User talk:Steel359/Archive 9

Help!

Thanks for fixing that, but, how do you do it? I was wrestling with that for a while and was wondering if you could tell me where I was going wrong. Thanks. Ashnard _talk 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I see you've been looking at my User page (trying to suss the competition?) Only joking, are you from Newcastle or something? Please can you explain why you removed the images from my Userpage, cheers. Ashnard _talk 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, why would I be from a dump like Newcastle? ;)

Anyway, there are several ways to do references, but I do it this way:

<ref name= ??? >{{ cite web | author= ??? | url= ??? | title= ??? | work= ??? | accessdate= ??? | accessyear= ??? }}</ref>

To use the Japanese sales figures as an example:

<ref name=N-Europe>{{cite web | author=N-Europe site staff| year=2007 | title=Charts: Latest Japanese Software & Hardware Sales | url=http://www.n-europe.com/news.php?nid=10262 | work=[http://www.n-europe.com/ N-Europe] | accessdate=19 March | accessyear=2007}}</ref>

– Steel 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll copy it into my discussion page to remind me. But what about the images on my User page? I need something to cheer me up after the FA cup.Thanks. Ashnard _talk 07:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, yeah. See WP:FUC section nine. – Steel 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident sprot

Hey steel, I noticed that you updated the request for protection notes, but I don't see the protection / tag applied on the article. Am I overlooking something?

Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

/Blaxthos 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's protected (see the log), I just don't normally bother with the tags anymore. – Steel 19:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding. /Blaxthos 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penn, Schoen & Berland

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Penn, Schoen & Berland. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thanks! Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever think of talking to me before rushing off to DRV? – Steel 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, honestly, that didn't occur to me. I suppose that would have been a simpler way to handle it, but I didn't know you one way or the other. I was just a little surprised to find the article deleted (the first time I looked for it, just so you know; I wasn't an editor on the article). I'm not surprised to find that I was right, it was overwritten in a spammy fashion on March 16. Given the version that you and Canthusus apparently saw I don't blame you; even the version I found through Google was a mess. -- Dhartung | Talk 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Apologies for the tone of my previous message. – Steel 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on User:Smartie960

Why did you block User:Smartie960!? You cannnot block a user for simply not contributing so much to Wikipedia! This looks a lot like administrator abuse to me... Also, you deleted her userpage! ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 23:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can, no it's not, yes I did. – Steel 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the policy and its says nothing about admins being able to block users for not contributing so much... And, anyways, if you block a user, I dont think you can delete the userpage... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 23:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for accusing you of administrator abuse... I got sort of confused because I did not see it in the official blocking policy and becuase I didn´t notice that she had been warned before. Also, ive got you a question: When you block a user indefinetly, are you supposed to also delete the userpage? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time the userpage is replaced with {{indefblocked}} or something like that. – Steel 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Cmsjustin#Rockstar Advanced Game Engine

Do you want the honors on this one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, five reverts, but over about 3-4 days so not really a 3RR. At any rate, I'm technically "involved" since I've both reverted (twice) and expressed an opinion here. I might have someone protect it to try and get discussion out of this guy. – Steel 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was referring to the four reverts on the 20th, but it's kind of late now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, he reverted twice on the 20th... – Steel 22:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two reverts in the evening on the 19th, two in the morning-midday on the 20th. It's moot, in any case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, yeah. – Steel 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Please don't forget to leave a message on the User/IP Talk page when you've blocked someone, per the Blocking iInstructions; it can save other editors time. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SotC

As long as he cites double sources (including GamePro), it seems fine to me. — Deckill er 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical engineering articles, sockpuppet, etc...

Thanks for the actions! Hope it wasn't too much trouble. -Cquan 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Leave me a message if there's any more silliness down there. – Steel 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the bit on my talk page about being a potential sock puppet. I was kinda confused by that. It looks like things have calmed down though. Thanks again! Grey Knight 1ce 19:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages

By the way, the same user Adil has carried on the disputes here, Orontid Dynasty and Koryun. Artaxiad 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try dispute resolution or something. I'm not being dragged into this. – Steel 12:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Smartie960

Why did you block her for a not accurate reason? You did not have to DELETE her USER PAGE and AUTOGRAPH BOOK. Is there a way you can RESTORE it? ♥Chocolate♥ Munch- Crunch 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it before, and I'll do it again. Your sister wasn't the first, and I doubt she'll be the last. The reason was perfectly valid. – Steel 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to block her forever? --Yummie 17:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you umblock her and give her one last chance? She stated on her talk page if she could please be umblocked and given one last chance to contribute more on Wikipedia rather that use the encyclopedia as Myspace. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 17:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... I suppose so. – Steel 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel and TomasBat

Oh, well I just created her another account... just in case you said no. Sorry. And I got the warning... --Yummie 18:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since she has started clean and fresh, this thing is over. no more talkinsg about it, ok? She is User:SupaGirl98, ok? Just so you know. --Yummie 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yes, I noticed that yesterday, but I never got around to unsubst'ing. John Reaves (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Username policy/Draft

I would like to move ahead with replacing the older version of the policy with the draft, and have posted notices to reflect that. Since you participated in writing it, please take a look at whether you think the current wording is acceptable. >Radiant< 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Kappa Psi

