Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 21 April 2009

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 (N+1)

Welcome!

Hello, SheffieldSteel, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

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.

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Misplaced Pages question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Misplaced Pages sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Misplaced Pages should use.

The deletion discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit-warring on Talk:Firearm

Since you've never been blocked, I'm not going to issue one now. But you should consider this a final warning since you have clearly violated WP:3RR. Please review WP:edit warring and WP:Dispute resolution in order to avoid this kind of situation in future. Thanks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

per Talk:Firearm - I have a question. Don't take this the wrong way, because I will heed your warning about edit warring, and do accept the final warning on the merits that i was edit warring. However, you said that I 'clearly' violated 3RR. I am not sure how this is the case. I do understand that 3RR can be interpreted rather loosely, and it doesn't have to be 4 reverts in 24 hours to be 3RR. However, I had 4 reverts in 96 hours, and all my reverts were to undo the modification of my words under the guise that the phrase 'POV' was 'hate speech'. yes, i edit warred. but did i 'clearly' violate 3rr? i really don't think the acronym 'POV' is 'offensive hate speech', so i felt somewhat justified in removing the fallacious claim. if someone reverts me for a reason that is clearly wrong, shouldn't i be able to add it back? i mean, this guy has been blocked over 10 times for NPA, 3RR, and so on, amongst his various sockpuppet accounts, and he's been warned countless times. every time i've tried to reason with him, he just makes personal attacks and reverts all attempts at discussion with him on his talk page as 'vandalism'. but anyway, was it really 'clearly' 3RR? and in the future, if someone reverts you with a blatantly fallacious reasoning, shouldn't you be allowed to explain to them that they're wrong, revert them, and report them, without facing potential consequences? if you just let someone get away with making unnecessary changes based on false premises, don't we end up with an encyclopedia with bullies getting the final say, regardless of the merits of their changes? Theserialcomma (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated response. Looking back over the history, I see that I was mistaken about the 3RR violation, and that you are quite correct. Thank you for understanding my warning and accepting it in the spirit in which it was offered, i.e. a warning against edit warring in general.

I personally feel that editors should usually be warned about edit warring rather than violating the three revert rule. Unfortunately, the latter is simpler to understand, evaluate and enforce (barring admin error, of course!) and so it tends to be cited more often. If you read up on 3RR, you'll see that there are a few important exceptions - cases where reverts will not be counted against you. It's a very good idea to study that list, and in the cases not listed, seek assistance from other editors. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise if I came across as hostile. I seem to be getting grouchy lately. It's something I'm going to have to address. I stand by the fact that someone in that editing exchange should have commented on the talk page before I did, but I was wrong to jump down your throat. I pretty much agree that no further reverts should be made until consensus has been established through discussion, but I also believe that the person who reverts has to initiate the discussion. If there is no discussion started, I think it is reasonable to assume participants are happy to settle the dispute through editing. Hiding T 12:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Eye.earth evading your block

Hey - as you were kind enough to respond to my post at WP:AN/I and are the blocking admin for Eye.earth (talk · contribs), I thought I'd let you know that he's using his local public library to evade his block with 216.190.22.200 (talk). See and . Thought I'd bring it here; I think it's worth a longer block on the Eye.earth account for obvious block evasion, but I'm hardly objective having long ago reached the point of frustration with him. So I'll leave it up to you. MastCell  20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking into this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Back for more with 216.190.22.151 (talk) (see ). Would you be willing to semiprotect zidovudine for a bit, as opposed to blocking the entire Sacramento Public Library system? Probably also worth giving Eye.earth (talk · contribs) a formal sanction for repeated block evasion, but up to you. MastCell  20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. The original block would have expired by now had actually expired! Ah well, I've dealt with it. Extended the block to 48 hours per WP:EVADE and semiprotected the article for a week. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're too nice. Thanks for looking into this. MastCell  15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User name change

Thank you for telling me, but I actually like it the way it is. One little typo dose not hurt me unless it is in the book I am writing.Hawkey131 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Boyle AfD

Bingo. That's exactly what I would have liked to say to explain why I was fighting so hard to keep it open. Thanks for articulating it for me. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. I hope people listen. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished

If you're about, could I ask you to take a look at water ionizer? One editor (using at least 2 IP's) is persistently edit-warring to insert inappropriate material. They've violated 3RR (if you total their reverts under various IPs), but semiprotection might be more useful than blocks since their IPs appear somewhat dynamic. Anyhow, wondering if you'd be willing to take a look - if not, I'll send it to WP:RFPP. MastCell  23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi me again! the ones that doesnt know anything about wikipedia

sooo i got kicked out again, or should i sai my finrad page got deleted. if you check the wikipedia of SunGard, who is similar to FinRad, they are up and running and not getting deleted. Have i done something wrong? they are not really different from the page i had created. let mek now. thanks for your help! Yslane (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me look into this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

Please take a look at this.

Both users who reverted my edits did not cite any reason, Future Perfect of Sunrise made an unsubstantiated claim of plagiarism, for which he was challenged to substantiate, and the next reverted citing no reason whatsoever. I am afraid edit-warring is ahead, and I am afraid to revert the article because of the three-revert rule, since am a newbie here can you help me out here by guiding me on what should I do next? Can I revert the article? As it stands there is no argumentative reason not to since my edits are very clean as you can see.

Thank you and have a nice day.--Gkeorgke (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute

Hello. I'm afraid that you've overreacted a bit. You see, that map was not added by me at all, it was in the article already. See the history of the article. Don't you think that Δρακόλακκος should discuss it and get consensus, since he is the one that deliberately removed the map without discussion? Bomac (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that you're trying to deceive me with that link, but I'm going to assume you simply made a mistake in posting it here. Perhaps you used the wrong link? It shows the state of the article on the 16th of April, after you added the disputed map. Please, if you have not already done so, read The Bold-Revert-Discuss Cycle for more on harmonious editing. When an edit of yours is disputed, you can either accept that it doesn't have support, or you can discuss the edit in the hopes of getting a consensus for it. The other party has the same options. What is not acceptable is continuing to revert other editors reversions. This is edit warring, it is disruptive to Misplaced Pages, and to prevent such disruption editors may be blocked from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

There is a request for arbitration regarding the naming dispute regarding the Republic of Macedonia and the recent unilateral move of the article to Macedonia by User:ChrisO. I know that you were at best peripherally involved, but I thought that you might be interested in making comments. The request currently has four accept votes and no rejections, so I think that it will probably be accepted by the end of the day, and comments from any and all parties knowledgable about the subject will probably be welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, John. I'll certainly be following the case, and will contribute if I feel I can help. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your contribution to the arbitration page, I feel I should make one small but important correction - I only moved the page, I didn't touch the move permissions. I feel your wording is a bit ambiguous on that point and could be misinterpreted; maybe you could have another look at it? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, let me check that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Corrected. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Newly discovered disease

Just today I invented a name for a disease we see around here. I call it "because I can" syndrome. Thought you might be interested, since it's the same thing you've just described at AN/I. Friday (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting essay - thanks for the link. People do tend to rely upon what is / is not expressly forbidden, rather than what might be productive or controversial. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

... and just because you should do something, doesn't mean that you can. :) MastCell  20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on ANI. I'm a bit perplexed by the discussion there that an uncivil user posting a duplicitous external link and forging a media-wiki interface is being condoned, yet this well-intended admin is being bashed. It's clear that I spend far too much time trying to help this project. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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 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 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 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)