took over his same edits on the same pages. fun fun fun Mathewignash (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SPA disruptor

Hi, Steel.
Few days ago I've tagged an article (Towns in the Former RSK) for speedy deletion. I've also explained that on the talkpage of that article [19] before the tagging.
Only an hour later (!), an SPA account user:Otadzbina appeared and removed that tag without any explanation. Of course, it was his it first and only edit. I found its edit as disruptive, since he hasn't explained its action nor gave any good counterarguments. A kind of revert war.
Here's history:

  • 07:44, 12 September 2008: [20] my argumentation for tagging
  • 07:49, 12 September 2008: [21] my tagging of article
  • 08:54, 12 September 2008: [22] SPA removes the tag

Today, I've reverted the article to the tagged version.
Please, compare contributions:

Can we do something about such cases? I suspect that this user might be user:Benkovac (infinitely blocked sockpuppet of user:Semberac), since he edited that article previously and he was engaged on that topic.
Now the sockmaster, user:Semberac, declares on its page that "he's proud Bosniak", but I think he's giving fake info, just a mask, in order to fool others. User:Benkovac was very active on the matter of tagging of towns in Croatia as "towns in RSK". I believe that this kind of userpage won't be made by a Bosniak one version of his userpage. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. One account made one edit to remove a CSD tag which has since been removed again by someone else. It is suspicious that a new account turned up an hour after the page was tagged, but there's very little to go on and I'm not familliar with any of the names you mentioned. – Steel 15:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

undefined sexuality

your removal of undefined sexuality, on the pomosexual article, was unjustifiable, in the future and the fact tag [[citation needed]] to the page, or try a search on google a find it yourself, just because you don't understand the concept, doesn't mean you have the right to freely remove things.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be presumptuous. – Steel 11:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with User:Steel359/protection.js

Hey, are you still maintaining User:Steel359/protection.js? Because I noticed when I added it to my monobook.js, the JS for page deletions (i.e. the drop-down menu) was messed up, showing plain wiki-markup text like one would see in edit mode. Also, when selecting sth from it, it does not override the input box anymore. Can you help? I really like that way to easily add protection templates... Regards SoWhy 09:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going disable everything in that script except the bit for the protection templates. I think I know what's causing the deletion page weirdness (see also an archived thread about one of the problems you raised) but I don't have the know how to fix it; luckily, that part of the script is redundant now anyway due to changes in Mediawiki. – Steel 12:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Well I'm not sure if that's fixed it or not. Purge your cache and tell me how it goes. – Steel 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems to work now. Thanks very much for the help :-) SoWhy 12:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If you do not mind me asking again, could you do me a favor and expand your script a bit? I really like to have an option to add {{pp-move|small=yes}} automatically from the left side and to have options on WP:RFPP to decline with the reasons "not preemptively" or "against protection policy" automatically. If you do not want to, I can try to change it myself if you don't mind. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I deliberately left out pp-move since move protection templates are barely, if at all, worth adding to pages. WP:RFPP response reasons are pretty simple though - which ones from Template:RFPP do you want? – Steel 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay. As for responses, I'd like
  • {{RFPP|ap}} (maybe with an optional prompt to add who protected it? So you can enter "ExampleUser" and it creates "{{RFPP|ap}} by {{admin|ExampleUser}}. ~~~~")
  • {{RFPP|np}}
  • {{RFPP|dr}}
Those are the ones I use the most after the current options.
And maybe, if possible, one that adds "{{RFPP|d}}, protection is not warranted under the [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|protection policy]]. ~~~~" (i.e. a declined with general reason added for those new users requesting it).
Thanks in advance! :-) SoWhy 21:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added the three above. "Protection is not warranted under the protection policy" seems a bit vague for the requesting user so I left that out. Hope that's Ok. – Steel 11:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it's okay. Thanks for the changes, it allows me even more laziness ;-) SoWhy 12:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey again. I did not want to bother you again, so I decided to be bold and did some changes myself. I hope you don't mind :-) SoWhy 19:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous block mentioned at ANI thread