Three "attacks" between the 19th and the 31st, interspersed with good edits. I think this can survive unprotected. – Steel 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I can acknowledge that as a reasonable opinion. —SlamDiego 07:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watchlist it myself, though I'm still sort of on a wikibreak so I can't promise much. – Steel 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (I do expect the rate of attack to increase.) —SlamDiego 10:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morfik

Steel, Back in January you were helping me a little bit to try to make the Morfik page I was working on fit for inclusion. I worked on it...a lot, and resubmitted it, but now it's being culled for deletion with some sort of prejudice again. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do at this point, so I'm looking for suggestions. Thanks. MikeyTheK 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it another 5 days. – Steel 15:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel, I appreciate it. I reread the 'cites' article...again, and I think I understand what Leebo was complaining about...maybe. Anyway, I'll be working on it this weekend. MikeyTheK 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert bullet points to prose and get rid all that bold text. – Steel 15:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any better now? Where do you suggest bullets should be removed? I'm sorry, but this is my first from-scratch Wikipedia page, and I don't see any style suggestions on that front. The same thing goes with the bold - it's only there as part of a feature term. Do you have a sample page I could refer to for some ideas? Thanks for your patience and help. MikeyTheK 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to say no bullet points anywhere and no bold anywhere (except in headings, where the software does it by itself). Oh, and no blogs or Google groups as sources. Unfortunately, the only sample pages I could find from the good article list that are vaguely related are Intel Corporation and Apple Inc.. – Steel 12:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done to deserve this? – Steel 14:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're spamming it to several people. Right. – Steel 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, Timmy!

Did you have to delete the whole story section of Yoshi's Island DS? If it is poorly written then it can be revised - not deleted. As poor as you may (and probably) think the storyline is, no matter how brief, it is not "non-existant". Sorry, but I think the deletion was unnecessary, I hope you understand why I am reverting the edit you made. Thanks. Ashnard _talk 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do read up on WP:ATT and WP:WAF. Let's not make a big deal out of this. – Steel 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That story was really badly written, I've just checked over it; it's going to need some major fixing, as for not giving reasons for "restoration", it is actually implied in the earlier post that the page needs a story. Furthermore, on the history, one edit comment reads " Sorry Steel, it needs a story". Thanks. Ashnard _talk 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to some kind of story in the article. I do have objections to a five paragraph, poorly written, policy violating story section when the story can be adequately covered in a non-policy violating way in five lines. – Steel 22:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to what's up now or what was up? I'm going to try and add sources to it. Ashnard _talk 08:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's currently up there, i.e. this version. Five lines, not ~~five~~ six paragraphs, please. – Steel 12:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MY WP:SNOW tag

Steel359, thanks for letting my know how you feel about my tag, however, I think it is important that users know the status of what they are reading. As for it repeating text in the artical, it does in some parts, but I still think that the tag is useful. I hope you don't mind if I put it back, espically since the only justification you made for it was in the edit summery, (which I have already given my reasons for disagreeing with) and said nothing on the talk page. I don't in any way want to be rude, but I think it would be helpful on the page. --Bfissa 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Throat

Yeah, I see your point, should have considered the political reference. Been working vandalism for too long, it corrupts your mind. Thanks - :) RJASE1 ^Talk

I can empathise with that. – Steel 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binary and text files deletion

At 18:43, 9 December 2006, you deleted Binary and text files commenting "CSD R3". Now that a user has recreated the article under this name that was a "Redirect that is a result of an implausible typo", you may want to consider the situation anew. -R. S. Shaw 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have better pages at Text file and Binary file, and I wouldn't consider this a likely search term (though I'm not really fussed either way). – Steel 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by floating IP

Hi. You seem to deal with requests for page protection. Currently there is one user with a floating IP that keeps deleting content from the Type 45 destroyer page. I guess that there is no way to block him due to his changing IP, right? So would you consider semi-protection as a special measure? I know the vandalism isn't constant so ordinarily the request would fail, but it's a fairly "specialist" page that doesn't have much interest. I don't see any other way around this - it is rather tedious to have to keep reverting.

Please respond on my talk page. John Smith's 13:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help :) John Smith's 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davesmith33

Hi - just to let you know that the bit of conversation that Davesmith33 pulled off of User_talk:Kaisershatner#Davesmith33 had nothing to do with him, but an IP that User:DGoanto had put on AIV around the same time - see User_talk:GDonato#Davesmith33 about on an unrelated note. Just thought I should point out what happened, don't want anyone to undeservedly get into hot water about vandalism or harassment. Thanks, ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought that was a bit weird since none of those edits appear in Dave's contribs. At any rate, he isn't doing himself any favours by edit warring, accusing people of sockpuppetry and telling people to 'get a life' all at the same time. – Steel 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I was actually worried for a moment that I might be a sockpuppet, but the feeling soon wore off. Anyway, I just thought I should point out what actually happened and put it all in context rather than let someone get into trouble for harassment or stalking. Thanks. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most appreciated. – Steel 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that he's blanking his talk page warnings and accusing people of vandalism and harassment again. Sorry to be a snitch. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, what an attitude problem. – Steel 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Userpage

