User talk:Robertsteadman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See block log.
(toolbox: contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)


Welcome!

Hello, Robertsteadman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Djegan 18:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Social Democratic Party of Poland

Please don't link isolated years unless they're really important - see the Manual of Style at WP:DATE#Avoid overlinking dates. Colonies Chris 13:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect/move

Hi! If you create a page with wrong capitalisation, you can move the page to the desired name. Just click the move button located over the headline. If you spot duplicate articles you can redirect it to another target by blanking the page and inserting #REDIRECT [[Insert text]]. Clicking the #R button right over the text field in an easy way to insert this.

When you redirect pages don't forget to supply a reason in the edit summary field right below the text field. Actually, it is preferable that an edit summary is supplied for every edit, large or small. Regards, Punkmorten 20:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Just access FIFA Pro Licence, click the move button (which is a bit right of the edit button) and type the desired name. Are you sure it's EUFA and not UEFA? Punkmorten 11:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, UEFA. Thanks. Robertsteadman 11:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Robsteadman

Hello. There has been some discussion on the administrator's noticeboard about whether or not you are User:Robsteadman. You have a similar name and some similar editing habits (more precisely, you've edited some of the same articles as Robsteadman had interest in). I was wondering if you could perhaps clarify whether or not you are actually Robsteadman? I think it's polite to ask you directly. If you're not, perhaps you could explain where you got the idea for your username from? Thanks. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter? Robertsteadman 18:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure. If you are Robsteadman then many administrators will support a ban. I'm asking you to be polite, as there are methods that can be used to attempt to determine your identity, which are in line with the Privacy Policy you agreed to when you registered this account. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter then there is no need for you to ask the question and no need for me to answer. Robertsteadman 18:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your time, either way. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Melanieslade.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Melanieslade.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thought it was "fair use" but forgot to tick that box. Robertsteadman 18:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling & a Porsche

Thanks for that - I still haven't seen the film so I'm not up to date with that one. The concert was great - a most interesting and unusual program. Your stuff was very good and the students did really well with it. I will confess that the highlight for me was the flute ensemble piece as of course I'm biased that way but the whole evening was very enjoyable. Your ex pupil seems to be an insipring teacher - I'll keep an eye out for other concerts as it was quite easy to get to from here. Nice to meet the (in)famous Rob at last! Sophia 15:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User stats

What tool are you using to get your user stats? The one I used to use doesn't work anymore and I haven't found another one. Sophia 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_edit_counters/Flcelloguy%27s_Tool - it's a little app you download - seems to work well! Robertsteadman 16:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Sophia 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Rocksidehydro.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rocksidehydro.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Kelly

Could I ask that if you are happy with the article as it is, that further debate on what exactly defines nationality (especially in an area as complex as this - see British_Isles (terminology)) is not going to be of benefit, and in any case not especially relavent to the Ruth Kelly page. I would also suggest that commenting that some are "keen to instigate an arguement" is not a very civil comment, and not helpful to reduce any tensions. Regards, MartinRe 08:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My 'Problem'

Rob, I am genuinely mystified as to why you think I have a problem. If there is some way that I can change your mind or convince you that I don't, could you please let me know. Thanks. Frelke 10:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So the problem is my attempting to keep copies of the original User talk:Robsteadman archives. At least now I know what it is. Is there anything I can do to convince you of my contrition on the issue ? Frelke 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You know it's more than that - please stop. I will not reply to any further "messages" from you. Robertsteadman 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Kelly / Editing in general

Rob, looking at your recent edits on the Ruth Kelly talk page, I think you could help the situation if you calmed down a bit. Obviously, people are going to have different views from you, from time to time, on what should & shouldn't appear in articles - in my experience the best way to resolve these differences and promote a harmonious editing community is to discuss the issues calmly, rationally and patiently, and try to avoid the temptation to criticise others' contributions no matter how strongly you disagree with them. All the best SP-KP 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mending Wall

None of the reasons you gave for deleting the article on this poem fit under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Only blatant copyvios less than 48 hours may be speedied, otherwise possible issues should be discussed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. (In this case, as it happens, Wikipedia:Public domain makes it clear that there are no copyrights on works prior to 1923.) As for the poem being non-notable, you can use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to delete it if you feel that's the case. Thanks, SCZenz 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Copyright exists on music and poetry etc. until 70 years after the death of the composer or author. It does not become public domain. So, as Frost didn't die more than 70 years ago, this poem is still in copyright. Robertsteadman 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Try blanking the page and replacing all the content with {{copyvio}}. then following the instructions on the page. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this, but Wikipedia:Public domain does say what I just said it says. Also, be aware that the poem is selectively quoted; perhaps you could just fix the extra quoting, rather than trying to get rid of the article. -- SCZenz 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
OK but I've written articles on copyright (in respect of music but the same law applies to other arts) and copyright remains for 70 years after teh death of the composer/author/creator. WP might be right re: images but not for music, books, poetry. I stil don't see how the article is valid even if the poem is selectively quoted - not an important poem and not HIS most major. Do all his poems have their own article or should some analysis of his writing style simply be part of the pot's article? Robertsteadman 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Some poems have their own articles, others don't. Deletion of things that are non-notable is a controversial subject on Wikipedia, and for this reason allegedly non-notable articles are not eligible for speedy deletion. If you brought this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I might very well agree with you, but that's not something I've even considered yet. My comments regard only with the speedy deletion. P.S. If Wikipedia:Public domain is wrong, I'd urge you to read it over and fix it—and if I misread it, please let me know. -- SCZenz 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't intended to put it for speedy delete - that was an error, and was surprised when it instantly disappeared! But it is a copyvio and the poem is non-notable. Robertsteadman 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's a blatant copyvio then putting it through a seven day deletion process is completely over the top. It just needs to be deleted, not the article, necessarily, but the copyvio. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan Meikle