Would you have time to comment at this ANI thread and give the background to a previous block that you made on an editor whose current block is being discussed? Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not comment at ANI since I don't consider myself impartial with this anymore and my input would be of limited value. I think you've dug up most of the context anyway. Gundam related edit warring, though I forget specifically which article(s). One side was on the talk page, the other wasn't. I like Jtrainor but he does have a tendency to point-blank refuse to co-operate with AMIB, though no party here is completely innocent. – Steel 15:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rock Creek, British Columbia

I see you deleted this - I'm about to recreate it, and must advise you that you were hasty in deleting it; though small it is historically important (see Rock Creek Gold Rush and also one of the only towns of any size in the region of British Columbia it's in, the Boundary Country, as well as a junction town for two major highways and its name occurs in numerous articles, all now showing a redlink because of your deletion. In future, before you delete a small community article, I suggest you consult with members of the WikiProject for the region concerned to see whether it's notable or not.Skookum1 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire content of the article created in January 2007 was:
Serving the Rock Creek area for all your Real Estate needs.[www.royallepage.ca/townandcountry]
I'm not sure what to say, other than to point out that this was a perfectly justified deletion per WP:CSD. I find it kind of rude for you to come here and lecture me on deletion practices when you didn't actually know what had been deleted, or why. – Steel 13:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Constitution Society

I have encountered many cites to this organization, and recent appearances on C-SPAN. When I tried to find it on Wikipedia I found the article was "Deleted" and "Protected" but no history files that can provide a basis for deciding whether or why that might have been justified. Do you have continuing objections to re-creating it? Uncoverer (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh lovely, I remember this. I have no objections to this article being recreated as long as whoever writes it bears WP:NPOV in mind and doesn't write it in the ultra-promotional style it was written in last time. It doesn't seem to be protected anymore anyway. – Steel 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sdgfr (talk · contribs)

You may be interested in that sock's unblock request. I've left him a {{2ndchance}}, which you of course are free to revert.  Sandstein  23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

kk. – Steel 15:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The only dumb questions are those unasked.

You seem to be the only person left I knew that's still active, so I thought I'd ask. Occasionally when I read articles, I now see B and C and other ratings. I heard talk of this when I left, but what came of it? I remember a while back a discussion on this, but can you enlighten me?--CM (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this. Sorry :( – Steel 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Dang. Alright thanks.--CM (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham_3

Your participation would be much appreciated.:) Sticky Parkin 03:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CSS id change

I am planning to change the CSS ids used in MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, to be in line with how we do for other such messages.

To make the transition smooth I will update the /monobook.css files for the six users that currently use those ids, thus you should not see any difference. You are one of those users.

After I have updated your /monobook.css you might need to bypass your browser cache to load the new version. (But for some minutes while I do the updates you will see the full versions of those MediaWiki messages instead of the "plain" versions.)

For more about this and if you want to answer or discuss this, see MediaWiki talk:Revision-info#CSS id change.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

So when do you think we can merge the articles? I may do it next week. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's convenient timing because I should be able to help from next week. – Steel 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, can you check out: User_talk:Moni3#Homosexuality ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh you've merged it already. I wasn't expecting that so soon but I hope it sticks anyway.
As for that discussion on Moni's page... I might have to pass on that. Maybe if you'd asked me two years ago when I still had the time and enthusiasm for big projects on Wikipedia. Sorry. I only really got involved with the merge because I hated that homosexual orientation article and previous merger proposals hadn't gone anywhere. :S – Steel 15:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection script

For some reason the protection script doesn't work right when I also have User:Cacycle/wikEd installed in my monobook - any ideas? Cirt (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The protection script doesn't work right with all kinds of other random stuff but it's beyond my (very limited) technical know-how to fix it. Sorry :( – Steel 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay no worries, thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A two year old block

After two years I wonder if you recall why ExistEarly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was tagged as a sockpuppet of Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki)? I looked through the various checkuser pages but couldn't find that name listed. The reason that I bring this up now is that Existearly1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just turned up and after seeing the ExistEarly I decided to block the Existearly1 user. I realise that something from two years back is not likely to be remembered (I know I wouldn't) but I thought it best to ask. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way did you know that if you click on the "Click here to leave a new message" bar it sends you to Steel359? Which means that if using the edit toolbar and Firefox you don't get to see that the talk page is protected. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember much, but I checked back through contribs and stuff and it looks like there a few IPs and "new" accounts, of which ExistEarly was one, edit warring across a handful of pages with the same MO as Panairjdde (I assume; I seem to have been acting on someone else's request). As for Existearly1, I reckon it's probably just a coincidence that they have similar names, especially after so long - Panairjdde was an edit warrior and POV pusher of some sort, whereas Existearly1 is just a common image vandal. Plus they appear to be on different continents. – Steel 00:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: new message bar. Ooops - better fix that.
Thanks. I think you are right and I have unblocked them. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Pages