I wish I knew what the heck it was all about...all I know is I saw the image in this thread on AN, made some stupid comment about how it'd be funny on my userpage, and then it shows up. Might I add, I couldn't stop laughing when I clicked on my userpage and saw it there... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HA HA! Not hardly. Good work at trying to find one though :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish genocide

Hi! I saw you protected the above dab link. I am a new administrator, and, thus, I may not have fully understood the rules, so I want to clarify some thingd. This is the story of the protected page:

The page, initially a redirect to Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey went for a RfD: the result of the RfD was Disambig to two articles: Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey and Al-Anfal Campaign.
Then the dab was nominated for deletion, and according to the closing administrator the result was no consensus whatsoever, and most importantly the closing administrator insisted on the fact that "redirecting to one or the other article is not an option, since both have been called by this title".

So, we have a RfD and an AfD resulting in the fact that there is no consensus to link just the one of these two articles. Yesterday, two users User:KazakhPol (recently blocked for one week - among other blocks) and User:Baristarim seem (I still assume good faith) to have acted against the two RfD and AfD, arguing that "the only consensus established by the AFD was not to delete the link altogether." Something which is untrue, since the closing the AfD administrator clearly stated that "to redirect just to one of these two links is not an option".

After the edit-warring, you decided to protect the article. And I do know that pages "in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in." But in this particular case, your protection seems to (unintetionally of course) award (at least temporarily) those who initiated the edit-warring by acting against the RfD and the AfD. I just want to know what you think about all this issue, and what happns from now on. Cheers!--Yannismarou 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I wasn't aware of either of those (or, more accurately, I wasn't aware of the RfD and didn't check the AfD). Having the page as a disambig seems to best fit the results of those discussions and I've altered the protected page accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. – Steel 12:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what the closing administrator might have said is irrelevant - The debate at the Human rights of Kurds in Turkey had been going on for a long time, and anyone who knows that page knows what is going on. In any case, Steel359, is it correct for administrators to do content edits to articles under protection? Especially the ones they have protected themselves? It was not a simple vandalism issue, it has been an ongoing content issue and the editors involved are established editors - it was not an anon dropping by and messing with the page. The "award" argument is not valid, what does that supposed to mean Yannis? The pages are protected in whatever form they are. And AfD and RfD have been closed as no-concensus, which means that there is a legitimate debate. Can you revert back to the the status quo ante at the time of the protection please? I would have never gone running around the protecting admin just because a version of a page that I didn't like got protected, it is bad karma guys :) I am particularly disappointed with Yannis' manner of trying to discredit other editors in persuing this debate (who cares if KazakhPol was banned - if you look at it that way, the other user who kept on reverting to the dab page, Domitius, created another redirect at Kurdish Genocide in Turkey just two minutes after he hit 3RR on that article, and the page was speedied in ten minutes - one example among tons of his disruptive editing and Point creations). There is no such thing as "act against the AfD or RfD" - they were no-concensus.. Baristarim 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baris, don't start again. It's admins' duty to enforce community consensus, and the latest XFD producing a consensus was the RFD. What's your point?--Domitius 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steel, for reviewing your initial decision!--Yannismarou 08:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration proceedings

You have been included as a 'related party' in a request for arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bullying_and_Victimisation_against_Davesmith33 Davesmith33 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I am absolutely baffled why you got dragged into this. I am very confident that the ArbCom will clear you entirely. Gwernol 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Steel, thanks for fixing my protect- you are right that I had intended to do it sooner. I appreciate that you caught my error. Kaisershatner 19:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Thanks. I had just dropped a note on the culprit's talk page and used my 'back' button to find the UK's history indicating that you reverted the unduly move. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 9 Apr 2007 23:55 (UTC)

Mmm. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the talk page, but there always seems to be someone proposing a move and the consensus is always to keep it at United Kingdom. At any rate, nobody's going to be moving that page for a while. – Steel 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian

"You've been blocked. The reason is given in the block summary." isn't an appropriate block notification. We have templates for these things. What block summary? What kind of block are you talking about? Blocked from editing one specific page? Temporarily blocked from Wikipedia? Permanently banned? Clarify these things. While I'm amazed that Asgardian hasn't gotten banned yet, given all the edit warring that has gone on for more than half a year, appropriate notification is required. Asgardian needs to know what the block's about, people who've been warring with him need to know, people who try to work with him deserve to know, and anyone who needs to learn from this example ought to know. Doczilla 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a perfectly acceptable block notification.

What block summary? - The one that appears both in his block log and in a huge red box when he tries to edit a page, with the heading "you have been blocked for the following reason" (or words to that effect). What else could be considered to be the block summary?
What kind of block are you talking about? - Er, a block.
Blocked from editing one specific page? - Not possible with the software.
Temporarily blocked from Wikipedia? - Yes. Blocking a non-throwaway account indefinitely is a reasonably big deal and I would have specified what I was doing if that was the case. It'll be in his block log anyway.
Permanently banned? - Er, no. Otherwise I would have said "banned", not "blocked".