Here's waht was in the article: "Duncan Miekle is currently the Headteacher of Lady Manners School, Bakewell, Derbyshire. His appointment began in January 2006." Is there anything else that might suggest notability? As is it would only qualify for a mention in the Lady Manners School article. People aren't notable for being the head teachers of a school, they must have done somthing else. If I didn't delete it then another person would. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK but it seemed very quick with little chance for extra informatio to be added. I think Head Teachers of particularly successful or prominent schools ought to have articles as they ARE notable. When you look at some of the rubbish on WP a successful and notable headteacher seems absolutely roight to be included. But hey....Robertsteadman 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Robertsteadman

It matters. Please answer the question. Robsteadman (talk • contribs) is indefinitely blocked. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I couldn't find a question on your talk page and just stumbled across this. Robert was unblocked based on a discussion on AN and per terms that he agreed to at User:Syrthiss/Robertsteadman. Syrthiss 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune High School

Maybe I've just totally lost it here, but from the history it looks like you created the article yourself with only the AfD notice. Maybe it was accidental or something? In case you meant to take a different article to AfD, I'd thought I mention it (incidentally, the article itself would therefore qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7). BryanG(talk) 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope - I didn't create it! Robertsteadman 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Hi,

Just so you know, it really is true -- everything published in the US prior to 1923 is in the public domain -- even with the 28 extension formerly granted under law, anything of this age would have its copyright lapse before the Bono Act, and no act in US ever restores copyright already lapsed. Not only am I a lawyer, but also I confirmed this issue with my law school professor several years ago after a similar dispute arose on Wikipedia. If you doubt us, the (relatively) simple Princeton University chart at external links in US Copyright Law gives the same explanation in graphic form. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong - anything which had gone out of copyright does not get restored but Frost's work, for instance, remains in copyright until 70 years after his death. It never came out of copyright so it does not need to be restored to copyright. the date of publication is a red herring. WP and Ws are wrong on this and, if not careful, careless editing and poor adjudication will lead to it getting into trouble. Robertsteadman 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr Steadman, at the time of its publication, this poem was eligible for 56 + 28= 74 years of copyright, if properly renewed, without regard to the life of the author. Its copyright lapsed in 1988. This is conveniently confirmed also by an English textbook I have in my hands, published in 1996, which says that the poem is in the public domain. I (and my copyright law professor) are quite correct. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You (and your copyright professor) are wrong. Date of publication has no relevance to when the copyright of te content of an artistic work expires. the date of publication only effects the imprint's copyright. Mending Wall does not come out of copyright until 70 years after the death of the author. 2033. I do hope your copyright professor isn't teaching you everything so badly. Robertsteadman 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It is possible, Mr. Steadman, that our misunderstanding arises from a continental difference. Do you hail from Europe? In Europe, historically, date of publication is irrelevant to these analyses; in conformance with treaty obligation US has recently moved in this direction as well. However, throughout the history of the US until the 1980s, date of publication was the determinant of copyright. This is why, contra European expectations, US publications rigorous placed notice on every published work, "Copyright 19XX. All right reserved", etc. Also contra Europe, the US cared not a whit about the author's life (his rights to "artistic integrity" -- for example, in the performance of parody -- are still not as respected in US law as in Europe.) US law, historically regarded the lifetime of the author as irrelevant to copyright. This is, perhaps, why the result in this case seems so unacceptable to you. Nevertheless, the result is that all texts published prior to 1923 in the United States are in the public domain in the United States. Despite the late Rep. Bono's love for copyright holders, it was never his intention to extend protection to lapsed rightholders, and the law is so written. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, and the point is that the copyright on that poem hadn't lapsed - it never came out of copyright and won't until 2033. Why have the Gershwin estatepublishers been so rigorous in defending their copyrights in recent decades? The copyright to which you refer is the imprint NOT the content. Sonny Bono extended the life of currently copyrighted pieces of music, poetry, etc. This includes all that had not expired copyright - Frost's works are not out of copyright and will not be for a couple more decades. Robertsteadman 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Steadman, Mr. Gershwin's famous works are all post-1923 -- their copyright never lapsed because they are younger than this poem. Xoloz 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As I suggested at DRV, please take the matter to Foundation legal counsel, User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in a manner better than I can. Until then, I do ask that you acknowledge the possibility you could be wrong, and at least stop suggesting Wikipedia is doing something illegal. If User:Brad Patrick can't convince you, I suggest you retain your own counsel, who will do so. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on a more thorough examination of your userpage, I infer that it is likely that you reside in the United Kingdom; I again humbly suggest that the cause of this misunderstanding is an historical difference of the essential premises of copyright law between our two nations, a difference now rectified by treaty, but one which does rear its head in the discussion of older works whose rights have lapsed. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! I am an intellectual property attorney. I refer you to Information Circular 15t of the U.S. Copyright Office, which states:

Works published before January 1, 1923, have fallen into the public domain, but works published after that date could still be protected by copyright if the copyright was renewed by registration or automatically by law under Public Law 102-307.

In short, everything published prior to January 1, 1923 is in the public domain, regardless of when the author died or if they secured a copyright on the material at any time. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nottinghamshire articles

Would you help me get some to featured status??? I'd appreciate some help with the Retford article! --Sunholm(talk) 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a go!!! Robertsteadman 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me know any Nottingham/Lincolnshire-related articles you're editing (on my talk page) - if you

are, you can help me get them to featured article status --Sunholm(talk) 13:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!!!

