User talk:SteveBaker

NOTE: I know some people carry on conversations across two User talk pages. I find this ludicrous and unintuitive, and would much prefer to follow Wikipedia's recommendations (see How to keep a two-way conversation readable). Conversations started here will be continued here, while those I start on other users' pages will be continued there. If a user replies to a post of mine on this page, I will either cut/paste the text to their page, or (more likely) copy/paste from their page to this one and continue it here.

---

Original research in fringe articles

I would appreciate it if you would back up your claim here, as it is a rather major one that needs to be updated in the policy page if true! Thanks. ImpIn

— (t - c) 01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC), ImperfectlyInformed

I'd still like an answer on this. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear

Many thanks for taking the time out to look over both my edit history and that of User:Dp76764 - and for posting your findings on Talk:Top Gear (current format). It's much appreciated. Cheers. DrFrench (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hello SteveBaker. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:SteveBaker/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Frbaerj

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.120.11.200

Fraberj again..I dont know the procedure to report it....

Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Godraegpot (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not true - I have reverted only once today. On the other hand, you seem to have reverted that same change FIVE times over the same 24 hour period. I'll be very happy when your sockpuppet conviction gets sorted out and I don't have to put up with all this nonsense from you and your socks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He tried to report me for violating 3RR as well. So I've reported him. Here's the report. Looneyman (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we need to start 'checkuser' proceedings. We don't want to have to prove that each one of these socks is Davesmith individually. SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. This guy is quite the fool. I was willing to give him th benefit of the doubt when he first appeared but when he was in that edit war (where I reported him) it becam eobvious who he was. Looneyman (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Hello SteveBaker. Please take note that your edit summary here uses the term Wikilawyering. I believe the article does not fit the circumstances of wikilawyering. Hence, according to it's own page, the misuses section, this may be viewed as aggressive or even pejorative. I would tend to believe, in this circumstance it was only aggression. "In any case an accusation in wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se"... and the meaning of WP:WL appears to be axed towards those who "engage in semantic discussions about the language of a policy or guideline". I trust this will help us build a more civil and constructive edit summary. Could you please consider avoiding this word in your edit summary and consider the expression, "please see talk page" instead. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In short - no. The Wikilawyering page is merely an essay - it is neither policy nor guideline - but merely the opinion of one or a few people - I consider myself perfectly within the range of acceptable behavior to use the term in contexts where it is appropriate - and in this case I actually did so within the suggestions made on that page. You have persistently (and unreasonably) demanded a reference for the meaning of a common English word and you claim that saying "this is a kind of that" when 'this' is what the article is all about and 'that' is a common English word is original research. You have provoked many pages of discussion over nit-picking points surrounding a simple sentence that serves to explain the use of a technical term. This amounts to using the Wiki guidelines as an editing weapon - and that, without doubt, falls within the bounds of the use of the term "Wikilawyering" - so I don't feel any compunction in "calling a spade a spade" and using the term where it's appropriate and in an edit summary where brevity is critical. Furthermore - the Wikilawyering page says that the term is often used as a shorthand term - as was intended in this case. I was merely referring back to our conversation on the talk page in a shorthand way. I had in fact already written extensively about my opinion on the Talk page shortly before reverting your changes in order to explain my position. SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand, I really want to see the inclusion of that one sentence. It appears to make sense, despite the fact that it's not properly refernced. My fear is that we may be wrong. We must remain objective. What if Meyer was actually on to something. Are we dismissing it with our own synthesis? So, in reality, what I'm doing here is taking two sides. I actually support both because I want to see this article grow and better clarify the subject matter; This methodology is less aggressive and, I believe, helps in resolving any conflict. In short, all we need is a proper reference because this is going to be a synthesis. If A (Meyer's Cell) is "description" and B (Fuel Cell Dictionary definition) is "description" = conclusion? (Is there not some sophism). Another example: can we tell that if A is Meyer cell and B is Orange that c is ? A synth has so many variables and in this example we can't make conclusion. --CyclePat (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Water-fuelled car

FYI: I took the liberty of removing your last post to Talk:Water-fuelled car since, in my opinion, it had nothing to do with improving the article. I kinda bungled the edit summary though. What meant to say was "steve, i like you and all, but i fail to see how this has *anything* at do with improving this article. User talk:Gdewilde would be the best place for this. removed post." Anyways, I hope you agree. If not, go ahead and restore it--unlike some folks we've run into lately, I'm not about to edit war over this kind of thing. Cheers. Yilloslime (t) 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that User:Gdewilde has reverted me, so... Anyway, I figured his wikibreak would be a short one... Yilloslime (t) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear

Are you willing to reach a negotiated settlement re: the Top Gear issues, or do we carry on with the fun and games? SabineSchmitz (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)