User talk:SheffieldSteel/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Fishapods

Fishapod plushy
Fishapod plushy

Oh, look, cousins on userpage! Tiktaaliks! Have a fishapod plushy, SheffieldSteel! bishapod splash! 09:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC).

MXLNT. Sorry, was eating bug undergoing employee motivational exercise, mouth was full. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Motivational..? Mighty Bishzilla motivate little users with gentle atomic deathray puff. Even better method than making them eat bugs! bishapod splash! 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC).

Your role in AN\I about use BS by Wikility123

AN/I states This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. However you, I guess not an Admn, took actions.

  1. Without providing evidence you concluded in the very beginning that Naadapriya was trying to get 'Upper hand' and tried to wrapup AN/I
  2. After reminding you again about 'BS' you served a warning to wikility123
  3. Without any recourse by Wikility123 you unilaterally changed warning to a remainder
  4. As if it was concluded when relevant discussions are still going on someone (I guess Wikility123) archived the all discussions about BS
  5. Then you started participating in discussions on HK falls in an adhoc way mostly attacking me.

In the beginning I was given an impression that you were an ADMN. Later after visiting your user page I found you were not. My question now is why you got involved AN/I when it was for an Admn. Am I missing something here.? I plan to report this to AN/I unless a clear clarification is given. Naadapriya (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain. For clarity, I'll address your points in the order you made them.
I am one of a number of editors who, in the process of improving our understanding of Wikipedia administration, regularly read, comment on, and respond to the issues raised on WP:AN/I. Bear in mind that many of these issues can be resolved without use of Admin tools (block editor, page protection, etc.) and frequently are. Non-admins often take on these tasks.
  1. From the start my impression was that Wikiality123's remark was impolite, but not so incivil that it merited admin action being taken. I also observed that you were involved in a content dispute - something that AN/I regulars routinely refuse to deal with, usually replying "dispute resolution is over there" or a similar remark. It is also quite common for editors to post on AN/I with reports of bad behaviour, in the hope that the admins will "get rid of" their opponent, and allow them to "win" the content dispute. After I read the discussion on Talk:Hogenakkal Falls and reviewed the article History, your post seemed to fit that pattern all too well. I'm sorry if I was mistaken about that.
  2. I warned Wikiality123 about civility, because I thought that was what you wanted, and because I wanted to resolve the issue so that all parties involved would go back to discussing the article content, rather than editor conduct. In my experience of AN/I, a warning was the most that you could hope for anyway. I'm sorry if you were expecting more but, as I've said, Wikiality123's behaviour simply wasn't bad enough to warrant a ban or a block.
  3. On reflection, and after discussion with Wikiality123, I changed the word "warning" to "reminder". The more I conversed with the various parties, the more I came to think that his actions were not serious enough to merit a warning.
  4. The page was almost certainly archived automatically, because no-one had posted to it for 24 hours - that's the way their archive "bot" is configured, because that page is so busy. It was not a bad faith action by any editor.
  5. I involved myself in the content dispute because I wanted to help resolve it, and I certainly didn't intend to attack you at any point. If you felt that I was attacking you, I can only apologise for that.
Finally, I am sorry if you got the impression that I was an admin. And of course, if after reading this you have any doubts about my conduct, you may raise the matter at AN/I, although for less urgent matters it might be better if you were to post at WP:AN, the regular Administrator's Noticeboard, and ask for opinions. If the consensus there is that non-admins ought to behave differently at AN/I, or that we should make clear that we're not admins when responding to issues raised at AN/I, I'll certainly take their opinions to heart. Thanks for posting and I hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Further gross administrative incompetance

Resolved. blocked as a sock by User:barneca

Your comment on ANI shows you do not have the qualifications of an administrator.

As an administrator, you're suppose to be a representative of WP and help build it, not ruin it's reputation. You offered advice then reneged on it.

See ANI for details.


Right. The way to get Derek unbanned is for an account with, say, 3 months of quiet article building behind it, to post saying "I am Derek and I hereby demonstrate that I can be a good contributor". I would support an unban, I think, in that case. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then when a very productive editor responds, you arbitrary change your judicial sentence.

Now I'm getting spam email from ...uh... someone who was alerted to my post by his secretary (that's novel). It seems the author of the mail VK35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is blocked as a ... anyone? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You make WP like of joke, a gang of unproductive editors that just wield the administrative gun. Please, think! HappyFarmerShoes (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I don't believe we've met before. Or have we? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my nexopia edit

I have clearly given a reliable source. I am going to revert it. If you continue to revert my edits for no reason, I am going to be reporting you. If you are gay for timo ewalds, please take that up with him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.149.77 (talk • contribs)

As I have explained on your Talk page and on Talk:Nexopia, the source you have provided does not match the text. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you have written "privately owned". I think we can both agree that this is the best conclusion for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.149.77 (talk • contribs)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, SheffieldSteel.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

how to take part in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya"

dear SheffieldSteel , i wish if i would have some examples or assistance dealing with this page. regards :--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can simply sign your name in the "Endorse" section, if you agree with John carter's summary - or you can add your own "View" if you want to say something different. If you want advice on that, I suggest you look at the other Requests for Comment on User Conduct (WP:RFC/U) - some good examples are here. Either way, thanks for taking part. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich dickerson