Now, now no need to be so rude with reporting me etc. Can you do such things on Wikipedia?!! i didnt realise that this for like primary school. How about actually thinking about whether any changes i made were suitable rather than reverting COMPLETELY to the previous article!!! So no need for nastiness on Wikipedia - i don't like it!!Wikinorthernireland 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your edits and comments with 4 tildes (Robertsteadman 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)). I did consider whether any of your edits had validity - they didn't -that's why I reverted them. Yes, if people keep breaking the rules, POV pushing or simply vandalising they can be reporte - nothing to do with Primary School but acting in a grown up way. Try it. Robertsteadman 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

oh my god you are being so rude to me. There really is NO NEED!!!! and i;m pretty sure the stuff i wrote was relevant. Therefore seeing as you're so interested in the content i would like you to have a go and improve the article!!!! lol

Oh and why do you keep sending me a practical joke page thru my messages. Is this all a laugh for you. I don't understand!!

And by the way i'm not vandalising anything. and what authority would you have to say i am- surely are you not just another user??? i really don't "get" wikipedia!!! Just adding some factual info -all referenced. Feel free to tidy it up!!! Wikinorthernireland 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (adding my tildes now!!) If you don't fancy changing the article its ok - i don't mind because i don't think you'll bother and you'll revert anything i write anyhow. i'm not that bothered really!!! Good luck with everything and rem no more nasty/mean comments. I'm sure thats against the rules and i could report you for that!!! (if i knew how) - only joking!

All the best! Wikinorthernireland 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Ruth Kelly.  Your block will expire in 12 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 18:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan

Please don't be so silly - I was reverting blatant POV pushing by someone trying to make out that Ruth Kelly is irish rather than British.

I asked for THEIR changes to be discussed but they continued.

Some of the changes were ones which have been discussed and agreed upon before.

Please remove this block.

I will post this on my talk page too.

Rob

Sorry, but the 3RR rule stands regardless. WP:3RR says the only types of reverts that don't count are self reverts, reverts of simple vandalism, and reverting posts of banned users, none of which these are. However, if you promise me that you will not revert on that article for 24 hours then I will unblock you. Such is the spirit of 3RR. Bear in mind that I will hold you to such a promise, if you decide to make one. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 18:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove the block please . I will revert any further misuse of the page.Robertsteadman 18:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you won't promise not to revert, then the block still stands. Sorry, but 3RR exists for a reason. I am watching the other involved party for 3RR violations as well, as of yet they're still within the 3RR. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'm sure you are watching the other party. I promise to abide by WP rules (which I have) so blatant misuse of the page I will revert. I promise not to gratuitously revert, only vandalism and POV pushing (which amounts to vandalism). Robertsteadman 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Now please lift the block. Robertsteadman 18:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Simple vandalism. I can't say whether the other party is POV pushing or not due to no knowledge of Ruth Kelly, but I do know that POV pushing is not simple vandalism. Infact, if you read WP:3RR then it says that "the test applied to determine simple vandalism is usually quite strict". --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 18:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Now please lift the block. I am surprised you decided to do this off you own back without anyone asking for involvement. Considering our history I think your actions are rather amazing. Please remove the block. Robertsteadman 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No. You fail to recognise that reverting POV pushing is not exempt from 3RR, and therefore do not agree to abide by the 3RR. Again, the block stands. I advise you to time out, wait for the block to expire, then get back to your usual constructive work. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 18:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So, this wasn't reported on 3RR.... and no warning.... and our history.... hmmm.... VERY interesting. I am happy to leave Ruth Kelly alone (so to speak) so I have promised not to revert (except within the rules that WP allows) so please lift the ban. Robertsteadman 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No report on WP:AN/3RR because that serves for a place for non-administrators to get admin attention. There's no need to put a report on there if I can act on it myself. No warning because the block log on your previous account shows you are fully aware of the 3RR rule. As I have said before, I will unblock if (and only if) you promise not to revert Ruth Kelly again, abide by the 3RR, and acknowledge that not reverting includes not reverting POV pushing. It's that simple. Please, lets not go round in circles here. Do you agree to those terms or not? --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree to abide by the rules of WP. That is sufficient. I will revert if there are things that should be reverted and are allowed within the rules. Now please unblock. Robertsteadman 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You never agreed to the terms I layed out. I'm sorry, but unless you clearly state "I agree to the terms you layed out", I won't unblock, nor will I reply here. I have no desire to go around in circles. I advise you to wait out the block, then return to editing. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the rules of Wikipedia. Isn't that sufficient. If there is blatant vandalism on Ruth Kelly I will revert. I hadn't realised that extreme POV pushingdidn't vcount as vandalism otherwise I would have called i the cavalry. Now what more can I agree to - or are Dan's rules bigger than the rules of Wikipedia? Please remove the block. Robertsteadman 18:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Simple vandalism. You're not listening. I'll make it obvious. POV PUSHING IS NOT SIMPLE VANDALISM. Therefore, you have not agreed to abide by 3RR. No unblock. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 18:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE READ MORE CAREFULLY - I hadn't realised that it wasn't simple vandalsim. I agree to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. Geddit? Now unblock please. There's some business I need to attend to.... Robertsteadman 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I shall be watching for more reversions though, don't make me regret unblocking you in good faith. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware that you watch everything I do Deskana. Now, on to my business.... Robertsteadman 19:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, it's a bit of a pointless statement to say that I watch everything you do when you frequently show up to articles I edit on one or two edits after me to add Wikilinks. I'd say we're about even, really. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 19:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So you;re confessing to following me aroudn are you? That can be added to what I am about to write.... Thanks for the info. Robertsteadman 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I watch your actions, yes. Watching previously blocked users for actions against policy is no crime. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 19:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting for the block to be removed... apparently it is also autoblocked because I tried to edit before I noticed I was blocked and have now tried again to see if the block had been lifted. Please make sure you remove all the block..... Robertsteadman 19:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Still blocked... Robertsteadman 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Patience, please. I was talking to someone else. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 19:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That should do it. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Kelly & Ireland