Why did "International Project Management Association" page was deleted? Please, explain reasons, contact. regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolotelo (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The one line of that article appeared to have been copied and pasted from the organisation's website. – Steel 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think you swapped the diff links at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence#Canvassing. The usernames are in chronological order (Fritzpoll commented first), but his link goes to my comment and vice-versa.
Regarding WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence#Why is Ikip mentioned in this?, would you mind linking to that arbitrator's statement? I infer that acceptable evidence will be somewhat restricted in scope, based the case's acceptance without Ikip as a named party. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The comment was off-wiki, though he could make it on-wiki if someone asked I guess. I had assumed Ikip's behaviour would be scruntised too given his deep involvement with all this, but if he needs to be a named party in the RFAR for that to happen (as opposed to just a party to the dispute), then I suppose I'll have to suggest it. Am I right to think that Ikip should be involved with the case? (genuine question) Doesn't seem right that one disruptive party gets the heat while the other equally disruptive and equally involved party gets none.
I'll fix the links when I'm back later on. Thanks for noticing it. – Steel 09:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Ikip should be a named party and share your concerns regarding asymmetrical treatment, but I assume that the limited scope is intended to prevent this case from ballooning into E&C n. Even if Ikip is not added, I think that most of your evidence is relevant, as it provides fuller background. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref : BMC Article - Page

Hi,

I am frequent user of wikipedia. Recently when searching for BMC, the first entry, BMC Bangalore Mountaineering Club was listed. On further checking, found out that it was deleted by you.

I am not sure about the reason. I was part of this group, one of the core members since its inception/initial days as an organization for like minded adeveture loving people from /around Bangalore, India. Is there any specific reason / content for which this page was deleted?

I created user account specifically to hear from you. I will appreciate your response.


Thanks in advance.

Warm Regards, Vikram Hoshing 11:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvikram (talk • contribs)

The article was written in very promotional language that wasn't really appropriate for Wikipedia. That's all. I should have made the reason clearer at the time. – Steel 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yoshi's Island

I didn't cite an article, so I don't understand why you're commenting to me saying I cited the wrong article. And I wasn't trying to "troll" so there's no need to comment telling me not to revert. I made a mistake, obviously wiki rules state it's a sequel so I'm not going to change it. I only reverted it back to what I put in because the person who reverted my edit never said anything so I thought they were just causing trouble. Thanks for explaining to me about what constitutes a sequel. I apologies for the mistake. 77.96.95.251 (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK cool. (Bear in mind that the other message on your talk wasn't from me, I don't know what that person was on about either) – Steel 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you'd remember this. . .

Someone you blocked a long time ago has requested an unblock. Apparently the user was a sock puppeteer and POV pusher. TNXMan 20:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The one reservation I have is dwarfed by the fact that November 2007 was so long ago. I'd probably give him another go, but I leave it up to you. – Steel 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Manuel dos Santos (swimmer)

I was about to create the article Manuel dos Santos (swimmer) and I saw it was previous deleted by you. He seems to be a notable sportsman, bronze medalist in 1960 Olympics and world record holder in 1961. Please, let me know if it´s OK for you. Thanks. Caiaffa (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. The article I deleted in 2006 consisted of a single period, so the problem there was a lack of content rather than a lack of notabilty. Thanks. – Steel 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Fair use and Transformers

