User talk:SheffieldSteel

{{Top}} may refer to:

• {{Collapse top}}
• {{Archive top}}
• {{Hidden archive top}}
• {{Afd top}}
• {{Discussion top}}
• {{Tfd top}}
• {{Top icon}}
• {{Top text}}
• {{Cfd top}}
• {{Rfd top}}
• {{Skip to top}}

Hello and welcome to my Talk page!

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Please start new conversations at the bottom of this page by clicking on the "new section" tab above.
4. I reserve the right to revert any edits to this page that I feel to be truly messed up.
   

Archive 1—Archive 2—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:

• 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)

Signatures

Hi, can you recommend a good tutorial on making a nice signature like yours? mine is plain and dull, see? Braindigitalis (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I can't offer much help, except...

• Look at the text of signatures you like, and copy their tricks
• Experiment! Don't bother continually changing the actual sig in your preferences; the "turnaround time" is too slow. Just write out the text and hit "Show preview".
• Don't go crazy - if your sig is too big, too bright, or too long, you will cause headaches and readers will complain. See here for the basics of what not to do.

Have fun! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

abortion argument

you deleted the sections to the abortion argument on incomplete information and discrimination: 'sections were not neutrally framed' - how were they not neutral? because they didnt contain a counter argument? i'm not aware of any and that is the duty of other members to add if they think of any. i stated it clearly and objectively 'contained weasel words' - such as? 'apparently cited to one book' - u'r point? i have found numerous sources that make this argument. why is one not enough, especially when it is a President representing an entire political party and demographic? previous references are to a single person's opinion in a paper they wrote. '(spam?)' - spam? wat r u on about?

im happy to adjust the words, add in counter arguments, etc to ensure these valuable points are listed on the debate page. The debate page is very narrow in the perspectives it offers. u should be adjusting the words to make it more suitable to wikipedia's standards, not going around deleting content. ur feedback on why you deleted these paragraphs is not supported by specific evidence and thus not supportive of your action to delete this content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopial (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the correct place to discuss this is Talk:Abortion debate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing as delete

Non-admins shouldn't really close debates as delete.. They can close as keep, but since deletion requires the admin tools anyway it's better if the process (closing, then deleting) is left to them, I reckon. Punkmorten (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will try not to make a habit of it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, you can just get your fine self over to RFA, go through the grueling one week process, and get the extra buttons that you should've had months ago. Then, you can make a very fine "habit of it." But whatever.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell. You and your RfA process. Go ahead and nominate me, whatever boy :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't do noms anymore. (see my latest two, this and this for some context. Too many people were opposing very fine editors for ridiculous reasons, I was getting way too stressed, I almost quit, both of my noms did essentially retire (the former unofficially, just seems to have disappeared) and the latter officially (see his talkpage). I was starting to dislike Wikipedia. (It is a hobby after all). Good candidates should make it through RFA relatively unscathed. Don't reply to the opposers (there will always be one). A reply to the opposer generally generates 3-5 new opposers with "per oppose #1" as the reason. Don't reply to them either. RFA is not a discussion, don't let anyone fool you otherwise. RFA is a walk over hot coals. If you stop in the middle to have a discussion, you'll get burnt. I'm a bit jaded, but I've been slightly and surprisingly encouraged the last few days with the relative calmness and civility at RFA. May be a good window. I refuse to nominate anyone though, out of fear that my insistence and my nomination will cause another good editor to look for the door. I will most assuredly be your strongest supporter, so if the count ends up at 1-147-3, you can know I'm a fan of you and your clue regardless of what anyone else thinks. Do a self-nom! It will get an oppose. Meh. Keeper ǀ 76 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Okay. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume your "Okay" means that you'll either self-nom" (and take your lumps) or find a nom. Either way, I'm looking forward to being a supporter. You've long deserved to be able to use the tools that I've been able to use since last January. Cheers, and good luck! Keeper ǀ 76 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue link! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You really meant it! i can't think of anyone I'd rather support for adminship, and only now do I regret my firm stance agtainst nominating other editors. You will do fine at RFA, you will garner opposition from those that thrive on opposition to, well, anything, and you will pass. See you on the other side! Keeper ǀ 76 01:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You really should have canvassed me - I might have missed the chance to support your RfA. :) Seriously, you're a great candidate and I think you'll do well. I'd have been happy to nominate you, but you never know - sometimes I think associating too closely with me hurts more than it helps. :) Best of luck. MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are clueful and have a concern for encyclopedic integrity. Despite these handicaps your RfA appears to be going well. Good luck! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Debate on "Copt"

Hello SheffieldSteel!

