User talk:SheffieldSteel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:44, 5 November 2008

{{Top}} may refer to:

This is an unused template to list other templates associated with a similar title or shortcut.
If an internal transclusion led you here, you may wish to change it to point directly to the intended page.

{{Template disambiguation}} shouldn't be transcluded in the talk namespaces.

Hello and welcome to my Talk page!

If you start a conversation with me here, I'll usually reply here. I like to keep discussions in one place. So, if I've left a message on your Talk page, it may be best if we continue the discussion there. Of course, if you feel I've forgotten about you, please post a reminder here.
Occasionally, I may copy a discussion to what I feel is a more appropriate venue, particularly if I think it would benefit from other editors' input. If I do, I'll leave a link here so everyone can follow the thread.
Please start new conversations at the bottom of this page by clicking on the "new section" tab above.
I reserve the right to revert any edits to this page that I feel to be truly messed up.

Archive 1—Archive 2—Archive 3—Archive (N+1)
Please do NOT click on the small white box below this line of text. Doing so might cause the entire page to disappear into an Nth-complexity binary loop. Thank you. Template:Bottom

Welcome!

Hello, SheffieldSteel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new ramu50 disruption, alas.

Greetings, I am sorry to report that I have updated the archived discussion of Ramu50, now at [1]. Notifying you here b/c I'm not sure if the archive would be on your watchlist. I hope the "archiving" of that section doesn't mean we have to start all over. Jeh (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving means that no one is going to look at that file again, unless someone re-opens the issue and draws attention to it. I recommend that you remove the text you just added to the archive. I've left a clear warning for this editor, in the hope that they can improve their technique and become a valued contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry. Jeh (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in accordance to your methods on reviewing WP policy to users

I want to ask you SheffieldSteel, are you bias on particularly me. Because I've seen a lot of users that disagree on me and they given absoultely no citation at all, as shown in Template talk:CPU technologies#Major Changes and whenever I give citation or supporting my proposal, statements...etc, I try to follow Template:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines I don't even understand why anyone should respect Jeh the users, since he always use mis-use the policies that are not required by Wikipedia.

Exmaples are WP:BRD (these are suggestionals approach suggested by Wikipedia), whether which approach of solutions users choose is their own freedom, but I think User:Jeh have been very disruptive in using those policies unrespectfully, he does so by supporting only what he think is correct. Example, regular way of disputing consenus resolution is WP:DR not WP:BRD and I think these type of synthesizing and mis-interrepting or more clearly supporting only “what he think is correct” should not be acceptable in Wikipedia. And I think many users, not just Jeh have done so, I think these policies actions should be look at before you call upon what others have done wrong, because for me I think this is totally unethical and inarguably unacceptable.

The original discussion was archived as [[User:Ramu50/OLD Index/sub 2|Community Conflicts]] in case you were wondering.

If other adminstrators are involved with the community conflicts with me please pass on the message, thanks or just copy the message.

Side note: Just so you note, many of the users involved in this were constantly in a bad situation like User:Thumperward (aka Chris Cunningham), one the of the users involved in reporting me stated that a Template shouldn`t be reverted to the style in which one users think is correct, but opposingly he doesn`t follow that manual of guidelines he stated, instead he does the opposite. example, reverting the style of a template which he thinks is correct and he have done this on several template and I personally don't see, why I should follow their suggestions if they have failed to a committment they made for themselves, moreover I do questions whether or not are they going to mis-use WP policy again like User:Jeh and I really hope that these actions don't direct the talk page toward an unpleasant discussion, but if they don't have creditability, how I am able to trust anything their contributed thus far.

