Contents

User talk:Steel: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:59, 22 April 2007

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

But Wikipedia wouldn't let me. Said the page I was trying to move it to already existed, which was true, because I'd already redirected it there. Because there happened to be two edits in that page's history, instead of one, I was unable to overwrite the redirect. So I submitted it for a move request. Nothing happened. What was I supposed to do? Serendipodous 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted a separate article. The article was copied and pasted from planetary formation not solar nebula. Can you please lay off for a few days until I and the others involved in this mess have a chance to decide on final layout? EDIT: revised. I should never post in anger. Serendipodous 13:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert your cut and paste moves. Kindly don't undo me again. – Steel 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to. The discussion on Solar Nebula's talk page does not concern the page you reverted. It concerns the page I cut and pasted, which is a categorically different article. It is not just shorter; it concerns a completely different topic. When you reverted it, you eliminated the data in that article, effectively destroying it. The final layout of the various pages on solar system formation is still in discussion, but I can't have a discussion on a talk page if said talk page no longer refers to the same article. Serendipodous 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you restore the cut and paste move I have been fixing, I will block you. – Steel 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you listened to a word I've said? Serendipodous 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. You moved content from one page to another [1], then wrote a new article in its place [2]. Reverting the C&P move is removing the article you wrote, and what titles to have everything at is still under discussion. – Steel 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand what the problem is here. I moved both the page and its talk page content; the move I made was done after discussion with, and actually suggested by, other editors. This wasn't a random act of personal vandalism. Serendipodous 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content added to Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, meaning that everyone gets attribution for their edits (i.e. their name alongside their edit in the history). Cut and paste moves, like you did, destroy the page history and give you attribution for the work of all these people. This is a violation of the GFDL. I would have moved it properly myself by now, but you've added it to 'contested moves' on WP:RM, and there's a section on the Solar nebula talk page titled 'de-stubify', so I assumed there's dissent somewhere. – Steel 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is. But it's harder for me to make my case if the information I posted no longer exists. Serendipodous 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it does still exist. – Steel 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steel. I saw your comment regarding a view that I endorsed on this RfA. As you suggested, I decided to drop by your talk page and explain my endorsement. I agree with you that the candidate's acceptance of that RfA format does not directly implicate that he'd misuse the tools. However, the consent to such a visibly confusing concept and the tone he used to reply to some of the concerns raised by a few users, made me feel that he might not have the kind of character that I expect in an admin candidate. Administrators should be trustworthy users and I currently cannot deposit my trust in him. My personal view. Best regards, Húsönd 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It's not my intention to badger people about this. – Steel 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I recieved a message from a user named Matrix17 that said you banned him. While I'm not taking sides or anything, he claims that his original 2 week ban was enough punishment for whatever he did and would like for it to return to that penalty. I'm not sure if you're allowed to do this, but are you able to reveal what he did to recieve a ban in the first place? The description said "harrassment" which kind of took me off guard. ImtiazAA 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user talks bollocks 24/7 - I have no idea where this two week ban came from. I blocked her for a month and protected her talk page for a week. After the week was up she started posting insults in Swedish on it (incidentally, towards the same user I blocker her for harassing) and I reprotected it for the remainder of her block. There was an WP:ANI discussion prior to my blocking her, I'm not sure what archive it would have been placed in, but I'll dig it up in a second. – Steel 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive225#Warn or block User:Servant Saber for vendetta against me, edit war is not in wikipedias interest. – Steel 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AtWikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Tito_Ortiz_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29, you declined without giving a reason, only an order. I have tried to speak to Yamla, but Yamla's talk page is protected also. I don't understand this protection. You don't have to un-protect it, but could you please explain it to me? Sancho 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's protected to deal with a banned user who doesn't seem to get the fact that he's banned. I'm leaving Yamla a note to get back to you. – Steel 23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sancho 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you protected Knight about a month ago, but only temporarily. Is there any chance of a lasting semi-protected status? It seems the only thing IP edits are is vandalism anyhow, so I don't see how it would be a problem... If there is some reason not to, could you explain it so I know for later? Thanks! -Bbik 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've reprotected it for 6 weeks, we'll see how it goes. – Steel 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After the relative quite that page had for that month, it's suddenly been really busy with reverts again the past couple days. Impressive just how fast pages get re-targetted. -Bbik 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Your forgot several places where the misleading term student is used.

Covergaard 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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: [3]

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

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]

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]

You should rethink this decline. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]