Rob, I've just been looking back through the last few edits to Ruth Kelly, and I think it ought to be possible to reach a sensible middle-ground position. Some of the information inserted seems pretty reasonable to me. I'm happy to act as an "independent" third party, if you feel comfortable that I can perform that role. When you're unblocked, if you feel like discussing the subject, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Cheers SP-KP 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All that had been added was POV pushing and had been discussed and discarded recently. The block is a frace... and what a surprise that Deskana is the blocker! Robertsteadman 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Toews

I understand your frustration with WP:HOCKEY even though I disagree with you, but I'm wondering how you think that Jonathan Toews doesn't meet WP:BIO. The guidelines state: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." One of the most notable college hockey players counts, period. Don't take out your frustrations on perfectly legitimate articles. BoojiBoy 13:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the nomination as I put on the AfD. Please don't assume that this has anything to do with the childish and petty behaviour of some of your colleagues earlier. Robertsteadman 13:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Hockey

Admins are a law unto themselves. There's nothing anyone can do. -- GWO

I will re AfD then. Robertsteadman 13:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thunder Bay Northern Hawks on AfD

G'day Robert,

to restart the AfD, see {{afdx}} and its talkpage for help. Please consider being slightly more diplomatic in your re-nomination and your dealings with those of different opinions.

As for meting out punishment because of how the original AfD discussion ended, no, I don't think we'll be worrying about that. I am not and never will be in the business of punishing people on Wikipedia, and the same can be said for any other administrator here. If we were, I suspect you'd be in for a few rounds with the Deadly Administrative Whip of Wet Noodles yourself. Better to let bygones be bygones, and get everyone to concentrate on being civilised next time.

If you'd like me or another admin to keep an eye on the new AfD, let me know. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you'd done wrong when trying to tag the article for AfD. I've replaced your tag with: {{subst:afdx|2nd}}, as explained at Template talk:Afdx. It seems to be working now. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Robertsteadman 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on WP:HOCKEY's talk page

Robert, remain civil. You're fully aware of what trolling is, and you're fully aware you're doing it now. I'm relatively sure you have no desire to contribute constructively to hockey articles. Make your case on the AfD on Thunder Bay and step back. Trolling the talk page of the Wikiproject is not the way to conduct yourself.  RasputinAXP  c 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not trolling. I want to see these pointless meritless articles about non-notable children's teams removed. I cannot believe the way some have reacted. I was invited to drop in to the project page - so I did - it seems there are many who do not understand what WP is for and about. Robertsteadman 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about current events is perfectly valid when it's pertaining to the project. Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals certainly applies. Comments like this are certainly not conducive to a civil discussion in any way, shape or form. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to WP:HOCKEY and calling discusison of the final game of the season "silly" isn't contructive at all.  RasputinAXP  c 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Chat about a coming sports event is not what WP is for. Iscussing a previous completed match perhaps - if it is to help and article. But the discussion as was, and still is, should be on a fan site not an encyclopedia. Robertsteadman 14:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Yes, I have no problem with you talking things over about my proposal or adding or such. I haven't really revised the proposal as much as I have wanted to, and I really should. I'm just affraid that people that buy too much into that wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge" are taking it a little too far. I'd like to hear what suggestions you have to split or expand my proposal. Burgwerworldz 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, maybe sending me an e-mail (through the e-mail this user link) would be alright for me, if you want, either way is fine. Burgwerworldz 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nottingham

I think you're right taking the Snot bit out, I tried to tidy it up, but it was pretty useless Bevo74 19:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practical Joke

Lose the practical joke link, it's irritating, immature and pointless like most of your contributions particularly your AFDs for the hockey. You suck dude!! 212.2.177.193 17:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No one makes you come here. If you don;t visit the page you won't see the joke. As for the hockey AfDs - that's a matter of opinion - I don't want WP filled up with kiddie teams stats - totally non-notable. Robertsteadman 17:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Steadman, lose the practical joke link, I agree that it only serves to irritate, now why would a seemingly mature man like you facilitate such a source of irritation on your userpage???? The mind boggles.... Bazzajf 18:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to my reply above. Robertsteadman 18:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Has no one got a sense of humour anymore? Sophia 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not - how are you? It's been a while!! Robertsteadman 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU

It looks like you attempted to list two CU requests. I fixed the Neuropean request but you also has an IP number and I can't figure out what that was for. If it belongs in Neuropean you can add it; if it is a separate request, please recreate it. Note that CU pages should have the name Wikipedia/Requests for checkuser/Case/name (you left out the /Case subpage last time). Thatcher131 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Super. You may want to add a couple of diffs or at least a link to the RFI. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - will do. Robertsteadman 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Robert

My name's ColtsScore, and I'm part of the ice hockey project. I just wanted to come see a bit more about you, and say hello. HELLO!! :) I'd like to understand a bit more about your perspective on this issue, and also to hopefully help you see my thoughts on this too. I have to say, there's a lot of stuff on wikipedia that I think is trivial drivel, and a waste of server space. I also believe that it's hard for me to judge what is relevant in subject matters I'm not familiar with or enthusiastic about.

I can see that you are a dedicated wikipedian, and contribute a lot to the community. I've taken a look at some articles you've worked on, and it's an interesting and varied group. I'm not sure I've ever wanted to look up information about Anne Frank's cats, but I know I've wanted to find information on the level of hockey team being discussed in the AFD. Please, don't get me wrong. This isn't a personal attack, or attack on the Anne Frank's cats article. I've even just gone to The Diary of a Young Girl and added a link to the cats' article, because someone might want that information. All I'm hoping for is that you can see that the people who care about hockey think that Canadian junior hockey team information is relevant. I'd like for you to come back in a few years and see how much those articles have developed and become interlaced and linked with the other wiki-articles about hockey.