Asgardian is an established editor and has been blocked for edit warring before. There's no need to baby him with "edit warring is really naughty, please discuss changes on the talk page". – Steel 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma people

I unprotected that page and I'll watch it to see if the edit war is done. Just FYI. CMummert · talk 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. – Steel 12:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brock Lesnar RFPP

Ah, good to hear, I was just posting a note in Yamla's talk page when the browser crashed. Thanks for the tip. -- ReyBrujo 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind attention

[1]. --Zamkudi 13:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. – Steel 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so have I... Young Knight in Armour. :) --Zamkudi 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article appears to have been unlinked from Google. --Zamkudi 05:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat trip to Philippines

Hi Steel, the user who created this article wants to access the content again. I'm not sure how undeletion requests like these are typically carried out, but maybe you can temporarily copy it to userspace for him? Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the text here for him. – Steel 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review?

Sorry to trouble you -- It's just that I know you will probably know about this issue above over people who are at least vaguely familiar with me (I'm relatively new). The thing is, I've created the Ashnard page which is currently a starter page; it's got references, internal links, and I think it is well written so I was wishing for some sort of review of it to possibly bump its status up. Yet I'm unsure of how to initiate a request for a review or of any review business, so I'm wondering if you would inform me how to go about the business, or at least look over the page to see if there is anything wrong with it. Please fell at liberty to respond on my talk page. Thanks. Ashnard _talk 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want it reviewed, there's Wikipedia:Peer review. I believe the WP:CVG has their own peer reviewing service, so that might be preferable to the all-purpose one. Failing either of those, I've written videogame articles in the past, so I could give you some suggestions. Not right now, though, it's almost 1am. If you want it to have some kind of status, try WP:GAC (there's also WP:FAC, but this kind of article will never make that). You could also ask someone at WT:CVG to review it informally and update the tag on it's talk page (currently at start class). – Steel 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! I'll weigh up the options. Ashnard _talk 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in an assessment request at CVG, although I doubt there will be an immediate response. Of course, you can feel free to look over it or offer suggestions if you want. Ashnard _talk 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Lighthouse

I am trapped in Venus Lighthouse. In a place where the door is covered trees and there on is bunches of leaves, how to cross it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dick Mark (talk • contribs) 11:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Doesn't Ivan usually sort out the leaves with whirlwind? If you haven't got that, mix your djinnis around until you get it. Ashnard _talk 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember there being any shrub-covered doors in Venus Lighthouse, though whirlwind would be the way to go I guess. – Steel 17:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article (round 34,674)

Hey how do I put a company description without getting deleted as an advertisment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbenjaminblair (talk • contribs)

By writing it from a neutral point of view, ensuring to attribute the text to sources independent of the company itself. – Steel 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi skinhead

As far as I know, User:Laderov and User:EuropeanLynx are the same editor, who is also editing from 24.201.17.56 and 24.203.22.162, as their edits and edit summaries are broadly the same. The editor is more than likely a Nazi skinhead himself (based on his previous username of User:ProudAryan), and has repeatedly tried to remove the sourced fact that the original skinhead was heavily influenced by black music. User:Grandmasterka blocked User:EuropeanLynx for a week, and based on the block log including "sockpuppetry" he's of the belief he's also the same IP editor. Today there's been a further attempt to remove the influence of black music, citing Neo-Nazi sources which aren't reliable. There's an ANI report here as well. Basically the whole situation boils down to the editor making highly POV edits based on his own opinion or extremist sources. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the summary. The problem has disappeared for a week so I think we can probably lower protection to semi for now. I've watchlisted Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice in case he starts block evading over there. – Steel 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be pleased to know he is evading the block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Chrislk02 got there before me. Shame, really, because I'd have got rid of him (them?) for longer than a day. – Steel 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are somehow different people who use the same computer and use identical syntax and have the exact same POV and make the same edits it's likely there's only one person. You could always unblock and re-block for longer of course ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. At any rate, Chris's block seems enough for now. Let's wait and see what happens tomorrow. – Steel 00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to date. One thing worth nothing especially given his probable political beliefs is the use of "negros" or "negoroes" (sic) in these edits. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I blocked two IPs yesterday for evasion and reset EuropeanLynx's original block because of it. Is this all going under the radar? I'm not sure what to think about the negro thing. – Steel 12:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed all that somehow! In my opinion the use of negro is generally inappropriate, but in my opinion it's clearly being used in a derogatory and offensive context by that editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 deletion (Fenris (band))

Just a simple question: who decides if an article about a band is, how is it called, "asserted notable". The reason is this: on nl.wikipedia.org, the article Fenris (band) has been up there for more than a year. Yet on en.wikipedia.org it was deleted under CSD A7 within no time. This is very confusing, because the two articles are the same, just written in different languages. I spent about two hours editing the English article, so I hope you understand I'm a tiny bit frustrated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzbass (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

nl.wiki aside, the article wasn't written in a particularly encyclopedic fashion. Just from one paragraph: "However, the gods put the band's existence to the test during the year 2002", "Fenris feverishly started working on new material to form the next chapter in the creative history of the band", "Problems with rehearsal rooms, a wrist injury of Rick and a lack of proper gigs put Fenris to the test however", "The music on the album is dark, epic and aggressive and forms Fenris' most creative work of art to date". Notability seemed borderline, if you want to re-write it so it doesn't read like a MySpace, I won't speedy it again. – Steel 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes perfect sense. Sorry I kind-of jumped to conclusions like I did. I'll start working on an encyclopedic article then. Maybe even rework the Dutch one, apparently moderation at nl.wiki isn't anything like it is overhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzbass (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 1