The dispute I've made, some of them I already resolved myself, e.g. Functional Mathematics, I've already resolve that conflict and even invited the users towards other contributions too. Yes I do use that examples maybe too much, but I really think that you investigate more before further comments. No mean to be a threat, but I just hope you can change. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of editors at the last ANI thread was fairly clear. My warning raised the issue of whether you can accept consensus. Other comments at the ANI thread described you as aggressive, making personal attacks, and accusing others of bias against you or your views - and as demonstrated by the above post, this behaviour is continuing. You need to stop this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do very honestly admit that I am very aggressive in my editing, personal attacks. The fact of the talks I just wrote earlier shows I try to change, (not to prove anything, just telling you stop being narrowminded as an administrator) but the Wikipedians seem not wanting to accept that fact and that isn't my issue. But as I've said over and over again, if they continue to do so to frown upon the look down, I am still not going to give them any respect for anything. And that is already violating the WP:Civility, I just didn't want to point out to cause more tension. So just hope things can change for both sides. Also I want to point out one of the major concerns in edit wars is that I've seen a lot of people on Wikipedia that is constantly doing rash action of reverting, and they NEVER look at the new contributions that WASN'T discuss in talk page and leaving out the minority I think administrators sadly do need to give out those "self-conscious edit warning", that kind of editing shows a lack of immaturity and irresponsibility I think it is totally unacceptable. One of the major enforcement. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that our conduct policies (No personal attacks and Civility) have to be followed by all editors. Even if other editors behave badly, you still have to be nice - these rules apply to everyone just the same. You might get some sympathy from some admins if you are provoked or if you feel justified, but most of the time, most admins will say that you don't have an excuse. (This is based on my experience at the admin noticeboards.)

I appreciate that you're trying to change. That is encouraging. The best piece of advice I can give is this: There is no deadline. You don't have to get the correct version of Wikipedia written now. You can afford to wait, to discuss with more editors, to get support for what you believe is right. (What's hard is learning to accept it, when you can't get support for your position. But I can't help you there.)

Best of luck. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu50

Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is carrying on exactly as before, reverting templates to his preferred version and directing diatribes and personal attacks at people who take him to task for it. I saw you'd left a comment on the last ANI thread on the user - I'd appreciate some feedback on how this should play out. Taking it to ANI for the fourth time in a month doesn't sound like it'll do any good, but I don't want to be accused of forum-shopping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cunningham disruption (aka Thumperward)

You stated before that others shouldn't revert to their own style yet continues to do so nevertheless. So what is right here I may ask. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cancel?

Hello, SheffieldSteel. I just want a deletion for my account. Is that possible?

Wacek40 (talk)

Okay, thank you! I will forget this account.

Wacek40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

talk:aspartame controversy

I just wanted to say thanks for helping out with the IP editor on talk:aspartame controversy. Deli nk (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just trying to keep the disruption to a minimum. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your own business

Where do you get off bugging me about an obscure phrase I used on somebody else's talk page in an attempt to calm them down over a month and a half ago. Get lost and find somebody else to harass. --Sapphic (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with insulting or attacking other users on another Talk page is that any editor might come along (as I did) and notice it. If the victim of the attack could never become aware of it, e.g. because you put the attack in an email, you'd have a case for saying it was "obscure" enough to be harmless, perhaps, but that wasn't the case with your remark - your every contribution on-wiki is a matter of permanent record. The warning was, in my opinion, quite justified according to policy. Note that accusing another editor of harassment without good cause may also be seen as a form of attack, but in the interests of resolving this, I'm going to let that one slide. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks for "letting it slide" there officer. Get off your high horse and stop sticking your nose where it isn't wanted, and stop looking for trouble where there isn't any. You're a janitor, not a cop. Go clean something up. --Sapphic (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I have always had problems with the janitor metaphor. What is the analogue of blocking an editor? Taking out the trash? That seems rather disrespectful. Ironically, you do have the right to remain silent, and anything you say will be recorded and may be used in evidence against you.

Did you know that the origin of the word "policeman" is the same as that of the word "polite", and of "policy"? The common idea linking all of these is that in any large social group, there is a generally accepted way to behave. I'm sorry that you didn't appreciate being told that your remark fell outside those boundaries, but I really cannot understand why you feel the need to keep arguing about it. Warning editors for conduct which is outside of policy, whether WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, or whatever, is itself within policy.

As far as I'm concerned, this incident is over. How long you continue this discussion is up to you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jakezing

Hi SheffieldSteel. I noticed your comment in reply to mine on the AN/I thread about Jakezing. I am happy to let the incident rest with regards to his talk page rules, which I have now read - they are compliant, as far as I am concerned, although I am still a little worried about the one which refers to the fact that if you threaten him, he reserves the right to remove the edits. How do we go on if he vandalizes something? Some of the uw-vandal templates could be construed as a threat, such as uw-vandal4 -->

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

What I am still very concerned with is the edit which I linked in my post, to Chairhat's talk page, where he states that "threatning him is a fun way to wind up with broken bones and internal bleeding." A bit late for a warning I know, after 19 days, but I think we should still be a bit weary. Please reply here if you wish to, since I have your talk page on watch! Cheers and thanks, SheffieldSteel. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. You have raised a good point - many editors interpret warning messages as threats. However, that is a misinterpretation, and I think that you, and I, and even Jakezing, understand the difference between "if you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked" and "if you threaten me, you will end up with broken bones". But even if he does misinterpret a warning as a threat, he's entitled to remove it anyway, per WP:BLANKING, so there's no harm in allowing that form of words.