How long do you think this full protection should go on? I kind of feel bad for being the one who suggested that in the first place, and now, I don't think there's a lot of discussion going on (from what I've read, silence=agreement in general on Wikipedia; to me, it just looks like inactivity).

..anyway, I'm not sure if it's a good thing for most users to be barred from editing because of one silly edit war. I would like to know what you think. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I'd forgotten all about that page, since it all went quiet. Personally, I don't think it should be protected any longer, and I'll see what can be done about it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for my part in the revert wars. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good news! The article is now unprotected. I hope things go more smoothly from now on. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle! ~ Troy (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Knight Online AfD

I really thought that you should have let the AfD run its course instead of doing a non-admin closure. There was one "neutral" and one "delete". I felt there was no unanimity nor was there an absolutely clear consensus. While there may have been a rough consensus to keep, that decision should have been left to closing admin, even if their decision may have been to keep the article. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising your concerns. I agree with much of what you've said. There was no justification for a "speedy keep" nor a "WP:SNOW" closure. However, this AfD did run its full course: it was nominated on the 5th of August, and closed on the 11th. While it is true that there was not unanimity among the contributors, I did feel that consensus was there. The best that you could hope for was a close as "no consensus, defaulting to keep". Of course, if you feel strongly that my closure was wrong, you may still raise the issue at deletion review. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 11:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I could DRV it, but I don't know if that would really accomplish anything besides wasting admins' time and making me look like a WP:DICK trying to make a WP:POINT. If anything, I might re-nominate the article for AfD at a later time; that would probably make more sense, and as we know consensus can change. (Obviously I won't do that now as that is viewed as not acting in good faith.) MuZemike (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good answer

Nice answer to my question about CAT:AOR. I've seen more than a handful of candidates get pretty wishy washy in answering that question because they're trying to give "the right answer," when - in truth - I'm not looking for a specific answer, but rather the candidate's ability to support their answer. You said that you weren't totally comfortable with it due to the propensity for editors to abuse that process (which some do), but you also openly expressed a discomfort with the alternative, which was a very honest thing to do. I had a feeling that I was going to support your run before I posed those questions, but your answers confirmed my feelings. It doesn't appear that you're going to need it, but good luck in the rest of the process! --Winger84 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; it's kind of you to say so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 11:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by the answer. You're going to be an admin in a few days and you need to make a decision. I expect that you will default to "no". That's fine, but I would prefer to see a more honest statement of this. Axl (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the answer was a "yes" and I'm sorry if it wasn't clearer. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick apology

Hey there. I didn't mean to bring an outside conflict into your RfA (see question 11). I'm very sorry for the inconvenience. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'm sure it'll provide interesting information for anyone still sitting on the fence. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom and teeth

I've heard people rhetorically compare going through an RfA to having teeth pulled, but it would seem that you are in a unique position to judge the aptness of this simile. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can say with confidence that I wouldn't want to take part in either one any more than is necessary. Regards, as always SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I love GFDL

I just stole your nbnb subpage, and made it my own, with very little to no attribution. Heh. It's part of my header now. :-)....Keeper ǀ 76 20:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was planning on rolling that out next April 1st. I wanted to see who'd take it seriously. I am still not sure, for the record, if it should be. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

new question

You have a new question to answer from me. Thank you. You gave a thoughtful answer! Presumptive (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

About Twinkle !!

yup i agree tht there was a mistake , my editing ended prematurely due to internet failure the edit wht nadapriya has done isnt a positive contribution but a proofless and sourceless claim which may prove the whole article wrong . what we have provided is an law ministry reference which is far more superior to a single political party's claim . inspite of calling naadapriya and others to the talkpage before attempting to edit to the article tht has just came after a good period of editproof he has made no attempt to comeacross the talk page . --Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits on Copt

Thanks for keeping an eye on that article. I still have pretty high hopes that it won't need serious protection any longer. Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for doing a good revert. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

M.I.A. (artist)

Hi, this about the comments made by you on the article M.I.A. (artist), I saw you had asked for more sources regrading the Controversy in it, I have added some I found, could you please comment on them if you could. Thanks Nitraven (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Collegue, you have mentioned that I have violated BLP in my edits to M.I.A. I would be gratefull if you could elaborate and show the offending edits. I have highlighted what the BBC and other reliable sources have mentioned regarding this controversial artist. If a controversy section is not acceptable please do tell. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing this artists support for the LTTE which is banned as a terrorist organisation in 31 countries. I would wellcome and input from you as to how a neutral statement could be incorporated using the BBC et al which wouldnot violate BLP.Kerr avon (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply to this on Talk:M.I.A. (artist) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Center for Asian American Media

Thank you for your help Sheffield. I would like to know how I could go about existing in some form on wikipedia. Would you be able to help me structure at least one or two sentences describing The Center for Asian American Media in a neutral way. For example would "The Center for Asian American Media (formerly NAATA) was created in 1980. Its mission is to support Asian American Media. It is also the host of the San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival."

