User talk:Steel

Archives
April 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – September 2006

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Asilvering	158	0	0	100	Open	09:15, 6 September 2024	3 days, 8 hours	no	report

RfA

I'm curious about your opinion. I'd like maybe to request for adminship now: I have 12 000 edits in hungarian wiki, 4000 here, I think I know the softver, I coordinate here two main projects, I'm active member of Wikipedia Release Version 0.5 review team, Good article project, Stub sorting... I love removing backlogs, now I minimized my activity on my other admin projects, and focus every energy to here. I want to help the community so much. But during the voting, I'd like also to continue admin coaching. What do you think? NCurse _work 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It'd be very kind of you. :) You find any important fact about me on my user page. Thanks in advance! NCurse _work 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've answered both mails. NCurse _work 17:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Done. NCurse _work 18:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. :) I'll give more attention to these. NCurse _work 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Hurricane Katrina

Well, that goes to show how often I look at the main page, I honestly had no idea. Oops. —freak(talk) 06:37, Sep. 30, 2006 (UTC)

Well, Thanks

Well, thanks for the love. I'm not totally certain why you do, but it is appreciated. Giant onehead 20:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although he basically set him up himself, couldn't resist. Giant onehead 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice :)

I was just adding him to the CVU blacklist when I was pinged by your edit coming thru IRC (my talk is a watched page), thanks! Glen 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Serial spammer still at it after two blocks

Hi. After being blocked by you on 21:24, 17 September 2006 , immediately returning to linkspam advertising of his own blog, and being blocked by User:William M. Connolley on 20:49, 20 September 2006, the anon IP user User:24.60.85.190 (talk), undaunted, came back to serially spam pages on Sept. 23. (See here). Blocking doesn't seem to stop him, and other editors beside myself are spending much time on cleanup after him. Is there anything that can be done with this recidivist? Thanks for any help. -- Tenebrae 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Righto. I was away for a few days. Thanks again! -- Tenebrae 15:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest

Hi Steel, Thank you for your interest in my voting patterns. I very rarely compromise on my minimum criteria; I try to remain consistent (and, by extension, fair). It looks as though the nominee in question will be confirmed without a single oppose vote, so I'm curious as to why you happen to be so concerned with the neutral votes in this case. Themindset 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We do not seem to be hearing each other. I feel I've answered your question, but you haven't answered mine... Themindset 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Principles are a great thing to have. One of my principles is that I will not consider supporting unless my minimum edit count criteria are met. By applying these principles consistently, they are applied fairly. To answer your other questions:

• why do you neutral or oppose candidates based on arbitrary edit counts?
  • The edit counts are very easy to reatch (without AWB), simply 5 or 6 mainspace edits a day for 6 months will get 1000 mainspace edits. A thousand mainspace edits is my rock-hard minimum (and my decision is based on when the RfA is started, not achieving the criteria midway through the RfA), I do not waiver on this point. Like I've stated, it's the principle of the matter. In fact, it would be much easier to support an RfA where there's over 50 supports and no opposes (I wouldn't be required to explain myself, certainly).
• Would you prefer a candidate who has simply inflated their edit count with AWB?
  • No. I wouldn't. (I feel that this question is largely rhetorical.)
• Also, why did you go neutral when NCurse only failed the mainspace requirement by mere 20 edits?
  • This is my absolute, rock-hard minimum. Themindset 19:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit counts are simply my minimum to consider supporting. Therefore the 3000 AWB edits would not garner my automatic support, indeed I would be quite concerned as to whether the nom had any real article-building experience (this is usually evidenced by article talk-page edits). If the 900 mainspace edits were large and valuable, as you suggested, and the user (as a result) had at least 1FA, and this would certainly make me consider waiving my 1000 minimum. But this would be a rare exception (I've only made such an exception once, that I can remember). I certainly hope this clears up everything. Themindset 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Because, in general, that is my criteria. As I said, I make exceptions only in very rare circumstances (ie only once). All this is covered in the initial wikilink to my RFA standards. Themindset 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. I use the words generally and usually, both terms clearly imply that there is a degree of latitude involved. Themindset 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your interest in my evaluation process, and the fact that you clearly do not agree with it. Please note that my evaluation is done in good faith, and that I try to be respectful and civil. And I especially thank you for being friendly and open-minded. Happy editing. Themindset 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Palkia

Could you please have a word with Inforazer (talk · contribs)? He's giving me preverbial pelters. (A regional team, meaning to give a hard time!) Highway ^Daytrippers 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

a thief of time

i'm curious as to why you deleted the article on the tony hillerman book A Thief Of Time. Gringo300 02:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rules

That may be, but blanking talk pages because of it is also against the rules, of which you broke as well. Inforazer 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You should know that already, if not you shouldn't be an admin. Blanking something like that especially since it when it was in good faith and wasn't harmful, is bad form. Please understand what Wiki is NOT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_Bureaucracy Inforazer 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

Even on that very page, where you are supposed to assume good faith it states, "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." Which was what the discussion was about. Speculating on Palia's type before it became verifiable information. Initially someone said it was a water type when it did not look like a water type, and someone voiced that opinion which was valid since no source was given to indicate that information. Clearly the discussion has no meaning now because the types have been verified, but blanking the discussion because someone wants to save face in an argument isn't acceptable. Inforazer 14:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)