|This is Steeletrap's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Steeletrap.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
Tu ne cede malis
|The Austria Barnstar of National Merit|
|Presented to User Steeletrap.|
"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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
―13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)|
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)