I've undeleted the page and I'm informing you since you deleted it. I'm guessing that it just must have been an accident since this is an archive of a talk page and not actually a talk page itself (so G8 doesn't apply) -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what happened. I deleted Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive 1 and my script auto-deleted its talk page without me realising. No harm done, anyway. – Steel 18:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DarkPole

Look out! You accidently deleted the afd template on this article when trying to, I assume, delete the csd template. I restored it, so no harm done. Natalie 19:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeep. Thanks for catching that. – Steel 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: User talk:66.218.13.32 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, insults ↔ ^tz (talk • contribs • autographs) 00:20:32, Sunday, April 15, 2007 (UTC) 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Doesn't need it. – Steel 00:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User is making vandalism and insults, it is neccesary to protected. Otherwise, user will make legal threats on own talk page. 68.111.92.229 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the much more interesting question of why you are leaving the IP "Stop, or you will be blocked" warnings when the user is already blocked. – Steel 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for semi-protecting frame-dragging. --EMS | Talk 18:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. – Steel 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Delete Hillbilly Techno Ranch, why?

I think that line pretty much explains the point I am trying to make... Anyone with the forethought to check the history would notice that the page was being built up, and had only existed for what? 40 odd minutes? You seriously need to give people a chance... Believe it or not, as a fan of the Hillbilly Techno Ranch, clearly a somewhat unknown band, I felt obliged to create a page so that, as they tour and gradually build up a fan base, the fans can become learned... Ambient Tech-dustro seems to call for the curious-but-dumb crowd (I am an exception to some degree)...

As a small band with little media exposure, believe it or not, I am finding it hard to find any verifiable sources other than a MySpace page and a recording of an interview with Billy Hill...

TheDefiniteArticle 07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete your article. – Steel 11:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Steel - I wasn't aware that I was "spamming" - the external links to The Huntercombe Group are, in my opinion, valid and informational additions.

The Huntercombe Group website is a large resource for specialist areas like Mental Health and Addictions, Brain Injury Rehabilitation and Learning Disabilities. While The Group is a private hospital group, the information on the website is important.

I hope this clarifies my use of the link.

Thanks, Niall

I wouldn't realy consider it an appropriate external link. If I was trying to find out about head injury/mental illness/whatever I wouldn't go to that site. It's a private hospital offering a service to people who live in area X. – Steel 11:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

I have closed the ANI discussion because it's ceased to be productive. That said, your constant accusations of personal attacks against RolandR and others are getting disruptive, and I suggest you stop. – Steel 12:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think you have any right to close that case - and i'm reopening it. Jaakobou 12:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already. --kingboyk 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this again, but the blocked user has responded in a surprisingly concilatorily (sp.?) fashion. Your call on whether to unblock or not. --kingboyk 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was watching that discussion. All I really want is for him to just stop; if he's agreed to do that, then great. If that's the case I've no problems with an unblock. – Steel 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I'd rather not do it myself though. – Steel 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to return to this, but you wrote on the ANI page "My talk page is open if there are unresolved issues". There certainly are; in the confusion caused by Jaakobou's multiple postings (some 40 edits in three days, as well as countless postings to other talk pages), my original complaint was lost sight of. I was requesting a lengthy block on Jaakobou for his harassment of me, and in particular his posting of a link to a libellous website and his repeating of the libels therein. As I noted, a serial vandal is spamming scores of Wikipedia pages with this material, and to date more than 160 sockpuppets have been indefinitely blocked for repeating this. If an established editor is allowed to get away with this, it's open day for all sorts to continue with this abuse of Wikipedia. Jaakobou's behaviour warrants a significant response, not simply another warning. I haven't even had an apology, and he has failed to give the requested undertaking not to repeat this libel. We can't just ignore this. RolandR 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him, and after a discussion with Kingboyk he agreed to play nice. If he continues to be a pain I'm going to come down on him like a tonne of bricks. – Steel 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!?!

fscking templates... [2] Sounds painful... :-) WjBscribe 00:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know where that work came from (aside from "fucking", obviously), I just picked it up on IRC... – Steel 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. It also sounds rather like "fixing" which also seems apt. I guess I should give IRC a go sometime... WjBscribe 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I saw someone use "fux" the other day. Whether that was an honest typo I don't know, but it's my new word for "fix". While we're on the topic, "BJ scribe" has a good ring to it, don't you think? – Steel 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of that! Could end me up at WP:RFCN... WjBscribe 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! – Steel 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move the page

