User talk:SheffieldSteel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:12, 8 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]

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: [1]. 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]

It looks like Law Lord wants the last word on this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the last words would be that 1) you wrote a harassment warning without due course on my talk page, and 2) Tried to ignite a fire against me, because I reported a personal attack to the administrators. Obviously, you are not able to grow through feedback. --Law Lord (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inability to admit one's own mistakes can certainly be quite an impediment to learning and growing, as you may (or may not) be aware. My biggest mistake in handling this issue, I feel, was not being more specific and emphatic when warning you to avoid any action that could be seen as harassment of Flyer22. I should have clarified that posting unwanted messages on someone's talk page is not the only form of harassment, and that I was not forbidding you from doing so. In retrospect, this oversight on my part left the door open to your posting on ANI an issue which should have been dealt with, quietly and without drama, on the user's talk page.

Another error of mine was my response to your ANI thread. Given the chance to do that over again, I would have put more emphasis on the warning message, and the message of yours that justified it. I really regret not making clear why I felt you were acting in bad faith towards Flyer22.

Still, we live and learn, don't we...? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is interesting that Flyer22 is permitted to write about my actions and thoughts in a most unfair manner. One might in fact consider that a personal attack. There is no basis for several of the claims. As you will see, I have not really written anything similar about the thoughts of Flyer22. One could reasonably state that I am the one being harassed here. --Law Lord (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Law Lord (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He is furious that he was dead wrong about a disgreement we just had, and has thus continued to harass me." seems a very interesting interpretation of the events. --Law Lord (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Flyer22 has not always responded in the most productive way she could, but you are the one who is perpetuating this vendetta. Leave it alone. Nothing good is going to come of this, at all.

If you continue to provoke Flyer22, and she continues to respond the way she has, the absolute worst that is going to happen to her is that someone will ask her to stop. Nobody is going to block her or do any kind of formal warning for the few semi-questionable comments she has made about you, given the persistence of your attacks and Wiki-lawyering against her.

On the other hand, if you continue to provoke, you may very well get blocked, regardless of how Flyer22 responds. This is not a warning, this is advice: Leave it alone. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments Jaysweet. I am very happy that a third party as yourself would share their thoughts on this issue. I think what I am doing here is examining the facts of what has happened, so that my view may be understood by others. My view being that I have been personally attacked, and neither attacked nor harassed anybody. I do not see how this goal can be considered attacks or Wiki-lawyering against Flyer22.

I view it as feedback to SheffieldSteel. This, because I am not satisfied with the actions he(?) committed. --Law Lord (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please clarify what you mean by "persistence" of "attacks"? I have:

) asked her not to use "dummy edits" (polite message posted on her talk page)
) asked her to use the edit summary (also polite message posted on her talk page)
) Reported a personal attack to the ANI

I do not think either of those qualify as anything but my attempts at improving Wikipedia. --Law Lord (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that statement had been made outside of the context of a conduct dispute, I would agree that it might be considered to be a personal attack. In this context, Flyer22 is attempting to provide a rational explanation for your actions, which entails a consideration of your motivation. This is perfectly understable coming from someone who feels that they are being harassed and is trying to get it stopped.

Having answered a question of yours, perhaps you will answer one of mine. What do you want? Putting this another way, what outcome are you hoping for here? Do you want an apology from me, or from Flyer22? Do you want to see her warned, or blocked? Do you want to see me admonished, or warned, or stripped of admin status? I only ask because I really am not sure why you are continuing to pursue this matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think few people would call it a "rational explanation". Certainly, it would be nice if Flyer22 apologized for her "rational explanation", which I consider quite insulting. However, I do not kid myself that something like that is going to happen. Nor do I see it happen that you would be "admonished, or warned, or stripped of admin status".

However, it would be nice if you could entertain the view that my posting of a "use edit summary"-template to Flyer22's talk page is hardly worthy of being called harassment. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I do not want anyone blocked. --Law Lord (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Context, context, context. Generally speaking, it is not harassment to put a warning template on someone's page to remind them about using edit summaries. But the context in this case makes it pretty appalling. You had just been warned about WP:DTTR, and Flyer22 had made it very clear she did not like being templated. In addition, since the summary-less edit in question was a reply to you on your talk page, it hardly seems necessary to provide an edit summary. A comment on your talk page made in a section in which you have been carrying on a conversation with the person making the comment is, by definition, a reply. So if her edit summary had read "reply", it would have been redundant.