To defuse this situation on ANI, I had to write rules which walk the line between what policy allows, and what Jakezing wanted to say. I don't think a better set of rules can easily be suggested without causing further drama. As for the nasty threat... I'm inclined to let it go for now. This user's has enough admin attention for the time being, and I think they know it wasn't right. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Spotlight

We are the creators of the page Indie Spotlight and we are not editing but reverting back before the vandalizim took place as we were told to do so on the Wiki vandal page. We tried to post a call for help in the top pf article saying it was being vandalized but it was removed.--JMST (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Hyperkraz block

Thanks for your prompt block of Hyperkraz based on vandalism to Obama page! Nice to get that little problem solved promptly. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, or as they say in these parts, you're welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

do you really are slapped with a trout in an emergency? Or is it just figurative langangue?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morefight (talk • contribs)

Hello, have we met before? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morefight (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a figure of speech. Sometimes slapping someone in the face with a cold wet fish is the only way to get them to "wake up" to their silliness. More info at WP:TROUT. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am bs91rp why did your delete my comment on the 911 atacks on the discssion page

I am new to wikipedia and I do not realy know how to say stuff which people will not delete. All what I said is some facts about 911 because wikipedia,s infomation about 911 is not true.Bs91rp (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on new user's talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of DyingxToxLivexAgain

Fair enough on the block of this guy, i was expecting to do after his next edit anyway. Cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I hope it works out. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Pomeroy

Hello. Thank you for writing me and teaching me how to use wikipedia. What I don't understand is that I have cited from a newspaper a piece in the "controversy" section on Earl Pomeroy and it keeps getting removed. I didn't make this up. It was in the paper and I cited the article. Shouldn't they be spoken to if they are censoring things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octupus25 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on user's talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Pomeroy Reply

OK, fair enough. I understand what you're saying. If you would like to rewrite the in forum I would have no problem with that. The article does say that Sand said something which was impossible for him to have said and the news source cited admits he can't recall Sand saying it. Pomeroy is quoted from an NY Times article as being for privitizing social security.

Thank you for your information. I do understand what you're saying now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octupus25 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trouting..

Hiya. I love your trouting userbox.. I've made a slight variation (a topbar icon) that does something fun. Take a look {{troutme}} [ roux ] [x] 02:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Floppy talk page

Please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Floppy_disk#Kibibytes.2C_and_so_on

We have consensus at ACORN

You indicated on the article Talk page that when we have consensus, you'll make the edit and remove full protection of the article. Here, Bali ultimate declared that he would always "mass revert" any and all edits by Marx0728 and myself. That's the only vote against Marx's proposed version. There are five votes in favor. That's consensus. You said it doesn't have to be unanimous. Please follow through on your promise, copy the version Marx has provided here, paste it into article mainspace, and remove the full protection. Thank you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have consensus on Acorn. I leave it up to you to take a gander at the talk page to see for yourself, the reasons for disagreement, and the number of people expressing disagreement (in my case i'm unhappy with a citation used to back up text that is not supported by the citation provided). To avoid fanning the flames any more with this fellow, I'll simply say that he is mischarecterizing my position and again, invited you to read through the talk page and the histories and make up your own mind. WB74 has prematurely declared "consensus" in the past.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor harassment

