User talk:Steel

; Archives
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Click here to leave a new message

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	259	4	7	98	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	2 days, 4 hours	no	report

semi-protection of Richard Hell listing

Hi Steel, thanks for granting my request for protection but "66" user had reverted prior to your protection. I don't think his/her version should be the one that stays up - his/her wholesale reversions w/o discussion (eventually saying some 1-sided unsubstantiated things) are not in wiki spirit. Any way to revert back to non-66 version and require real discussion/votes, etc? Or just a shorter, less pov post? THanks!

We're not really supposed to favour one version over another per policy. There's nothing overly-PoV that I can see in his edits that would warrant immediate removal (please tell me if I'm missing something). – Steel 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess b/c he doesn't respond to the discussion page or his own talk page to address the specifics (he just keeps reverting), all that protecting his version will do will waste time till May 1. If another version is protected, he will respond, most likely, and the protect can serve its purpose. Thanks for your time.

Yeah. I didn't want to do that at first because he was sort of discussing it, but now it's been eight days since he's edited the talk page. – Steel 09:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something evil has happened and I wonder if you are aware; user "66" signed his last discussion post as "Roosterer" and then proceeded to get someone (dcmit?-I don't remember the tag now) to block every single anon on that page as "blocked as abusive" EXCEPT for "66" (ie, he got "Roosterer" banned too) AND he got the version he wanted put up (CLEARLY showing beyond all doubt he won't engage in gd faith discussion) protected; there is no edit history for the reversion; Please follow up; I also think this behavior should have "66" banned; if that is not possible a SEVERE reprimand if such exists. It was highly abusive and dishonest.4.236.15.182 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't make the slightest bit of sense, not least because nobody on that page has been blocked. – Steel 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Huntercombe Group

Hi Steel, Users WOULD potentially go to the site the learn about head injury - the PDFs, in particular, talk about the ailments and treatment areas associated with Head Injury - and the various discussion fora, publications, and news are there for practitioners in the head injury area to discuss and learn more about head injury treatment, rather than about The Group in isolation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nialldimex (talk • contribs)

I'm not convinced, especially as they site map makes it clear that the website is pretty much entirely about the service. On a side note, the only pdfs I found were of some newsletter. – Steel 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you're convinced or not, this is the case - and, incidentally, the PDFs in the service level pages talk about, for example, eating disorders and how they will be treated Nialldimex 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How they will be treated indeed. – Steel 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel - apologies for the hassle - but what's the problem with the Huntercombe Hospital Maidenhead content? The page is about the hospital, and I added contact information and a link to the website.. Was this spam?? Nialldimex 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one of the reasons I gave [1]. Oh, and quit adding your links back into articles. – Steel 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if it was a pre-existing article ABOUT the hospital, how can adding the address and other contact details for that hospital be spam??? Nialldimex 09:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop removing the links then! Nialldimex 09:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia Protection

First of all Steel, the photo on your user page is exquisitely beautiful. I'm not saying that to try to butter you up, either (to do my bidding). Seriously, love the pic.

That out of the way, just a simple request: You protected Islamophobia here: [2]

But as of right now there is a legitimate edit that needs to take place. Per this user's comment here and this little CFD here can we please remove the category Category:Anti-Islam sentiment from the Islamophobia page? Thanks --ProtectWomen 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like that image, though unfortunately can't take credit for it. At any rate, it appears someone else got to that category before me. – Steel 13:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Islamophobia. The dispute has been resolved. KazakhPol 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Log

Why did you delete the page for GFN? I worked very hard on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.14.125 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What on Earth is GFN? – Steel 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A descriptive header

I'm not sure what you mean? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered, but no. If you take a look at the articles I spend the majority of my time on, a lot of them were/are in a poor state and in need of plenty of improvement, and the number of editors who are actually doing anything about it are small in number. It's further compounded by a lot of source material being in books, so it's just not something that can be done by that many people. If I was sysopped (which isn't likely anyway once people do the standard digging) I'd inevitably find myself sidetracked sorting out all sorts of problems and performing the obligatory admin tasks, and I'd rather spend my time more creatively. Thanks anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester meet-up

By this, can I take it you wouldn't be interested in attending a Manchester meet-up?! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish man! There is a great restaurant near the Chinese arch... Guy (Help!) 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it's not called "Man Ho" like one here in Notts is... – Steel 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (Note to self: Think before posting – Steel 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Rouged up

These are not the droids you are looking for. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, cheers Guy. – Steel 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tut tut tut. Did you call that troll a troll? WjBscribe 03:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think he'd have done a better job of convincing everyone he wasn't a troll if he hadn't called me a faggot on ED. Not that "faggot" really that offensive anyway... – Steel 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football