But Wikipedia wouldn't let me. Said the page I was trying to move it to already existed, which was true, because I'd already redirected it there. Because there happened to be two edits in that page's history, instead of one, I was unable to overwrite the redirect. So I submitted it for a move request. Nothing happened. What was I supposed to do? Serendipodous 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted a separate article. The article was copied and pasted from planetary formation not solar nebula. Can you please lay off for a few days until I and the others involved in this mess have a chance to decide on final layout? EDIT: revised. I should never post in anger. Serendipodous 13:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert your cut and paste moves. Kindly don't undo me again. – Steel 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to. The discussion on Solar Nebula's talk page does not concern the page you reverted. It concerns the page I cut and pasted, which is a categorically different article. It is not just shorter; it concerns a completely different topic. When you reverted it, you eliminated the data in that article, effectively destroying it. The final layout of the various pages on solar system formation is still in discussion, but I can't have a discussion on a talk page if said talk page no longer refers to the same article. Serendipodous 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you restore the cut and paste move I have been fixing, I will block you. – Steel 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you listened to a word I've said? Serendipodous 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. You moved content from one page to another [3], then wrote a new article in its place [4]. Reverting the C&P move is removing the article you wrote, and what titles to have everything at is still under discussion. – Steel 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand what the problem is here. I moved both the page and its talk page content; the move I made was done after discussion with, and actually suggested by, other editors. This wasn't a random act of personal vandalism. Serendipodous 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content added to Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, meaning that everyone gets attribution for their edits (i.e. their name alongside their edit in the history). Cut and paste moves, like you did, destroy the page history and give you attribution for the work of all these people. This is a violation of the GFDL. I would have moved it properly myself by now, but you've added it to 'contested moves' on WP:RM, and there's a section on the Solar nebula talk page titled 'de-stubify', so I assumed there's dissent somewhere. – Steel 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is. But it's harder for me to make my case if the information I posted no longer exists. Serendipodous 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it does still exist. – Steel 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA#Matt Britt

Hello Steel. I saw your comment regarding a view that I endorsed on this RfA. As you suggested, I decided to drop by your talk page and explain my endorsement. I agree with you that the candidate's acceptance of that RfA format does not directly implicate that he'd misuse the tools. However, the consent to such a visibly confusing concept and the tone he used to reply to some of the concerns raised by a few users, made me feel that he might not have the kind of character that I expect in an admin candidate. Administrators should be trustworthy users and I currently cannot deposit my trust in him. My personal view. Best regards, Hús ö nd 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It's not my intention to badger people about this. – Steel 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix17

Hi I recieved a message from a user named Matrix17 that said you banned him. While I'm not taking sides or anything, he claims that his original 2 week ban was enough punishment for whatever he did and would like for it to return to that penalty. I'm not sure if you're allowed to do this, but are you able to reveal what he did to recieve a ban in the first place? The description said "harrassment" which kind of took me off guard. ImtiazAA 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user talks bollocks 24/7 - I have no idea where this two week ban came from. I blocked her for a month and protected her talk page for a week. After the week was up she started posting insults in Swedish on it (incidentally, towards the same user I blocker her for harassing) and I reprotected it for the remainder of her block. There was an WP:ANI discussion prior to my blocking her, I'm not sure what archive it would have been placed in, but I'll dig it up in a second. – Steel 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive225#Warn or block User:Servant Saber for vendetta against me, edit war is not in wikipedias interest. – Steel 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Ortiz unprotect request

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Tito_Ortiz_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29, you declined without giving a reason, only an order. I have tried to speak to Yamla, but Yamla's talk page is protected also. I don't understand this protection. You don't have to un-protect it, but could you please explain it to me? Sancho 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's protected to deal with a banned user who doesn't seem to get the fact that he's banned. I'm leaving Yamla a note to get back to you. – Steel 23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sancho 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

Hi! I noticed you protected Knight about a month ago, but only temporarily. Is there any chance of a lasting semi-protected status? It seems the only thing IP edits are is vandalism anyhow, so I don't see how it would be a problem... If there is some reason not to, could you explain it so I know for later? Thanks! -Bbik 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've reprotected it for 6 weeks, we'll see how it goes. – Steel 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After the relative quite that page had for that month, it's suddenly been really busy with reverts again the past couple days. Impressive just how fast pages get re-targetted. -Bbik 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Achievement Academy

Your forgot several places where the misleading term student is used.

Covergaard 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia Protection

First of all Steel, the photo on your user page is exquisitely beautiful. I'm not saying that to try to butter you up, either (to do my bidding). Seriously, love the pic.

That out of the way, just a simple request: You protected Islamophobia here: [5]

But as of right now there is a legitimate edit that needs to take place. Per this user's comment here and this little CFD here can we please remove the category Category:Anti-Islam sentiment from the Islamophobia page? Thanks --ProtectWomen 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like that image, though unfortunately can't take credit for it. At any rate, it appears someone else got to that category before me. – Steel 13:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Islamophobia. The dispute has been resolved. KazakhPol 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Log

Why did you delete the page for GFN? I worked very hard on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.14.125 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What on Earth is GFN? – Steel 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A descriptive header

I'm not sure what you mean? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered, but no. If you take a look at the articles I spend the majority of my time on, a lot of them were/are in a poor state and in need of plenty of improvement, and the number of editors who are actually doing anything about it are small in number. It's further compounded by a lot of source material being in books, so it's just not something that can be done by that many people. If I was sysopped (which isn't likely anyway once people do the standard digging) I'd inevitably find myself sidetracked sorting out all sorts of problems and performing the obligatory admin tasks, and I'd rather spend my time more creatively. Thanks anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester meet-up