That's why SS referred to the template as "harassment". It appears to any neutral observer that it was an obvious attempt to push Flyer22's buttons. I hope this makes sense. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The only reason I always use an edit summary is so that the magic widget that calculates people's percentage of edits made with and without edit summaries will produce a very large green bar when you enter my name. Edit summaries on articles are almost always incredibly useful. On talk pages... meh, sometimes they are useful, often not. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your continued help. I certainly agree with you that things should be seen in context.

) I had not been warned about WP:DTTR. I had been made aware of that essay. That essay expressed one opinion, and this was an opinion that I disagreed with. Therefore, I chose to ignore it.
) The wording/tone of the message on my talk page from Flyer22 was (IMHO) pretty aggressive:

"And don't use edit summaries for discussion? I've been told that before, but why the hell not?"

"If you respond to me on my talk page about this, I will remove that warninig/discussion from my talk page after that discussion is done, as if it never happened, because I don't like getting warnings as though I am some newbie or vandal. I will remove it if you don't reply either, of course."

Therefore, in order not to sound equally aggressive (in a message of my own wording), I choose to use a template again regarding the missing edit summary. I think that was quite reasonable.

) I agree that it was probably not critical to use edit summary on my talk page. However, if the request was unreasonable to Flyer22, then she was free to ignore it. Instead she posted on my talk page: What the heck is wrong with you? I think that was quite aggressive and insulting.

I certainly understand your view. I just do not think it is reasonable to call my actions harassment; also taking into consideration the tone of voice I was subjected to. Can you see my point of view? --Law Lord (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(un-dent) After a WQA discussion in which it was pointed out to him that issuing a templated warning to Flyer22 was likely to be provocative and inflammatory, Law Lord thought that a "quite reasonable" response to a trivial misdemeanor would be... to issue a templated warning to Flyer22. I think that it is a quite reasonable response to such a posting to issue a warning message about harassment. If it isn't exactly harassment, it is gaming the system by baiting another editor, or whatever you prefer to call it. The only alternative interpretation I'd care to entertain, after this time, is that both of the templated warning messages posted to Flyer22's Talk page were in fact stupendous errors in judgment by Law Lord. There is, however, no sign that Law Lord is willing to accept such an interpretation. On that basis, I do not see much hope for further progress on this issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior should not be dictated by something as subjective as whether a given editor finds something "provocative and inflammatory" but rather whether the policy and guidelines find it "provocative and inflammatory". Posting a second template with a legitimate aim on a user talk page can hardly be harassment under any set of circumstances. Therefore, your extremely harsh warning (template?) was uncalled for and barbaric. I agree there is no hope for further progress. --Law Lord (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've never presented any plausible reason why sending that templated message, to that user, at that time, could have possibly seemed like a good idea - and I have given you every opportunity. All you've said is that no policy or guideline prevented you from doing so. And you're wrong. Wikipedia is not governed by statute, and your actions should be guided not by the letter of the law, but by the spirit of it. If editors say "doing X will provoke that user" and you do X without any compelling reason, then you are editing in bad faith, gaming the system, and disrupting Wikipedia.

This conversation is done with. I have better things to do with my on-wiki time. Law Lord, consider yourself banned from editing this page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:34, 7 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]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not sure I will have time to track down diffs, but I will certainly comment as & when the RfC goes live. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:44, 7 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]

I'm not arguing anything. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the impression that you were arguing that there is consensus for the present wording. Was I mistaken? Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird2 you know precisely where the consensus is demonstrated, stop asking questions that you know the answer to because it wastes the time of other editors. Also stop misrepresenting Greg by trying to use ad hominem instead of tackling the substance of arguments presented by him. The fact is you refused to give valid answers to questions directed to you and that is why your point of view was demonstrated to be weak and was refuted by the many other stronger arguments made in the talk archive where the consensus is demonstrated. Fnag aton 09:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you all know where to discuss this. Take it to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/IEC please. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Universalsuffrage

Dear SheffieldSteel,

I think User:Universalsuffrage is causing disruption at Talk:September 11 attacks. He is needlessly starting discussions which isn't helping our 9/11 article. If he continues to disrupt, you should take some action against him.

Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I will be keeping an eye out. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Personal attacks

"Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you." -> Which edit are you talking about? Justify yourself.Reqluce (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about a significant number of your edit summaries, for example the vast majority of the edits you made between 0826 and 0900 UTC on the 5th of November. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: AIDS denialism

Hi. Thanks for your message. In my opinion, whether material is poorly sourced is a determination that should be reached through discussion and consensus, which is why I restored the post in question. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how the policy on living persons works. Here's a short quote from the policy page:-

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Notice that there's no talk of discussion and consensus here. If you want to suggest that the book in question is a reliable source for the allegations it makes, then say so, but do not re-introduce material that states allegations as facts, do not make allegations yourself, do not speculate as to the truth or otherwise of allegations, and so on. In this case, while we can say "X alleged that Y falsified Z", we must not say "Y falsified Z" as a fact. I hope this clarifies the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... great minds think alike. I gave a somewhat similar answer to this same question on my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who originally made that post obviously wanted to suggest that it was reliable. It is for that reason that a discussion should've ensued, and not a deletion of that post.

