User talk:Steeletrap

This is Steeletrap's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Tu ne cede malis

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

"I need competence, transparency, and accountability." -- For better or worse, you are unlikely to find all that on Wikipedia, and devoting time and effort towards that goal is a waste of your valuable time, which should be invested in healthier pursuits. Don't lose sleep and joy over some online project, but focus on what makes you happy instead of fighting against what makes you unhappy. Always take care of yourself in priority of Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not: I care about Wikipedia. A lot. The site plays a huge role in informing (or misinforming) the public on a host of issues. My goal is to shed light on the current problems--lazy, unaccountable, and incompetent admins; and to push for some procedural reforms. Suppose for example admins were required to write "opinions" of a few paragraphs or more before they resolved an ANI or other dispute, responding with specificity to arguments on both sides of a dispute, and citing specific policy to justify their rejection or acceptance of certain arguments. Suppose further that virtually admin/arb deliberations had to be conducted in public view (albeit on pages no one but admins/arbs could edit). Don't you think such reforms would boost admin competence and accountability? Not only would they cause current admins to step up their games, but they would dissuade lazy or stupid people from becoming admins, because they would lack the capacity to comply with the rules. Steeletrap (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

I respect Salvidrim! for his responsiveness, however it begs the central question. Why are other Admins unwilling to stand up when an arbitrary and unwarranted block has been imposed? How can the Project expect to attract and retain editors to such an environment? Is WP's model to get whatever good work editors volunteer before they burn out and quit upon learning what Salvidrim! has stated? Can the Project be sustained with a revolving door of such editors who cede control to a permanent core of insiders who use WP as a social network, contrary to stated intent and policy? How can meta-questions such as these be addressed? SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Revenge of the C-Students, SPECIFICO. But there is no 'teacher' to tell the admins to do their homework. 16:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of Salvidrim!'s message and to your request on my talk asking me not to lecture you further about your tone or feelings about the treatment you've endured on WP, I will reserve comment. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Steeletrap. You have new messages at Padenton's talk page.
Message added 13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

― Padenton|✉ 13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Elizabeth Warren. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your persistence, and your work to counter systemic bias on the pedia. - CorbieV^☊ 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Cenk Uygur page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Elmer Barnes

Given global warming and your TBAN, you are treading on thin ice. The reference for Barnes in the lede is Lew Rockwell. To make things worse, the link is dead. Finally you are edit warring. I strongly urge you to stay way from the article (or at least from material in the article with citations involving your TBAN. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning - May 2015

Was the warning in April not enough? Do not revert unless you establish consensus first. You already edit warred about this in February, and if you try it again, I will try and get you banned from this article. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Undead walking: Elizabeth Warren

If you want to open up to question a consensus that has been established, do so on the talk page, not by starting up an edit war. But I'd much prefer you didn't keep kicking a dead horse: the article clearly states that there is no documentary evidence available. It's a matter of folk history within the family. Please leave it at this quite objective presentation. HGilbert (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Hello! Thank you for defending me over on Bink's page. I'm glad someone knew what I was trying to say. I promise that that picture is mine, lol! There isn't any copyright on it. I felt very attacked by that guy, but I'm glad it's cleared up. Have a great day! ZachDelRey (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolezal

Have a look on User:Polentarion/RD. Feedback appreciated. Polentarion Talk 13:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the stuff based on works of Rogers Brubakers scientific work and international media. Would be great to have some support there. I assume its - under the given circumstances - to add voices from actual scholars, insetad of trying to reduce the sections based on various media snippets, as you (and I) have tried in vain so far. Best regards Polentarion Talk 18:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Adding that he was dating his current wife while still married, in the second paragraph, is clearly an attempt to spin the BLP in a negative way. Please don't do that. I'm sure you're aware that there is a "Personal life" section for his marriage information. Doc talk 03:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alumnus

Hi. Can you please show me where the Wikipedia policy/"norm" is on "alumnus"? I have seen this term used very loosely indeed in articles about universities. If you are correct, I will have a case to remove from those articles the names of students who simply attended but did not graduate. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another warning

Don't touch anything related to your topic ban. In your latest transgression you removed sources published by the Mises Institute. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apostasy in Islam

Hi Steeletrap. I want to invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam, regarding a content dispute around recent edits to the article. However, I would ask you to please try to assume good faith; accusing another editor of lying, when it is possible that he/she is simply mistaken is not productive. Please give people the benefit of the doubt, as that is typically more productive. Thanks, - Lindert (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

It appears that you and CounterTime are both violating the three revert rule. Please stop reverting edits on that page, regardless of what CounterTime does. If you continue, you may be blocked, which I hope is unnecessary. I'm posting the same message at CounterTime's page. - Lindert (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Apostasy in Islam

It appears that you are violating the three revert rule. Please stop reverting edits on that page, and participate instead in the talk page to build consensus. If you continue, you may be blocked. --CounterTime (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Steeletrap_reported_by_User:CounterTime_.28Result:_.29. Thank you.

--CounterTime (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are risking a block

Please see this comment at WP:AN3. You and CounterTime could both be blocked for warring at Apostasy in Islam. There may still be time for you to respond. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the edit warring report about Apostasy in Islam

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Steeletrap reported by User:CounterTime (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cenk Uygur

This material is poorly sourced, outdated and violates the strict requirements of WP:BLP.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to delete my statement about Cenk Uygur referencing the Armenian Genocide. He referenced the genocide in the referenced material. Whether or not you personally believe it to indicate that he currently believes in the Genocide is beside the point. And if you believed the statement was worded in a way that implied bias, you could have simply reworded it. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Your edit summary for the second revert was rather condescending. I have to question your good faith. By the way, my edit was not SYN. SYn refers to the synthesis of multiple statements to reach a conclusion. My source relied on a single statement. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, improper use of Syn. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe that your case is solid, present the issue for discussion at talk: Cenk Uygur before reverting the edit. Doing otherwise can be considered edit warring. --Stephen C Wells (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Religious views of Adolf Hitler, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]