Hey, I don't know if you remember me, but I had some talk with you a long while back about proper image tags, fair use vs. free. etc. You helped me figure out the proper way to do things. One of the things I think we talked about was whether an article could have several non-free images, if it was an article that covered several characters who shared a similar name, but were only given the same name because a company wanted to keep a Trademark on the name years later, but in fact the characters were different characters. I was wondering if this was in fact still valid reasoning, as it's come up again with another user disagreeing with me. I want to make sure. Let me know, thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember what I said at the time, but I'm not sure it was exactly as you describe. That's if we even had this discussion. Regardless, this was so long ago now and I haven't kept up to speed on fair use policies and practices. Listen to Black Kite because, frankly, I don't want to have to deal with this anymore. – Steel 21:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the advice. I'm having trouble trying to stay current with the policies too. Mathewignash (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI topic about persistent vandalism in Video Game articles

Hi there. I wanted to let you know that I've started a topic on WP:ANI#Persistent vandalism from a range of IP addresses about the guy who keeps adding Nintendo DS release info to articles like Kirby's Dream Land 3. I blocked what looks to me like the fourth IP involved in this issue today, and mentioned that it might be time to consider a rangeblock. If you have anything you'd like to add, please take a look at the conversation on ANI. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a few more articles to my watchlist and will try to keep an eye out - I'm generally around more than my contribs suggest. – Steel 23:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

As it's been a couple of years now I've started a review to see whether the following semiprotection is still necessary:

Please see the talk page: Talk:Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. --TS 01:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See also the semiprotection review on Talk:Saddam_Hussein in reference to this:

  • 02:27, 8 February 2008 Steel changed protection level for "Saddam Hussein" ‎ (Anon vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])

--TS 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

February 24

  • 08:55, 25 April 2008 Steel protected February 24 ‎ (Problem anon [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
  • 16:01, 15 June 2008 Wizardman changed protection level for "February 24" ‎ (No need to move. using TW [move=sysop])
  • 22:12, 15 June 2008 Wizardman changed protection level for "February 24" ‎ (Re-semiprotecting after finding out why it was originally semi'd. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])

The reason seems to have been edits like this.

After nearly 18 months, I'd like to review this to see if it's still necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I started at talk:February 24. --TS 07:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm also reviewing the semiprotection of February 29, which seems to be related. See talk:February 29. --TS 07:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I've unprotected them both. – Steel 13:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Shaw

I am in the process of creating a new Wiki article for the Chicago blues tenor saxophonist, Eddie Shaw. However, I notice back on February 8, 2007, you deleted a new article in that name. Assuming I supply sufficient references / citations etc., I am alright to continue ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. – Steel 23:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist rules?

I'd love to know how the article on Kotaku is credited with the news when Luke Plunkett posted the info 10hrs after the fact. In that case if the most 'credible' source is used then why not use PlayStation.Blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunomacx (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, citing Kotaku as a source doesn't count as crediting them with breaking the news, but if there's a PlayStation blog link you would prefer to use then go ahead. That's fine. I'd just rather that people from OneLastContinue didn't run around insisting on using OneLastContinue links... – Steel 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Only 2 RFAs? Is that normal these days? CM (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it. Even having zero active requests isn't the big rare event it used to be. Merry Christmas and stuff, – Steel 18:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
For real? Are people too intimidated, or perhaps a lack of qualified users? Merry Christmas to you too. CM (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
A bit of both, I think. – Steel 11:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

can you help

hi im new to wikki, my name is steven stanley rogers but it says that there was a page with my name that was delleted, could i make a new one about me? thanks

steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenr1986 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

user

What did user:scottwooller do to get blocked? Chocolate4921 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your scripts

I took the liberty of cleaning up your scripts a bit. Other people use them, and some elements were creating some problems for people after the switch to vector. I hope you don't mind, and if you notice anything out of the ordinary, please do revert, or give me a little nudge. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, I haven't touched them for ages. Thanks. – Steel 11:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Improving protection script

Could you please add {{RFPP|pd}} as a template for RFPP, and {{pp-pending}} as a tag for protecting pages. This is part of the new pending changes trial. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 19:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know the trial has only a couple of weeks left and after that we might never see pending changes again. Though hopefully not. Maybe if it becomes more permanent. – Steel 12:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Waltles

fact bites decided it would accept the Waltles article as they have verified the facts that were submitted to wikipedia and unlike wikipedia, they read the article and did the research and verified the facts that were presented by several media sources on the band and the media sources and the online record label verified that the band's founder did indeed make music history 3 times in 2008 and the Associated press also verified the account as well. We hope you are satisfied with your mistake and miscarriage of justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walteria (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bhangraton

