User talk:SheffieldSteel

ACME drama rating

NEEDS MOAR DRAMAHZ!

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 3—Archive 4—Archive 5—Archive (N+1)

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)

Father Christmas sent me...

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

IP disruption

I noticed that you recently commented on the talk page of an IP editor who was disruptively commenting at Talk:DreamHost. The IP editor was subsequently blocked for this. Now the IP has returned to disruptively remove comments from the same talk page, claiming they are personal attacks (against a different editor). Would you mind taking a look at this issue, since you are an uninvolved admin? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at this, I think you both could behave less confrontationally. I'd like you to consider striking "You are editing here specifically to attack the company" and refactoring it yourself, so that it looks less like a comment on the contributor, perhaps to something along the lines of "your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company". Clearly the IP shouldn't be edit-warring to delete your comments, but I think they will stop if you can focus the discussion on content. I'll comment on their Talk page too. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I will go and refactor that comment exactly as you suggest. Thank you for looking into this for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Complaint regarding dreamhost talkpage administration

"If you have a problem with my use of administrator tools, tell me so and hopefully we can resolve the matter."

Well I do happen to have a problem regarding your administrator status on wikipedia and the way you behave yourself. You contact me on my talkpage regarding reverts that I have made to the dreamhost talkpage due to obvious personal attacks and yet I don't see any evidence that you have Ever confronted this user Scjessey regarding his personal attacks which seem to have been ongoing for quite some time. What ever you do here you do it with your green color behind you showing that you are an administrator and therefor you do it as an administrator.

Your talk of block history on my talkpage is an insult as well and I ask that you strike it out.--194.144.90.118 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising your concerns here. I haven't yet used my administrative tools in relation to this matter. I haven't blocked an editor, protected a page, etc. (compare the actions of admin User:SarekOfVulcan who has done both, I think, in response to your actions). Nonetheless, I'm always willing to listen to complaints and criticism. In this instance, if you want to see evidence of my talking to Scjessey regarding personal attacks, I suggest you look at the thread immediately above this one. It may not be obvious, because all I said was that the disputed text looked like a comment on the contributor - a reference to the wording of our "No Personal Attacks" policy. Scjessey has been around long enough to be familiar with that wording and to understand the reference, and he was good enough to withdraw the remark.

SarekOfVulcan has also addressed the issue of personal attacks, at Talk:DreamHost. Between us, I hope we can keep things civil.

The green in my signature is not a signal that I'm an admin; it is just a custom signature (which any registered user can create - see WP:SIG). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A single remark out of dozens. I think that it would be best if you stayed away from matters regarding Dreamhost from now on. Thank you. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your opinion politely and succinctly. Unfortunately, I have to inform you that in the absence of a more compelling argument than that already provided, I do not think it would be in Wikipedia's best interests for me be avoid the pages in question. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a special rule for September 11?

Is there a special rule for Pearl harbor (1941)?, or for the Trail of Tears, or for the burning of Rome? Will this change as time goes by? It's been almost a decade since September 11, and I think the event (the most significant event in the history of the United States, should be closely examined without fear of gross censorship in the United States. (Peterbadgely (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC))peterbadgely

You should be aware that the Arbitration Committee case was a response to significant and prolonged disruption of 9/11-related articles. I'm not aware of any "special rules" for those articles, and I assume that this is because there haven't been particularly high levels of disruption there.

If you feel that the event should be "closely examined" I recommend that you find an appropriate online community who wishes to do so, and contribute to their efforts. You might find a suitable link if you start looking at 9/11 Truth Movement. Wikipedia, however, is not the place to right great wrongs, to unearth hidden truths, or to challenge received wisdom. On the contrary, the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to record received wisdowm. In practice, that means that we document what is notable and verifiable according to what has been published on the subject by reliable sources.

I hope this information helps. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Per this talk page comment, you should know that he was just recently blocked as part of a long string of sockpuppets, most of which had been going around harassing me in one way or another. And while you may be "aware that other editors have had problems with" me, in the end the people doing the most complaining about me tend to get permanently banned later when others finally catch on to what exactly they are doing. DreamGuy (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama admin stuff

Hey Sheffield (can I call you that? or Sheff? or is a shortening of your nom de plume verboten?...anyway), I notice that you seem to be watching the main Obama article pretty closely which is obviously good. I've been doing that as well but am going to sign off for about a week to get some real-world stuff done and won't be checking in at all during that time. I think things tend to stay a lot more chill at the Obama page when there's an admin or two hanging around over there, so I was just hoping that you could continue to do that. And if not no worries since we are, like, volunteers or something. I'll be back after defeating those damned French imperialists. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you have a good break. I will certainly continue to keep an eye on the page. Either short form of the name is fine, by the way :-) Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

3rdAlcove

Hi, you might want to have a look at a comment I left regarding your warning at User talk:3rdAlcove. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I have replied there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dreamhost talkpage

You saw a reason for interfering previously with the matters going on at that talkpage and well now we have this guy scjussey deleting my remarks. My remarks there are in no way of less significance than yours for example and it is totally unjustified to revert them. I ask that you permanently block the user for this as well as other personal attacks from him that appear on that talk page.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just emerged from a block and immediately begun ranting at Talk:DreamHost (which has been blissfully quiescent for a while), including making personal attacks against me and one of your fellow administrators. Sigh. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that neither of you should comment at Talk:DreamHost on any subject other than improving that article, and I don't think either of you needs to say anything about the other editor anywhere on Wikipedia. Future disruption and personal attacks will be seen, and dealt with, without either of you needing to point anything out to anyone else. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I interpret this as biased against me, I was merely answering remarks that had been made regarding me there and the accusation that I was deleting comments when I infact was deleting personal attacks. I ask that you strike your remarks out cause my comments were clearly legit and you are implying that they were not.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I would like to ad that the reason for my block that scusssey refered to was that I was judged to be a sockpuppett something which was later apologized for and reversed so I can not see how that is relevant.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Scjessey may interpret my above post as biased against themself too, but all I have said is that the two of you need to avoid either making personal attacks or using the article Talk page for arguing user conduct. In other words, respect our policies. I haven't singled either of you out.

I'm familiar with the circumstances surrounding your block. I assure you that it hasn't affected anything I've said here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

List of supermarket chains in Bahrain

I know we still have no rule on this, but after a relisting, one additional immediate comment is not really enough to close. Others need time to respond. DGG (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't really take the relisting notice into account when evaluating the contributions. I hope that doesn't cause a problem.

The keep arguments that could be identified were all variations on the theme of "it's useful" and the delete arguments were based on notability and/or what wikipdia is not. Comparing those arguments against deletion policy, there just wasn't a good reason to keep. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talkback

Thanks, but I usually try to avoid that template; just a bit too fancy for my tastes. :) Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's fine with me :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Considering that someone who clearly did not have consensus to remove a section of a policy did so just before you locked this page, you should restore it back to the longstanding consensus version. This is not some mere article, this is a policy page. Right now the policy page is completely lacking a section that is currently policy because of the timing of the lock. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I protect the wrong version? That's unfortunate. However, I am not going to make the final decision as to whether the disputed text is included or not. I am also not going to violate protection policy by both taking part in an edit war at, and protecting, the same article. Sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Either you effectively rewarded the edit warrior[1][2][3] by mistake, or you are in concert with him. This is too important issue to hide behind WP:WRONG at this time. I request you get a second opinion from a (neutral) administrator, because I smell something distinctly fishy about your intervention - sudden, no prior warning, ending with a partisan result.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)