Look what User:Law Lord did right after the discussion/debate was over: [2]. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Leave this with me. Thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call that harassment. However, to avoid further conflict, I will stop writing on Flyer22's talk page, as I hope she will stop writing on mine. --Law Lord (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is harassment! No edit summary is needed when replying to someone on a talk page! Yes, stop writing on my talk page. I had already stopped writing on yours. If you wanted to avoid conflict, you would not have brought this second bogus crap to my talk page. You want me as an enemy here on Wikipedia? You are doing a brilliant job of cementing that. But if you dare start following me everywhere I go, believe me that I will not make it easy on you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's harassment. I've given Law Lord an appropriate warning. Please, both of you go and edit a random article or something, and leave each other alone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is well-taken. Flyer22 wrote, "If you wanted to avoid conflict, you would not have brought this second bogus crap to my talk page. You want me as enemy here on Wikipedia? You are doing a brilliant job of cementing that. But if you dare start following me everywhere I go, believe me that I will not make it easy on you." I kind of see that as a threat? --Law Lord (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See it as a threat all you want. It is what it is. What could I possibly do to you if you start following me around and continue harassing me, other than report it?

I'd also like to apologize to SheffieldSteel for being included in this mess. But I had to go to someone, and you were the best candidate, given being familiar with the discussion/debate we just had. I also feel it unfortunate for you to have been subjected to that, but glad that you participated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law Lord, I do not think Flyer22's conduct so far merits any sanction, and your efforts in this regard are becoming increasingly counterproductive. I suggest you quit while you're ahead - just walk away from this.
Flyer22, please remain civil, no matter how you feel about the editor you're talking to. I don't want to see anything from you that's provocative, baiting, or an attempt to "game the system" as far as Law Lord's conduct is concerned. Please go and edit productively somewhere, anywhere. There is a big and beautiful wiki world out there.

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Okay, SheffieldSteel. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm innocent, I swear!

Reply for ya on my talk page :) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, regarding the barking at each other we did on Talk:Barack Obama, I just want to say no hard feelings from this side. When I referred to "lazy ass administrators", I was sortof saying it tongue in cheek -- I know full well that it's not laziness that makes admins slow to block, and admittedly if I were an admin I probably would not have unilaterally blocked RonCram at that point. (Though I would try to get consensus among a group of admins to do so)

I also recognize the comments you were responding to were pretty close to the edge, and probably unlikely to do any good. I was frustrated, and decided to just vent. In my defense, I don't think I really did any damage -- I stand by the assertion that RonCram is extraordinarily unlikely to make any productive edits prior to Wednesday, and even though me calling him out is not going to change his mind, I don't think it's possible that it made him any more likely to continue his agitations.

But I admit if I were a totally neutral bystander, I probably would have told Jaysweet to please calm down and try to mind WP:CIV. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from a personal perspective, I would have been happy to ban or block RonCram, but I just didn't feel their conduct was quite bad enough, and at this time, I'm very careful about not doing anything to appear biased. Thanks for saying this. I do appreciate it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird2's disruptive editing

I've started compiling a RfCU and because I'm really busy with work at the moment I'm looking for some help with diffs to support the claims. I'll be adding some over the coming days. Fnag aton 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM

re Frankly, I'm surprised you'd post a link to that MOSNUM debate here. You really don't come out of it looking good. I don't understand this remark. What did you mean? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems clear to me that consensus was to go with the version of the guideline that was most consistent with our policies on verifiability and original research. The link to WP:DEADHORSE were already posted, so... if you can't see it, I don't think I can point it out to you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments about V and OR are valid ones, but I don't see where the consensus is documented. And I don't see the relevance of dead horse when there has never been a (civilised) debate in the first place. Or are you arguing that Greg_L's use of ridicule to gain support is legitimate? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 re ''Frankly, I'm surprised you'd post a link to that MOSNUM debate here. You really don't come out of it looking good.'' I don't understand this remark.  What did you mean? [[User:Thunderbird2|Thunderbird2]] ([[User talk:Thunderbird2|talk]]) 18:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 :Well, it seems clear to me that consensus was to go with the version of the guideline that was most consistent with our policies on [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:OR|original research]]. The link to [[WP:DEADHORSE]] were already posted, so... if you can't see it, I don't think I can point it out to you.  <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|S<small>HEFFIELD</small>S<small>TEEL</small>]]</font><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]]</b></small></sup> 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
+:: Your arguments about V and OR are valid ones, but I don't see where the consensus is documented.  And I don't see the relevance of dead horse when there has never been a (civilised) debate in the first place.  Or are you arguing that Greg_L's use of ridicule to gain support is legitimate? [[User:Thunderbird2|Thunderbird2]] ([[User talk:Thunderbird2|talk]]) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)