Hi! I want to create an article about Bhangraton and I have found some references that you can check if you don't mind, according to what the policy says about creating a page that was previously deleted. Here they are:

Thanks! --JewBask (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

graduate programs in feminist philosophy

Why did you delete both pages with a list of graduate programs in feminist philosophy? 98.26.30.68 (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This website isn't really supposed to be a directory of university courses. – Steel 00:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation

This has been protected since 2007 and the sock-puppeteer doesn't appear to have been active for 18 months. Can unprotection be tried? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear I accept that this request is a little controversial and may have to be reverted, but I think its worth a try to see. If you wish to discuss this further somewhere else that sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't really have any objections as long as someone is willing to watchlist the page and keep an eye on it. – Steel 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hello, would you be able to help me with a current situation. Am I acting correctly or not ?(I believe I am). See Homosexuality history, talk page. And also look at my talk page. Thank you in advance, Эдуард/Edward 20:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: FFXIII

It doesn't "put basically the entire criticism of the game into context". Here's what it said- "focus group sessions in front of Western audiences were only held at "the 11th hour" when the team knew that it was already too late to implement any suggestions or feedback." Basically saying that the team had no intention of using the focus groups to identify problems, and "putting in the context" that the team knew what criticisms they would get and didn't care, they had no intention of fixing them.

Here's the problem with that- when else would you have focus groups? You have to have a game to show them, right? And the whole development section is talking about how they had all of these pieces of the game that never got put together until near the end, and that it was so inefficient that way (it's from the same post-mortem that the Kotaku ref is summarizing). So. Game is almost done, and ready to show people to get some feedback. Clearly, they wanted feedback, otherwise why spend a bunch of money and time on it? If you don't care what the focus group has to say, why even do one? So. They put it in front of the focus groups, and I'm sure they had comments and tweaks that they could make, but the Western one says that the game is too linear. Oh no! How do they fix it, given that the game is massively behind schedule, and almost done? Well they could... could... could do nothing. The game is fundamentally flawed in that respect- the only way to fix it is to completely remake the game.

That's what I meant by irrelevant commentary. Flaws that endemic to the basic game needed to be fixed in hour 1-3, in the design stage, but focus groups can't be brought in until hours 9-11 when the game is in a playable state. Throwing in a statement that says that the developers ignored the focus groups and knew what criticism they would get is ignoring the basic realities of game development, much less software development. And it's plainly obvious that you/the writer of that sentence is trying to get the reader to think badly of the developer for "ignoring" feedback, because otherwise the statement would have been directly after the focus group statement in the development section, rather than after the criticisms in the reception section. Square Enix screwed up, sure. But they screwed up in the design, not in the focus group testing, and so it's the design critiques from game reviewers that the article talks about. --PresN 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:WJBscribe

Hello Steel. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:WJBscribe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: User does exist, or this is not a user page. Thank you. Courcelles 00:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

*Aherm* - how rude. Turn your back for a second and suddenly you don't exist :-). How are you anyway? WJBscribe (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been ages. But I'm fine, I get by. Still at WP:CHU I see? Some people are just gluttons for punishment. Hope you're well, and stuff. – Steel 13:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Valkyria Chronicles III

There shouldn't be discussion (and there hasn't been, so "established" doesn't mean anything here) over something like this, this is just what happens; unofficial titles are bad, inconsistency issues, etc, I could bring up pretty much anything about this. There is no "Valkyria Chronicles III", and it doesn't look like there will be, but that's irrelevant. When there is, there will be, and the article should be appropriately titled to reflect such then, as it should be now. Despatche (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The English language title for this series (Senjō no Varukyuria) is Valkyria Chronicles. The English language press exclusively use "Valkyria Chronicles 3/III" to refer to the game. Hence the title on en.wp is Valkyria Chronicles III. While I'm a big fan of WP:BOLD usually, disputed page moves have the tendency to make a mess and really ought to be discussed. Please take it to the talk page, or, better, somewhere like WP:VG which actually has people watching it. Hell I'll move it myself if the consensus is to move. – Steel 14:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

New naming proposals

Hey mate, I've further commented on the "Google Nexus" talk page... Assumed you might be interested... Regards. --SF007 (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


MSU Interview

Dear Steel,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

skogging

Why was this deleted? I invented a new term . coined it, domained it and have a large group on facebook.