The distinction that people involved in a sociological conflict make between "allegation" and "fact" is often a function of their position. The post indeed framed its assertions as allegations, as the editor attributed the material to the people involved. Since I haven't read the sources that editor provided, how am I or any other editor supposed to know whether it's a fact?

As for speculating as to the truth of allegations, well, I'm sorry, but that's precisely what Talk Pages are for: Discussing the quality of a source vis a vis WP:V. And besides, I myself offered no speculation, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

As for MastCell, he said, "The line is usually pretty clear: if a post contains negative information about a person, but that information is well-sourced and encyclopedic enough that one could potentially see it making its way into article space, then it should remain. However, if the negative material is unsourced or poorly sourced (as defined in WP:BLP), and there is no reasonable expectation that it can be rendered encyclopedic, then it really has no place on the talk page. In the case in question, the claims are sourced (vaguely) to an AIDS-denialist tract which appears to be published by an obscure publisher - possibly self-published, though I haven't looked into this." This brings me back to what appears to me to be a set of reasonable questions:

How am I supposed to know whether the source is a good one, an encyclopedic one, a denialist tract, an obscure publisher, or possibly self-published? And if it is reasonable to conclude that I had no way to know this, then on what basis should I be admonished for restoring the info for a proper discussion?
If MastCell himself says that he hasn't looked into it, then how can he conclude these things?
Who gets to decide these things, and how is that decision held to scrutiny if one editor gets to do this unilaterally, without a discussion first, and without giving any transparent reasons on the Talk Page? Is merely declaring it "libelous" in an Edit Summary really in the best interest of open and transparent collaboration and verifiability?
How are future editors who come to the article and the Talk Page supposed to understand the context of the discussion that remains if the original post remains deleted? What about other editors who also read the book in question? Wouldn't they be more likely to see that a discussion on that book already resulted in a poor-source judgment if the original post that mentioned it remains? Nightscream (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry responding here, Nightscream will not answer me on my talk page or Nightscream's talkpage. How am I supposed to know whether the source is a good one, an encyclopedic one, a denialist tract, an obscure publisher, or possibly self-published? Well you look it up or when you know about AIDS denialism you know about this person, this source all ready. You do not leave a outragous blp charge w/o good source that can cause potential legal problems for Wikipedia. And you do not say I don't know about this topic but I think WP:RS and WP:BLP are wrong so I will revert. Pls drop this arguing Nightscream there is consensus and Jimbo Wales wrote also about it. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 02:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream, you need to read and understand the policy document at WP:BLP. If you

will not read it,
cannot understand it, or
do not accept its provisions,

then you are likely to be blocked from editing at some point, unless you avoid any material about living persons. This is not a threat, just a prediction based on your behaviour to date and the large number of erroneous statements in the post above. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 234: / Line 234: @@
 #How are future editors who come to the article and the Talk Page supposed to understand the context of the discussion that remains if the original post remains deleted? What about other editors who also read the book in question? Wouldn't they be more likely to see that a discussion on that book already resulted in a poor-source judgment if the original post that mentioned it remains? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 01:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 ::I am sorry responding here, Nightscream will not answer me on my talk page or Nightscream's talkpage. '''How am I supposed to know whether the source is a good one, an encyclopedic one, a denialist tract, an obscure publisher, or possibly self-published?''' Well you look it up or when you know about AIDS denialism you know about this person, this source all ready. You do not leave a outragous blp charge w/o good source that can cause ''potential'' legal problems for Wikipedia. And you do not say I don't know about this topic but I think WP:RS and WP:BLP are wrong so I will revert. Pls drop this arguing Nightscream there is consensus and Jimbo Wales wrote also about it. Thx, [[User:RetroS1mone|<font color="purple">RetroS1mone</font>]] [[User talk:RetroS1mone|<font color="maroon">talk</font>]] 02:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
+Nightscream, you need to read and understand the policy document at [[WP:BLP]]. If you
+*will not read it,
+*cannot understand it, or
+*do not accept its provisions,
+then you are likely to be [[WP:BLOCK|'''blocked''' from editing]] at some point, unless you avoid any material about living persons. This is not a threat, just a prediction based on your behaviour to date and the large number of erroneous statements in the post above. <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|S<small>HEFFIELD</small>S<small>TEEL</small>]]</font><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]]</b></small></sup> 03:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)