It's unfortunate that the discussions on this issue had gotten out of hand. As I'm sitting here with my own cat (who sadly isn't notable enough for his own article) I just hope we can find a way to mend some fences. Anyway, stop by my user page and say hello if you like, or share your thoughts with me. Cheers ColtsScore 21:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Thunder Bay Northern Hawks

Well I was considering closing that as no consensus, but the result would have been the same. Plenty of the keeps were from established, respected Wikipedian editors (who do a lot more than just hockey articles, I think a couple might not even have come from that). I don't really think it could have been closed as delete, without going against consensus. Petros471 13:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My job as a closing admin is to judge the consensus of the discussion. There was no consensus (yes even when taking into account quality of arguments, etc) to delete. I suggest merging might well be a good way forward. Merge doesn't require an AFD result to carry out, you are welcome to carry out a merge right now. Petros471 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well if you find them doing that with this article, feel free to point out where, so I can remind them that merging is still a legitimate possibility. Petros471 20:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There was plenty of evidence offered regarding the notability of these teams, Robert, you simply choose to ignore what we have been saying. We are talking about teams that have been around for years, often decades. They are established, and important organizations within their communities. NHL players have been developed from this level. The CBC recently held a contest called "Hockeyville" that was meant to find out what small community had the most passion for the game of hockey. Several hundred towns entered, and most of these communities rallied around their teams - often Jr B - as part of their effort. Frankly, you are arguing against the very fabric of Canadian society and culture. I do not know what else we can say, becuase I strongly doubt there is any way we can convince you. I was wondering before this AfD closed if you would respect the result. Judging by your comments on Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes), it appears that you will not. I am not sure why you expect the community to bend to your will. Resolute 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deskana report on WP:RFI

Have you tried raising this with Deskana directly? I'd be happy to pose the question (personally it doesn't seem like very good taste for an admin, or anyone for that matter, to put something like that on their userpage, even as a joke for a short period of time); but it's good practice to raise issues you have with other editors directly with them first. Petros471 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Others did - he told them to mind their own business.....surely not the behaviour that an admin should be doing? Robertsteadman 21:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, in response, the images was recommended by someone else. It was a joke. Regardless, the block of User:CAYA, the user keeps placing an image of a penis on the user page, and edit warring over it, against the community. You will infact find that I removed the image from my talk page a day after I was asked to [1][2], despite the fact that the user in asking, User:Iodyne, has a bad track record with collaborating with sockpuppets and trolls, has been blocked for incivility directed towards referring to me as "Dark Lord of the Black Dicks", and the post asking me to remove it was full of rants and raves about my "admin abuse" about blocking a sockpuppet that was proven using WP:RfCU. I feel I have done nothing wrong. This is all I have to say on the matter. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 21:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your support and kind words toward the notability guidelines. I hope that something can be worked out to set the bar a little higher, and I think there's a good chance it could work out. I'll do my part and not create any articles and work toward improving the "big-time" athletes, as I've done a bit already today. --Burgwerworldz 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems - I am amazed at some of the rubbish that gets put on WP - something needs to be done before we have every kindergarten footballer listed with their own page..... Robertsteadman 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Oirish thing

Hi. I see that the Ruth Kelly issue is still keeping you and <insert today's username here :-)> busy. My offer to 'referee' a discussion about it is still open - or do you think this is never going to get resolved until one of you gives up? SP-KP 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free - but I think there are some POV warriors (in fact I think its the same person using a sock(s)) - the problem is they want to add stuff for which we have no citation that that is her feeling. We have newspapers supposition but nowhere do we have RK stating that (a) she considers herself Irish not British or (b) that her children were named to reflect her NI roots or (c) any other POV pushing that this user tries to add!. Without those it is, at best, guesswork and at worst simply fiction. They are trying to make out that RK is Oirish thru and thru without a scrap of evidence - if they produce the evidence I will have no problem but this user (in all their incarntaion) is getting on my wick! What do you suggest? Robertsteadman 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Like you I think there probably is just one user here, using a variety of names. All I can suggest is that the issue is taken to the talk page, and the article left alone (in whatever state it's in at the time) until the talk page resolves the issue. I think there are enough editors with an interest in the article, but disinterest in the issue, to enable us to at least to reach a consensus. If you're up for that approach, let me know, and I'll contact the other party to see if they are willing too. If so, then I'll start the debate on the talk page. SP-KP 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine give it a go - but they don;t seem interestd in verifiability, common sense or anything useful.... Robertsteadman 18:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob, re: your note on my talk page, try to cool it for a bit and let's let the editor think about and respond to the invitation - see also my follow-up note to the above on his/her talk page. SP-KP 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - but I am fed up with the silly nonsense this editor (in all his incarnations) has been doing. Robertsteadman 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. See the topic heading at Talk:Ruth Kelly. I'm not convinced I've been able to persuade Neuropean to join in yet, but hopefully he/she will. SP-KP 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Neuropean has responded positively to the above; if you're OK with what I'm proposing can you do so too. If there are any other editors you think I should issue a specific invitation to, let me know. SP-KP 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I don;t consider the current exchanges to be positive. Nor the use of socks that has happened. I will enter a discussion when it is a valid, fair discussion not being controlled by sockpuppets. Robertsteadman 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You, in particular, need to be very careful about throwing allegations of sock usage around, especially when, as usual, you are wrong. In such cases it might be considered as a personal attack. The rest of us are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you try it? Frelke 06:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So nice to see you back! Robertsteadman 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been away. Frelke 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I know. Robertsteadman 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you 'know' ? Frelke 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it's been obvious. Robertsteadman 06:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In what sense has it been 'obvious'? Frelke 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Ice Hockey