Would something as basic as this be able to live on wikipedia? Please advise. CAAMwiki (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the basics: Do you know of any published sources which are independent of the subject? These will form the basis of the article content. Then we need to be sure that the subject is "notable" (i.e. well-known enough to deserve an article). After that, it's just a matter of neutrally summing up what the sources have to say, and I'd be delighted to help with that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! There are definitely published sources on NAATA (the former name of The Center for Asian American Media) as well as Asian American Media Centers and Asian American Media generally. On NAATA we have a book called "Moving the Image: Independent Asian Pacific American Media Arts". We also have an article published by Oliver Wang on the History of The Center for Asian American Media. Oliver Wang is a music writer and media scholar who's writes on culture, race, and America for NPR, SF Bay Guardian, Vibe, and LA Weekly. On Asian American Media generally, we have the Moving the Image book, a book called Screening Asian Americans, and a book called Out of the Shadows to name a few.

I greatly appreciate the help with this Sheffield!! Much much thanks!! CAAMwiki (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little busy right now, but I will look into these later on. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sheffield. I really appreciate the help with this. I will check in with you in a bit. I know you're extremely busy and I really do thank you for the help. CAAMwiki (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked for source material but I couldn't find anything to base the article on. I've found plenty that was self-published, and a good deal of listing and other trivial mentions, but the one thing I needed to find was an article or feature about CAAM. If you can provide me with links to any of these, that would help greatly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

u is an admin!

I just saw your promotion in the recent changes. Congrats! - Icewedge (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! --Winger84 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat the crat congrats---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Hope to see you around the project soon :-) John Sloan (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If I was nominating people, you were on my list. So glad that went well for you. Now you are invincible!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!. Of course, you fool, you said you'd be part of CAT:AOR. Silly, S.Steel....Keeper ǀ 76 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps now is the time that he should go vote before he has to fulfill his commitment? ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and advice - in other words, the vast majority of it :P SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats New Admin

SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Double congrats on WP:100 — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay, congrats mate. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll make a good admin. Congrats! Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Here's a t-shirt. BTW, sorry that I had to go neutral. I have to be cautious. But I think you'll do just great. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are occasional moments of sanity on Wikipedia that lead me to believe that this place is not an entirely lost cause. The resounding support for your RfA is one such moment. Congratulations; I have every confidence that this was a good decision and that you'll do good work. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. MastCell ^Talk 06:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Talk:Egyptians

Hello, SheffieldSteel. Congrats on your adminship!!! There is a content dispute in the said talk page (the very last section and the third-last section are currently active). Just now, I did restore some text that was removed temporarily as there was not yet a consensus, but I still take that the partial deletions were in good faith as FunkMonk likely assumed that there wouldn't be an issue. I sort of over-reacted (*oops*) as I easily took it personally when it came to the idea that the Egyptians were all "Arabized", but now, I am trying to keep things a little calm. I know that you're good at that, so if you have the time, please help out in moderating if you can. Thanks a bundle!
Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) :-)

I'll see what I can do. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks

I have received your message about my contribution on the September 11, 2001 attacks discussion page. The problem is, what you have said, has nothing to do with what i have said, nothing on there is my own opinion or personal views as you have said, i am just asking for Wikipedia to allow the page to be neutral, which is what it asks for, and not just have the official story on it, it should have conspiracy theories, explored by the BBC and CBS, and going by your message, such news broadcasters are reliable sources, and they will also be neutral, they are just exploring possibilities. Quote from the Soapboxing page, section number 2: "Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view." this is what i am trying to get for the September 11, 2001 attacks page, so by that, i haven't gone against any other sections on the Soapboxing page.

If there is a clearer meaning to the warning i have been sent, i would like to know it. Brock (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This message gives a very different impression to your earlier post on the article Talk page, which was quite concerning. To answer the point you've raised in both posts: Wikipedia does cover the conspiracy theories. The problem is that the article is so long that it's been split over multiple pages, and the main page just contains a summary of the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories which is in itself a very long article (for more on this, see Wikipedia:Summary style). Our coverage is, or should be, neutral in tone and in quantity. Of course there are some editors who wish there to be more coverage, and others who say there should be less. Making sure that we give due weight to each viewpoint is one of the more difficult tasks facing editors, particularly on controversial subjects. Any help you can provide, particularly providing material from quality sources such as the BBC & CBS, would be most welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, i didnt realise that there was a seperate page for the conspiracy theories, if there isn't, could i suggest a link somewhere in the main article leading to the other theories. Thank you for this message :) Brock (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)