Could you reconsider your decision not to award semi-protected status to this page. Look how many times the page has been vandalised in the last couple of days.[3]. This is on-going and has been like this for over a year, check the history. Thank you.GordyB 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone else got there before me. – Steel 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Protection on Jimmy Wales

I caught your comments at RFP regarding monitoring the situation at Jimmy Wales. I've opened an RfC on the issue, as I believe the disputed section should not be included until it is determined whether it meets WP:BLP. Regards,--Leflyman^Talk 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ping me if there are any problems. – Steel 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the situation has worsened; Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs) has continued in the Wales smear-campaign, supported by an additional tendentious user QuackGuru (talk · contribs). Rather than waiting for further comments from outside editors, he has reverted the disputed section, added even more biased language, and returned nebulous claims of "soft-core pornography" as a description for Bomis. I'm fairly close to giving up on trying to fend off such nonsense.--Leflyman^Talk 00:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone 1am here and I'm too tired to sort this out now. If it can't wait until tomorrow, bring it up on WP:ANI or something. – Steel 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with David D on the talk page - if the language is biased, edit it. There appear to be several people who want the section included. – Steel 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it previously; particular users keep returning the biased language. And again, per WP:BLP, more so than any other articles, biographies need strict adherence to NPOV -- contentious material should be removed unless the specific claims being made can be sourced, and presented in a "neutral, factual, and understated" fashion. As noted by Wales, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". --Leflyman^Talk 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familliar with WP:BLP, thanks. The only problem is that nobody on the talk page, nor me, nor any of the god knows how many people who read the section before you removed it a few days ago think the disputed section violates it. – Steel 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I hope you don't mind, I put a notice on the User:VolcanoXeni user page, RE: the indefinite block, with a wikilink to the relevant WP:ANI discussion. I warned the user previously, as have others, and I have no objections to your block itself, unless the user apologizes and/or makes some sort of statement on his talk page... Smee 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No problems here. I don't bother to do this kind of thing myself because generally someone else will come along and do it for me ;) – Steel 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, just wanted to let you know. Yours, Smee 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism at Chinaman

The article is still being vandalised, this time by another IP, but with basically the same vandalism. Please reconsider semi-protection. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected now. – Steel 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on User:Davesmith33

Hi Steel, thanks for the block on DaveSmith. Looks like a good one to me. Best as always, Gwernol 11:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, thanks for taking swift action. It's always a shame when someone gets an indef block, but he's been given every opportunity to change and not taken it. DrFrench 11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Nobody can say we weren't patient. – Steel 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPP Script

.. kinda working now, I think. 5:30am here now but I'll give you more of a report later - Alison ☺ 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic...

That the featured support article today, above, is er...was(?) about sockpuppets!

Hi there :) As you're the latest admin to have deleted the persistent RoboImport article, I have a request--I hope it's not improper, please forgive me if so: my WikiLore is still only intermediate.

I have a strong suspicion that RoboImport (currently in Deletion Review) and PicaJet (currently in AfD discussion, here, were both created by and are being argued FOR on the referenced forums by sockpuppets. My summary of the situation (from the Deletion Review discussion on RoboImport) is as follows:

Honordrive created PicaJet (now being discussed in AfD). No other contributions. Armypower joins WP out of the blue to defend PicaJet in AfD (and to list Softpedia--biggest proponent of PicaJet products--for reversal in this forum). Beganstory creates an account today to argue for the overturn of RoboImport's deletion--mounting an argument very similar to Armypower's (improper process). Not sure who created RoboImport, since it's not part of the deletion log... But I'm willing to bet my swanky new laptop it's a single-purpose recent account. As I stated on the PicaJet AfD: I want to assume good faith and all, but I smell socks. :/

Today, Spokeroad appeared for the (apparent) single purpose of deleting Armypower's comment on the PicaJet AfD forum--which looks like yet another sockpuppet attempting to cover the tracks of the previous.

I want to file a CheckUser request, but I can't see the history of RoboImport to know who created it--I don't know if asking for that imformation is improper, but I imagine it is, since there must be a reason the article history is no longer available. Yet it seems to me the CheckUser request would be incomplete without this information...

Do you have any advice on how I should proceed?

Thanks for your time!

Best wishes,

Wysdom 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RoboImport has been created numerous times by several "different" users: Photopeep (talk · contribs), Loopwiped (talk · contribs), Legalmaybe (talk · contribs) and Spacevalid (talk · contribs). I don't think a checkuser is necessary - these are clear sockpuppets or meatpuppets. They've been identified as SPAs and their opinions will be discounted by whoever closes the AfD and DRV. I'll watch over both discussions just to make sure things don't get out of control. – Steel 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Image:Windows Media Player 11 XP.png

If you revert that again I'm going to block you... again. – Steel 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having to stop to revert to the themodernizer's version - but now, can you PLEASE revert to my version and keep it! Jigs41793 ^{Contact me} 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]