By this, can I take it you wouldn't be interested in attending a Manchester meet-up?! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish man! There is a great restaurant near the Chinese arch... Guy (Help!) 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it's not called "Man Ho" like one here in Notts is... – Steel 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (Note to self: Think before posting – Steel 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Football

Could you reconsider your decision not to award semi-protected status to this page. Look how many times the page has been vandalised in the last couple of days.[6]. This is on-going and has been like this for over a year, check the history. Thank you.GordyB 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone else got there before me. – Steel 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection of Richard Hell listing

Hi Steel, thanks for granting my request for protection but "66" user had reverted prior to your protection. I don't think his/her version should be the one that stays up - his/her wholesale reversions w/o discussion (eventually saying some 1-sided unsubstantiated things) are not in wiki spirit. Any way to revert back to non-66 version and require real discussion/votes, etc? Or just a shorter, less pov post? THanks!

We're not really supposed to favour one version over another per policy. There's nothing overly-PoV that I can see in his edits that would warrant immediate removal (please tell me if I'm missing something). – Steel 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess b/c he doesn't respond to the discussion page or his own talk page to address the specifics (he just keeps reverting), all that protecting his version will do will waste time till May 1. If another version is protected, he will respond, most likely, and the protect can serve its purpose. Thanks for your time.

Yeah. I didn't want to do that at first because he was sort of discussing it, but now it's been eight days since he's edited the talk page. – Steel 09:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something evil has happened and I wonder if you are aware; user "66" signed his last discussion post as "Roosterer" and then proceeded to get someone (dcmit?-I don't remember the tag now) to block every single anon on that page as "blocked as abusive" EXCEPT for "66" (ie, he got "Roosterer" banned too) AND he got the version he wanted put up (CLEARLY showing beyond all doubt he won't engage in gd faith discussion) protected; there is no edit history for the reversion; Please follow up; I also think this behavior should have "66" banned; if that is not possible a SEVERE reprimand if such exists. It was highly abusive and dishonest.4.236.15.182 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't make the slightest bit of sense, not least because nobody on that page has been blocked. – Steel 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block went away and then came back the next day, and now is gone again; "this account or IP address has been blocked...by Dmcdevit...for persistent abuse; your IP address is 4.231.241.60" comes up; Dmcdevit claimed no knowledge of this; a search of his block log reveals many # blocks on 26 April, and when I clicked on many of the #'s the message refers to the same IP address even though the blocked # is listed on the log as a different #. I will follow up w/D-t as well, I don't know what is going on; a search of that referenced # says "IP address not blocked" yet attempting to edit I got that same page, referencing D-t and saying my IP address is 4.2... All of the other IP's other than 66. came up as blocked when I clicked them, but I guess there is some broad range blocking going on unrelated to the Hell site from what you and he say. I assume complaints by others lead to the fast unblocking or could it be a virus? Some glitch anyway. 4.236.12.42 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rouged up

These are not the droids you are looking for. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, cheers Guy. – Steel 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tut tut tut. Did you call that troll a troll? WjBscribe 03:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think he'd have done a better job of convincing everyone he wasn't a troll if he hadn't called me a faggot on ED. Not that "faggot" really that offensive anyway... – Steel 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I hope you don't mind, I put a notice on the User:VolcanoXeni user page, RE: the indefinite block, with a wikilink to the relevant WP:ANI discussion. I warned the user previously, as have others, and I have no objections to your block itself, unless the user apologizes and/or makes some sort of statement on his talk page... Smee 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No problems here. I don't bother to do this kind of thing myself because generally someone else will come along and do it for me ;) – Steel 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, just wanted to let you know. Yours, Smee 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism at Chinaman

The article is still being vandalised, this time by another IP, but with basically the same vandalism. Please reconsider semi-protection. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected now. – Steel 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Huntercombe Group

Hi Steel, Users WOULD potentially go to the site the learn about head injury - the PDFs, in particular, talk about the ailments and treatment areas associated with Head Injury - and the various discussion fora, publications, and news are there for practitioners in the head injury area to discuss and learn more about head injury treatment, rather than about The Group in isolation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nialldimex (talk • contribs)

I'm not convinced, especially as they site map makes it clear that the website is pretty much entirely about the service. On a side note, the only pdfs I found were of some newsletter. – Steel 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you're convinced or not, this is the case - and, incidentally, the PDFs in the service level pages talk about, for example, eating disorders and how they will be treated Nialldimex 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How they will be treated indeed. – Steel 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel - apologies for the hassle - but what's the problem with the Huntercombe Hospital Maidenhead content? The page is about the hospital, and I added contact information and a link to the website.. Was this spam?? Nialldimex 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one of the reasons I gave [7]. Oh, and quit adding your links back into articles. – Steel 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if it was a pre-existing article ABOUT the hospital, how can adding the address and other contact details for that hospital be spam??? Nialldimex 09:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop removing the links then! Nialldimex 09:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Protection on Jimmy Wales