It's an article in last years Concrete Wave.

www.skogging.com since 2000 ....


Please tell me how to get this baby back in to wiki.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samoa92064 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

74.102.88.247

I get that 74.102.88.247 statement on the Opera Mobile talk page was very hyperbolic, but please try to be kind to newbies. --Vera (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Bones

Hi I'm looking to do a wiki on Bobby Bones and I see that a page has been deleted with this title already. I'm trying to see the page to discover if it's the same subjuct. Bobby Bones is an american musician and actor in many current and old bands and I should have enough sources to prove his relevance. But I'd like to check what this other page that was deleted?Aspyinthehouseoflove (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no actual content on this page - it was just a redirect to Bobby Bones Show, which didn't exist at the time. Obviously a redirect to a page that doesn't exist isn't very helpful, so that's the only reason it was deleted. – Steel 15:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Android Ice Cream Sandwich

could you answer Talk:Android Ice Cream Sandwich? thanks. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

never ever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Lacoste (talk • contribs)
I brought this up at Talk:Android version history#Separate articles a fortnight ago. – Steel 16:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"I asked him to bring it here for discussion." a month later!
"He decided not to." I came 10 days after notification, come on! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Angry IP

Eat a dick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10.64.0.169 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what I did to upset you but I'm not sorry. – Steel 19:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Android (operating system)

Hi Steel. I partially reverted this edit you made as it removed reference to the history of Android unnecessarily and for Wikipedia that's illogical. Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 (email) 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Same for Android version history for a similar reason. The codenames for all the version are included in the header because it's their common name and the name they are most commonly known by. Your argument could be used against any version, even Ice Cream Sandwich, which is why i have reverted that. Thanks and don't forget to have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 (email) 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to eliminate any reference to the names Astro and Bender. I agree that they're interesting and relevant to the history of Android. It's just that it has to be clear that Android 1.0 and 1.1 were not actually released with those names (I mean, that's exactly what it says in the article: "but these names could not ultimately be used for trademark reasons.[1]") in the way that 4.1 was actually released with the name 'Jelly Bean' (See android.com). If you want to keep Astro and Bender in the headings on Android version history, I guess we could manage that, though I'd the text for each of those versions to again say that the names were only unofficial, internal names. Acceptable?
As for the common name thing, this does feel like one of those occasions where they're only the common names precisely because Wikipedia has been displaying those names prominently for a few years now.
I'm having a great evening thanks. xxx – Steel 18:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Most if not all of the reliable internet information refers to them by the code names, which leads me to believe the names were well known to people who had devices and possibly publicised a bit. What kind of wording did you have in mind? Thanks for the reply, and the kisses lol ツ Jenova20 (email) 18:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. Check out the Google News searches for android astro and android bender during 2008 and 2009. The results are just gibberish. Compare that with android cupcake during 2009 which returns lots of relevant articles about Android 1.5. So I don't think those names were used at all at the time. I would still prefer not to have Astro or Bender in the headings and instead talk about them in the text, but if you really want them in the headings then like a sentence along the lines that the names were only used internally would probably suffice. – Steel 19:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you rig up an example? Perhaps also the sources may be tainted more as time goes on then and Astro and Bender become more well known. I've only known about Android for around 2.75 years so it could well be possible that the names are more popular and well known now than before...Still just for asthetic appeal it does look improved with the codenames up and we've no distinction made for the headers in terms of an advertised version name or an internal codename. Either way, all versions had one name and at least one version number - listing both is just more informative for the reader. Opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've made an edit. I would still prefer Astro/Bender not to be in the headings but I realise I'm probably in the minority here and they're likely to be restored by someone (possibly you :P) within a few hours. If so I'm not going to fight over it. – Steel 11:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh i wouldn't do that. I only readded one in because someone else did one and it's either all or nothing. Anyway it looks good how it is now but maybe we should go for a consensus on the talk page so we can find out the wider opinions and get some agreement and avoid future edit wars?
Thanks Steel, have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jetstorm-movie.jpg
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel/Archive_14&oldid=1139375064"