Not quite sure it's reached the level of personal attacks yet. To try getting other 'outside' opinions in, you could try an article WP:RFC or a third opinion request. As to them acting against the principles of Wikipedia, well that's debatable (both ways). If their information is verifiable and not original research then it can still be argued both ways about whether or not it falls under WP:NOT. Your opinion on the matter is one way, theirs is the other. Petros471 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been many personal attacks by some of these guys including total falsehoods - [3] for example. The fact that somethinjg is verifiable doesn't make it notable - the only notablt thing they have claimed is that it is the biggest youth team in a town of 100,000 - hey! That's notable - NOT! Robertsteadman 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Long Live Love
Tennis Court Oath
Zurzach (district)
WJEC
Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station
Continuant
Pimlico tube station
Jinhua
Xiangfan
Examination board
Tai'an
Matlock railway station
Crich
Dmitry Pavlovich Grigorovich
Huzhou
Silvio Rodríguez
Yoshiwara
Jining, Shandong
Penistone Grammar School
Cleanup
Rafael Carrera
P&O Ferries
Mary Mallon
Merge
Metropolitan municipality
List of toll roads
Poland in Eurovision Song Contest
Add Sources
Mundus (Devil May Cry)
Jeremy Michael Ward
Christian terrorism
Wikify
Liza Minnelli
Concentric ring model
Dare You to Love Me
Expand
Eye care professional
Federal Analog Act
Nikon Coolpix series

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ruth Kelly Article

You are cordially advised to stop editing against consensus in the Ruth Kelly article. There may be some drastic repercussions for you if you continue this angle of attempting to disavow her Irish links. I pray that the resort to drastic action may not have to be taken against you but your future actions shall determine this. Bazzajf 11:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do I really have to tolerate threats like this?

I find this quite objectionable. It is false - I am not editing against consensus but for verifiability. And the undertones are ominous. What do you suggest?Robertsteadman 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I agree. All I can say is - if you can, ride it out, and let's focus on the issues on the article's talk page, as you are doing, and hope we can arrive at a consensus there. SP-KP 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bazzajf

Thanks for letting me know. SP-KP 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Letting Things Go

Robertsteadman, I would appreciate it if you would lay off the sock puppet claims. I know that you know that I am nothing to do with the Canadian editors you are in conflict with or the Irish editors that you seem to have annoyed. If I was of a mind, I could bring the whole issue of who has and who hasn't been found out as a sock puppet back on to the boiler. You don't know when to let things rest, do you? You want me 'looked into', you keep saying that, but at some point, 3 uninvolved administrators are going to look into you (due to your regular visits to the admin boards trying to gag those you believe to be your opponents) and your probation will be revoked. Desist. I was just about to add something to the Bazzajf RFI about the inappropriateness of threats, but you just don't deserve any kind words or support. If my opinion is worth anything to you and you are willing to take my advice, I'd suggest that the anon editor you are referring to is much more likely to be someone from your Robsteadman account than one of the genuine editors that are fed up of you at the moment. You might get more success by finding diffs that support a RFCU there. I believe though that RFCU records only go back 3 months that might be a blocked avenue. Calm down though.Neuropean 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You ARE a sockpuppet and you and I know exactly who you are linked to. Please do not bother leaving any fuirther messages here. Robertsteadman 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in childish arguments but each and every time you refer to me as a sockpuppet, I will lnk to your sockpuppet block log. Let it goNeuropean 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne's Frank's Cats

I did edit the page, as I do not think it is my place to decide which articles are contained in Wikipedia and which articles are not, hence I added what I thought was useful material in good faith.

That said, my first thought on seeing/editing the article was: "Is an article about Anne Frank's cats really neccesary? Could this material be better incorprated into an existing article?"

That is probably not the response you hoped for, but I will back whatever the final decision on the article is.

Respectfully, --Melos Antropon 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems - I don;t see how it fits into the main article but,as I have said, as a teacher know kids are interested in it. Robertsteadman 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal spamming

Hi! Please do not invite people to AfD's[4][5][6]. Please see WP:SPAM: Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. AfD is supposed to measure Wikipedia editors' consensus, not to be a competition of who can find the largest number of people with known viewpoints. Thanks! Weregerbil 05:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know what their viewpoint would be. I merely invited them to take part because they had shown an interest in the subject matter and in order to widen the debate. I know its not a vote, though many don;t, I just think that having a good cross section of opinions is sensible. Robertsteadman 06:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Deskana RFI

No, Deskana was made aware the some people had problems with that version of his userpage. As I said, I don't think it was appropriate, so no I don't think it was ok. However, I'm not sure any more can be done, as that userpage has long since been changed. The report is in the archives. Petros471 09:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - thanks. Couldn't find the archive. Personally I'd have stripped him of his adminship - a pity you feel nothing more can be done. Robertsteadman 10:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have removed the merge tag from Thunder Bay Northern Hawks

Consensus has been reached. The only person post-AfD who wants a merge is Rob. It's gone on for five days, and the AfD was another five days previous. The matter is closed. If you feel that this is a horrible miscarriage of justice, go ahead and file an RFC. It's time to move on. I'm posting this to associated users' talk pages as well. you know, this has really torpedoed my wikibreak  RasputinAXP  c 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you read the whole debate (in both places) you will see I am not the only person wantng a merge. Consensus has not been reached. You. and a couple of others, are forcing a decision on the community which has not been reached. That is not in the spirit of WP. It is also not in the interests of this article whereby opening debate further would be a good idea rather than burying your head in the sand and saying la, la, la over and over.Robertsteadman 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, I think we should just take a break from this issue. I don't fully agree with the inclusion of the article, and I hope that things don't get out of hand with creation of articles. Let's just wait a bit and get some non-biased comments to come in later. --Burgwerworldz 13:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:How...

