User talk:SheffieldSteel

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

Your AFD comment

I just dropped by to say I enjoyed your comment. You might have swayed me if you had used a different example - right now, re-voting the 2000 election doesn't seem like such a bad idea :) --Kubigula (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP

I'm sorry if I deleted the extra info you inserted in the EVP article this morning. I got a little mixed up trying to keep the NPOV changes and delete the POV changes- You changes are now kept (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed you last change -"The paranormal nature of EVP is disputed,"- it is good to have an editor who is not so ideologically motivated! Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm just trying to be clear about what is what. SheffieldSteel 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Just a suggestion, when creating dates with citations, the format is year-month-day. So todays date would be 2007-03-29. I was doing the references for Flood Geology when I say a new reference. It caught me by surprise, because I was thinking, "hmmm, I don't usually do it like that." Anyways, I hope this helps out. Orangemarlin 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pope

Your comment under Creationism seems to lend to the idea that you think the Pope is in charge or is president of Christianity. No...the Pope is a religious leader of Catholics. There is also Protestantism. I would read that article for your own education. Also, 90% of the worlds population belives there is a higher power, that is God. Fbc215 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish I could draw Venn diagrams. I find it hard to explain logical issues without them. le sigh SheffieldSteel 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ASP

I took out your (I think it was yours) mention of "anomalous speech products" in the EVP article definition. It appears that MacRae (and subsequent reports of his activity by AA-EVP) are the only ones on the planet to use this term. It probably shouldn't go in the definition, but can certainly be mentioned when the article talks about him specifically. LuckyLouie 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar System

No shouting, I promise... please see the note on the Solar System talk page. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP using unreliable sources to spread lies

as you did here, thank you. COFS 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would love to use only reliable sources, but I fear that where the church of Scientology is concerned, there aren't any. SheffieldSteel 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure there are. It's just more WORK to find them. COFS 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps it's a lesser evil to include information from a dubious source, when that info can be refuted (allowing the read to make up their own mind), than to [hide ] information from a source that is beyond reproach, and attempt to mislead the reader as to what that source says. SheffieldSteel 23:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Operation Clambake actually is a reliable source, specific to Scientology articles on Wikipedia. Smee 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, for example the not yet existent one called "Scientology critics scam" or "Atheists fighting Scientology" or "Lies about Scientology. Misou 05:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to put this in context: COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SheffieldSteel 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Doomsday

Appropriate or not, I got a good chuckle out of your late-night comment on Talk:Intelligent Design. Gnixon 20:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad someone liked it. I've done the decent thing and got it out of the way now. SheffieldSteel 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Planet Earth

Many thanks for the heads up about the airing of Planet Earth. I was enroute to New Guinea (!) at the time so missed it, but my TIVO caught it for my return. Anyhow, much appreciated... Mahalo and aloha! Arjuna 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add comments if I feel I can make a contribution. SheffieldSteel 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep civil

DO not delete information on causes of abortion. http://www.fertilityfacts.org/articles/fertility-articles/your-lifestyle-can-impact-your-fertility.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice from the master, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion&diff=124161807&oldid=124160755 SheffieldSteel 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not as bad as this:

Did is the revert other user did, you wants facts for what is already given.

cur) (last) 21:28, 19 April 2007 Severa (Talk | contribs) (72,080 bytes) (Rv. WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. There are multiple other causes listed at Miscarriage, and "stress" or "lifestyle" aren't one of them. No reason this should squeak by with a fact tag.) And g, you posted my only reply, but ignored good ones. Nice hypocrite. Keep in mind guys, many of your sources are not always reliable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me, what a horrible revert by Severa... including links to wikipedia policies like that is so... brutal.