I caught your comments at RFP regarding monitoring the situation at Jimmy Wales. I've opened an RfC on the issue, as I believe the disputed section should not be included until it is determined whether it meets WP:BLP. Regards,--Leflyman^Talk 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ping me if there are any problems. – Steel 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the situation has worsened; Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs) has continued in the Wales smear-campaign, supported by an additional tendentious user QuackGuru (talk · contribs). Rather than waiting for further comments from outside editors, he has reverted the disputed section, added even more biased language, and returned nebulous claims of "soft-core pornography" as a description for Bomis. I'm fairly close to giving up on trying to fend off such nonsense.--Leflyman^Talk 00:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone 1am here and I'm too tired to sort this out now. If it can't wait until tomorrow, bring it up on WP:ANI or something. – Steel 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with David D on the talk page - if the language is biased, edit it. There appear to be several people who want the section included. – Steel 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it previously; particular users keep returning the biased language. And again, per WP:BLP, more so than any other articles, biographies need strict adherence to NPOV -- contentious material should be removed unless the specific claims being made can be sourced, and presented in a "neutral, factual, and understated" fashion. As noted by Wales, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". --Leflyman^Talk 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familliar with WP:BLP, thanks. The only problem is that nobody on the talk page, nor me, nor any of the god knows how many people who read the section before you removed it a few days ago think the disputed section violates it. – Steel 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on User:Davesmith33

Hi Steel, thanks for the block on DaveSmith. Looks like a good one to me. Best as always, Gwernol 11:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, thanks for taking swift action. It's always a shame when someone gets an indef block, but he's been given every opportunity to change and not taken it. DrFrench 11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Nobody can say we weren't patient. – Steel 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic...

That the featured support article today, above, is er...was(?) about sockpuppets!

Hi there :) As you're the latest admin to have deleted the persistent RoboImport article, I have a request--I hope it's not improper, please forgive me if so: my WikiLore is still only intermediate.

I have a strong suspicion that RoboImport (currently in Deletion Review) and PicaJet (currently in AfD discussion, here, were both created by and are being argued FOR on the referenced forums by sockpuppets. My summary of the situation (from the Deletion Review discussion on RoboImport) is as follows:

Honordrive created PicaJet (now being discussed in AfD). No other contributions. Armypower joins WP out of the blue to defend PicaJet in AfD (and to list Softpedia--biggest proponent of PicaJet products--for reversal in this forum). Beganstory creates an account today to argue for the overturn of RoboImport's deletion--mounting an argument very similar to Armypower's (improper process). Not sure who created RoboImport, since it's not part of the deletion log... But I'm willing to bet my swanky new laptop it's a single-purpose recent account. As I stated on the PicaJet AfD: I want to assume good faith and all, but I smell socks. :/

Today, Spokeroad appeared for the (apparent) single purpose of deleting Armypower's comment on the PicaJet AfD forum--which looks like yet another sockpuppet attempting to cover the tracks of the previous.

I want to file a CheckUser request, but I can't see the history of RoboImport to know who created it--I don't know if asking for that imformation is improper, but I imagine it is, since there must be a reason the article history is no longer available. Yet it seems to me the CheckUser request would be incomplete without this information...

Do you have any advice on how I should proceed?

Thanks for your time!

Best wishes,

Wysdom 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RoboImport has been created numerous times by several "different" users: Photopeep (talk · contribs), Loopwiped (talk · contribs), Legalmaybe (talk · contribs) and Spacevalid (talk · contribs). I don't think a checkuser is necessary - these are clear sockpuppets or meatpuppets. They've been identified as SPAs and their opinions will be discounted by whoever closes the AfD and DRV. I'll watch over both discussions just to make sure things don't get out of control. – Steel 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! :) However, wouldn't a checkuser (with the above puppets included) that verified sockpuppetry pave the way for poss. identification of a common IP that could be blocked? All the hours and effort wasted policing the disruptive edits/contributions of this one person--it's awful. :/ Wysdom 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could, yeah. But we usually only go for checkyuser in cases of serious policy violation where it isn't clear whether accounts are sockpuppets, which isn't the case here. Tagging as SPA every now and again when one turns up should be enough for now, we can always request checkuser if it really starts becoming a problem.
On a side note, checkuser requests generally take a coulple of days until they're seen to, and the AfD would be closed by then anyway. – Steel 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Image:Windows Media Player 11 XP.png

If you revert that again I'm going to block you... again. – Steel 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having to stop to revert to the themodernizer's version - but now, can you PLEASE revert to my version and keep it! Jigs41793 ^{Contact me} 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TW

Having some fun? :) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it, it's funny. – Steel 02:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that redirect notice should stay. I'm going to revert. I guess you can add it back in below. Please don't replace it. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPP Script

.. kinda working now, I think. 5:30am here now but I'll give you more of a report later - Alison ☺ 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... fully working now. I've no idea as to why. It's a pretty useful thing indeed & I'm kinda hooked on it already. Would you mind if I suggested/added a few hacks to make it more friendly? I'd like to add a 'semi until' and 'full until' template for RFPP updating. It's a pretty neat script :) - Alison ☺ 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]