Added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Article RFCs are pretty simple, just a request for others to take a look at and comment on a particular article issue. It's the user RFCs that can get complicated, but that's not what's needed here. Petros471 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neuropean report on RFI

If you have enough evidence that this is a sock account, you should file a checkuser request. Otherwise, you'll have to believe Neuropean that only one account is being used, and treat him/her accordingly. Petros471 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Already warned for that. Petros471 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Again a shame it is only a warning - this is repeat behaviour from the sock account. This editor is an internet stalker and is only on WP to cause trouble. I will search through for some evidence of sockpuppetry. Robertsteadman 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please be careful not to make allegations like "an internet stalker" without evidence. I've been warning Neuropean to deal with this in the right way, the same also applies to you. Calling someone a stalker could be seen as a personal attack. Petros471 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Or, of course, it could be a factual statement! OK, I'll be careful but I believe they are closely linked to old accounts which were used to stalk me from anotherh website onto WP. Robertsteadman 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robsteadman

Well, might as well try and sort this one out. Even though the report was made in the wrong way...

Are you Robsteadman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)? If you are, can you explain why you are using this account to avoid a block? If not, can you explain the similar username? Petros471 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am the same person -however it was agreed that this was ok - there was a lot of strange things going on with the old account, impersonator accounts user: RobSteadman, accusations of sockpuppets which I have NEVER used, stalkers from other websites (www.tes.co.uk/staffroom) who established accounts on here to have a go ( user: Bakewell Tart and user: Crusading composer (do have a word with user:Musical Linguist for further info (though she maintains I used socks when I didn't (sometimes WP can be wrong - one supposed sock turned out to be one of my A-level students editing to support me! - yes I am a teacher), user: Crusading composer later became user: Count of the Saxon Shore) in order to try to disguise his actions and stalking... etc! You probably should take a look at this and have a word with user:Syrthiss. Several other admions know that I am using a new username (including user:Deskana who can verify the Syrthiss thing even though we are arch enemies!! Other problems arise because of the article Robert Steadman which is about me (and the thing that alerted me to WP in the first place) but, despite some claims was not written by me (this is one of the occasions when WP found things out and was wrong). For what it's worth I believe that our freind is linked VERY CLOSELY to AT LEAST one of the stalkers listed above. I'm sure this just sopunds confusing, particularly if you know none of the history, but I am, and always have been a valid editor trying to improve WPO - sadly others have done their best to get in the way. Robertsteadman 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Neuropean's latest vandalismis here. Robertsteadman 20:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello there!

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Andeh 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your rather patronising edit - I am aware of tehse and when I feel they are appropriate I fill them in. Robertsteadman 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, please refrain from changing words from US English to British English. This is an international online encyclopedia, meaning we will have to keep both types of English, and both are quite understandable. Besides, our time could be better used reverting vandalism, not engaging in language wars.

Rohan 18:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neuropean

Robert, I really do not want the bad feeling between us to continue. I know that you think that I am only here to annoy you, but that really is not the case. I really don't know if you genuinely see yourself as ta victim, or if it's just part of your editing/interpersonal style. But, please take a look at the archive link on my talk page. Be honest, it's not pretty. I'm not making it up, perhaps you hadn't realised just how many times you have said things that do not portray you in a good light. It's not a case of me exaggerating things. AND I haven't even started some of the sections yet - your abrupt and offhand way of responding to thoser that offer you advice is going to need a page by itself! To be honest, I am a very lazy person and I really can't be bothered to finish and submit this RFC - what would it achieve? I'd much rather chalk it up to bad judgement and forget about it.

I have a deal for you, I have proposed it before and you have rejected it:

  • I will remove any references to you from my user pages and you remove all references to me. Archiving should be sufficient and then if you need to you can always find them.
  • I will promise that I will not edit any articles that you have previously edited and you promise not to edit any articles where I have made a contribution. If either of us cannot grit our teeth and endure something edited by the other, we may add a civil comment to the article's discussion page. You really do get the best of this deal as you get to 'own' Ruth Kelly and your own RS article forever.
  • I will promise 'NOT to participate in any 'admin' referrals involving you - either directly or by spamming others that may be involved and you promise to do the same.

I'm not into Wiki as seriously as you, but it can be fun to create an article and I'm happy just to potter. We could co-exist, even if we don't get on. You had a dispute with 'Grouch' on the TES that was quite nasty but it seems that you are able to get on these days, you even 'LOL'd one of his comments a few weeks ago.

Let's be honest, our tastes are quite different, you create articles about the places where you have lived or visited - mostly the North and mine are the same, but for the South or Wales. Your children seem to be interested in 'Roger And The Rottentrolls' (or is that you?) and Underground Ernie. Mine prefer Fifi And The Flowertots. You are interested in religion, I am interested in history.

Would you at least give it a try? If I prove to be false and playing mindgames, then it's just more evidence for you to prove me the bad guy and it makes you look better.

I am not prepared to enter any "deal" with someone who I consider a troll and stalker and who has been a very disruptiuve editor out to make a point. You start behaving like a useful and constructive editor, stop the copyright violations, spams, stal;king, trolling, etc and there will be no problems. Robertsteadman 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Robert, I really do despair.
  • I made a copyvio mistake, I made some others and, since you pointed it out, I have edited the other articles. You also have been warned about copyvio. Why does my mistake warrant such hostility?
  • It may seem to you that I am stalking you, but can you not see that you have done the same to me but much much worse?
  • The spam was a genuine mistake. I could see the article - I even copied it to the talk page as proof. If you want, I'll aplogise for thinking that you were making up the 'accusation' but it was a genuine error, not malice.