Now, as to your accusation of hypocrisy (nice choice of section in which to make it, by the way!)... whether most of your contributions to Talk pages are civil is beside the point; they all should. be SheffieldSteel 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I thought anyone would take exception to my edit summary, I thought it would be SheffieldSteel, because the "squeak by" comment was more directed at his (or her) addition of the fact tags. I'm sorry if that came across the wrong way. Let's all of us take a step back for a minute. Everything that's added to Wikipedia is subject to the policies I linked in my edit summary (V, CITE, and RS). That means, Foremanfan, that if you want to add new information to Wikipedia, you generally have to provide a source to verify this information (unless you're taking that information from another article, and the sources are already listed in that article). In this case, the information on miscarriage added to Abortion was not supported by a source, nor was it supported by the information and sources already present at the article Miscarriage. The onus is on the editor who wants to add new information to an article to provide sources before that information is added. It isn't the other way around. Sources must also meet the standard of WP:RS; an essay "written by AJ," which does not list any of its own sources, and which is hosted on a site filled with Google Ads is not a reliable source. Also, Foremanfan and SheffieldSteel both, please remember to sign your name at the end of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). That makes discussion easier to follow. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Sorry, I have to disagree with "the thing which is unusual, thus meriting the term "phenomenon", is that the presence of the "electronic voice" is unexplained." Only a relatively small group of EVP/paranormal/proponents call it a phenomenon and say it's unexplained. The rest of the world, including professional audio engineering organizations, don't call it anything -- and haven't reported any unexplainable anomalies with regard to audio technology, design, or application. Therefore those sorts of claims need to include a phrase such as "said by paranormal investigators to be". See my note on the Talk page. -- LuckyLouie 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar :)

I don't get a lot of them, and they are appreciated. I wasn't sure if my most recent edits have been overkill. The page is already featured, after all. But thank you. Serendipodous 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Hey, please excuse my alteration of your comment. I still don't quite see the difference between making a suggestion outright (the way I edited your comment) and making one indirectly as you did. Nevertheless, I acknowledge and submit to your personal sovereignty and will refrain from any further edits of the like. I would appreciate a direct suggestion here, if you have one. Thanks. —Red Baron 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence..

I thought it might be a good idea to cut down on the mass of arbcom evidence information there is. I cut my evidence down to simply pointing out that parapsychology being affiliated with the AAAS doesn't mean it's a 'field of science' and I believe we should probably combine our evidences into one single part so that the arbcom folks don't have to wade through it all. Would you be willing to allow me to bind your evidence into mine and you erase yours? TO make it easier for the arbcom reviewers to read it all? Since it's essentially the same thing.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk exchange with ProtoCat

Hi Sheffield: I left a post on User talk:ProtoCat recommending that some of the exchanges be struck or removed, towards a possible fresh start. Any interest? ... Kenosis 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ProtoCat

Until he/she gives any reason for us to think otherwise, I think it's time to stop feeding the troll. Because polite efforts to respond to queries they made to me have resulted first in them calling me a stalker, because I went to their talk page like I asked, then, when they asked me what they were doing wrong, the current rant resulted. I call troll. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that ProtoCat was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. If it looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, smells like a troll, and lives under a bridge, well, it's a sockpuppet troll. Orangemarlin 06:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Researching Wikipedia Online Survey

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - Abortion, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Church of Scientology

The section you "restored" is unreferenced and targets the Church of Scientology, not Scientology. A belief system cannot be harassing or exploiting individuals. In this light your edits seems to have the sole intention to throw mud on the belief system using allegations against the Church. Please understand that this practice has been tolerated for much too long and violates WP:BIAS. COFS 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You wanna finish this discussion? COFS 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Per WP:NPA I would appreciate it if you redact your comment that I am a Scientologist editor. I find the remark rather offensive.

I have no connection to, nor interest in, Scientology.

My only interest is in ensuring NPOV articles. If you want the wording included, provide a source that says it, and I'll revert myself and add the source. Otherwise, insisting that unsourced statements and claims can be made, and then demonstrated, is original research and is prohibited.

Best regards. Peace in God. Lsi john 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have assumed that in Good Faith you would have redacted the comment yourself, so I have saved you the trouble and done it for you. Best.

Peace in God. Lsi john 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the brainwashed

Hang in there SheffieldSteel. I am sure you have already found a few folks chronically lie about themselves and their intentions here. They do NOT assume good faith because their policies and practices dictate otherwise. --Fahrenheit451 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)