Are you totally unwilling to compromise - you will be getting more out of any deal than I will.Neuropean 20:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just abide by the rules and stop stalking me and there will be no problems. I am not prepared to enter any agreement with you. Become a proper and useful editor, stop the nonsense and the stalking and all will be well. Robertsteadman 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And, as a sign of good faith, will you stop editing articles as soon as they appear on my contributions page?Neuropean 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Will you please stop stalking me - there is no poiont in you continually put posts oin my talk page - any further I will treat as vandalism and remove. Robertsteadman 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little woodham

Please remove the copyvio tag. The article has been changed. It's going to have to be me or you that removes it as you don't seem to have linked it to the copyvio page. I'd rather ask you to do it, as a sign of good faith.Neuropean 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that you can write the article properly, without breaking copright then you remove it - I am not removing it because the article (as you wellknow) was simply copied from another website. I tried to improve it for you but it was not possibe without a total rewrite. Robertsteadman 05:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert, out of curiosity -- since you put a wikify tag on it, what wikification work do you think remains to be done with the Little Woodham article? Did Neuropean's merge after my attempted rewrite help or hurt? -- ArglebargleIV 19:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is currently overly wordy an needs more attention - it also needs links (wiki and more external ones) and gernerally tidying up. That's all. Robertsteadman 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your review!
Hmm. After looking at it, I don't think the problem is that it isn't wikified -- it's fairly nicely wikified already (but the first sentence needs changing to fit to Wikipedia standards). If it's overly wordy and needs tidying up, it probably should have a cleanup tag instead. So, I'm going to tag it appropriately, and then work on it over the next few days. -- ArglebargleIV 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sadly user: Musical Linguist has proected the page - despite user:Neuropean clearly breaking 3RR so proucitve editing is not possible.Robertsteadman 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So, basically, you were wrong. WP:Point?Neuropean 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear - the vandla, stalker and sockpuppet thinks they were right..... please stop vandalising my talk page. Robertsteadman 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Why don't both of you stop throwing accusations around at each other? --Lord Deskana (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Robert, I have been observing the situation with you and Neuropean for the last few weeks, although I have not commented. I began to follow it primarily because as one of the administrators who agreed that you should be given a chance again to try to edit constructively after being banned indefinitely, I wanted to ensure that nothing happened that would make it difficult to do that. You may have noticed that I on many occasions tried to remove taunts that were directed at you, or edits that wouuld unnecessarily humiliate you.[7] [8] [9] So, I took an interest in the dispute between you and Neuropean, although I missed most of the start of it. Please be aware that that is not an invitation for you to give me a long account of all the bad things that he may have done at the beginning. It's not interesting or relevant at this stage. What is relevant is that this must stop now. I have seen several requests for investigation or for check user filed by you on what seem to be petty or trivial grounds. You seem to be making it your mission to monitor Neuropean. Believe me, if he is a problem user, administrators will find out soon enough, and will deal with him. He seemed to be prepared to leave you alone if you would leave him alone, and you seemed to be refusing.

With regard to your attempts to have a usercheck performed on him, userchecks can be performed if there is a reasonable suspicion that someone is using multiple accounts in order to get extra votes (which you were found guilty of doing) or to get extra reverts, or that a banned user has returned under another identity. They're not meant for idle curiosity. Because you were blocked indefinitely, we needed to know if you were the same person when you returned under a new name. We don't need to know who Neuropean is, unless there is reason to suppose that he was previously banned under his old user name, or that he has kept his old account and is using the new one as well, in order to get extra votes and reverts. If someone abandons an account that has not been banned, and takes out another one, it is nobody else's business.

You seem to have made it your business to start monitoring Neuropean's edits, while all the time saying that he was "stalking" you. You have repeatedly called him a sockpuppet, while there is no evidence that he is in any violation of WP:SOCK and there is plenty of evidence that you have been. And, you have also repeatedly called him a vandal. You were unblocked on condition that you try to behave yourself, and if you continue this behaviour (with other users, since you seem to have driven Neuropean away) you will almost certainly find yourself blocked again. Please take this as a serious warning.

Finally, your insinuations about me at Talk:Little Woodham are ridiculous. First of all, you have plenty of experience of me behaving generously to you despite having the opposite POV, and despite having been one of the many victims of your hysterical accusations. You know that I have reverted vandalism from your user page, I have removed harassing edits, I have asked people to leave you alone, I voted to keep the Robert Steadman article, and I agreed that you could be allowed back. Secondly, until Neuropean posted on my talk page after I had protected the article, and after you had posted an insult about him at my talk page, I had had absolutely no contact with him whatsoever. It was you who brought Neuropean to my attention. I didn't want to block you for stalking. I saw an edit war starting. I protected the article. It's as simple as that. I'm going to unprotect it before I go to bed. AnnH ♫ 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of things - whatever the FCU turned up on me it was untrue (I do wish you'd understand that and stop repeasting the same lie over and over). The RFCU was not idle curiosity about Nueropean - several editors (including admins) believe he is a vandal and a sockpuppet - it is important we expose the fraud. He has used similar tactics about depression and making offers in his wider internet stalking of me. Thanks for your interest - how lovely that you and Deskana are still so interested. Robertsteadman 05:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

As per the discussion on AN:I, you have been indefinately blocked as a sockpuppet of an indefinatly blocked user. --InShaneee 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/User_talk%7ERobertsteadman_41ba.html"