Please review my actions at the above and let me know whether it is okay. If it isn't please let me know what I need to do differently in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that closing the AfD was the right thing to do - other contributors to that discussion, though few in number, were agreed that deletion was not the solution to the article's problems. Non-admin closes of AfDs should normally be carried out only after 24 hours have elapsed, to give editors around the world a decent opportunity to contribute; however, I don't think that's going to be a problem since this article should really never have been nominated. Nobody said, for example, that the subject wasn't notable, and the nominator made it clear that they did want the article to be written, so you have a very strong case for saying it was a de facto withdrawn nomination.
One thing you overlooked was the removal of the AfD notice from the article itself. It's also customary to add {{oldafdfull}} to the top of the Talk page, not the bottom. I took care of those.
They weren't serious problems, and I think you did the right thing for Wikipedia, in closing the discussion, and you also avoided biting the newbie (the author and nominator) - my thanks for that. Just a non-admin opinion. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Hopefully, others will share the same opinion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya RfC

The RfC was brought up to address the issue regarding Sarvagnya's conduct, namely his incivility, canvassing and attacks. I can see that JC has tried to discuss this user's incivility (Wikiquette posting, comments on the talk page), but his efforts were unsuccessful (and unhelpful at times). On the other hand, I haven't see you engage in discussion regarding Sarvagnya's conduct. I did see your name pop up during the Wikiquette alert discussion, but there wasn't anything substantial there. If you had engaged in some serious discussion with the user regarding his conduct, then the RfC would still be open. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Will you restore the RfC if I provide diffs showing me trying to get Sarvagnya to change his conduct? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well what exactly did you do? There has to be some substantial demonstration of an effort to resolve the dispute (i.e. get Sarvagnya to be less incivil, etc.). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I did place the diffs in question in the first draft, but they weren't really apparently "attempts to alter his conduct," as "noticing and commenting on his conduct," not quite the same thing. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
My fist comment was quite mild: I've ignored your incivility and read your citation.(23:32, 6 May 2008) The second was considerably less so: Sarvagnya, are you always this unpleasant to work with, or does this sort of behaviour only surface in articles related to Karnataka? I can't help but wonder if there's some underlying reason why you feel the need to be so combative and insulting. It might be a good idea if you were to avoid contentious issues in areas that you feel very strongly about. (02:01, 7 May 2008) While that might not look like an attempt to get someone to change their behaviour, that was certainly my intent. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that comment seems more like a violation of WP:CIVIL (borderline insult, taunting) than an attempt to get this user to fix his incivility problem. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
After posting at WQA, and being advised to start an RfC, I really wanted to seek comments from a wider group of editors. For one editor to decide that our efforts were not good enough is rather discouraging, to say the least. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention, immediately before creating the RfC, John started a thread on the page in question, trying to discuss with other editors whether an RfC would be appropriate, but Sarvagnya and his friend deleted that three times. Does that count as an effort, or not? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Where? As stated before, John met the burden of a user conduct RfC. It was my understanding that you hadn't. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. Sadly, in this case, the result is as if it were. Thanks for teaching me a valuable lesson. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The thread was on the Talk:Hogenakkal falls, with an accompanying conversation at AN here, but I don't know if you specifically advised Sarvagnya, so it might not count. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This was an appropriate deletion. Article talk pages are used to discuss articles, not individual users. Tagishsimon's point at the AN thread does not apply to this situation, since the article was not going to be the subject of an RfC. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, being new at this, what would be the appropriate way to indicate to others that an RfCU is taking place? On their individual talk pages, or would that be counted as canvassing? John Carter (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Okay, enough. I didn't contribute to the RfC properly, John didn't publicise it properly, Sarvagnya is not going to change, Nishkid is just doing his job, and there's nothing more to be said. Really. No more comments, thank you both. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Only one final comment. If, for whatever reason, you need to have a second voice come in to discussion which seems to be headed to an RfCU, let me know, so we can make sure it goes through. By the way, if you see the talk pages of the various parties involved, you might note that even Nishkid isn't real happy with the outcome of this one. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA cliches

See, you're already catching flak for being part of an admin cabal. That's a sure sign that you're due for an RfA. May as well have the buttons, since you've already got the aggravation. :) MastCell Talk 21:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not ready yet. See above section :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakal

That page is crammed with people talking past each other. So I come here. If you want to take a stab at rewriting the lead, please go ahead. Going by the responses to the "Proposal" and "Solution" sections on that page, it seems that (with the possible exception of wikiality) there is consensus that the falls is "disputed". Sarvagnya 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. wait.. did you mean that you wanted to write a neutral summary of the talk page discussion or a draft of the lead? May be you meant the former. Sarvagnya 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked -

"That source also raises another question: the Deccan Herald says [Karnataka] Chief Secretary Sudhakar Rao told reporters ... that he had received a letter from his Tamil Nadu counterpart ... [saying] “that the Hogenakal falls belongs to TN and not Karnataka.” - is there a more direct source than 'DH says SR says TN sent a letter'?"

Did you mean to ask for a citation which directly stated that TN claimed the falls as its own? If that is what you asked for, well.. I'm not sure there is any one such that states it explicitly.. but there are TN govt., sites which state matter-of-factly that the falls is in TN. If you want something more explicit, check with Wikiality. I cant spot one right now. Sarvagnya 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, btw.. it is not "DH says that SR says TN sent a letter".. but "DH reports that SR, the Chief Secretary of the Govt of Ktaka, received a letter from his TN counterpart stating that TN claimed the falls as its own." Sarvagnya 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was just me trying to summarise the information as briefly as possible, for the purpose of being clear in the Talk page discussion. Obviously we can't just add to the article a sentence saying "TN claims the falls" because we don't have a source for that. We have a reliable source (Deccan Herald) reporting that a partisan source (Sudhakar Rao) said that in a letter, the TN Chief Secretary claimed the falls. This sort of chain-of-reporting always makes for awkward sentences. If there isn't a more direct source, we'll use the best we have.
But yes, to answer your question, I do intend to try to write up a neutral lead for the article that everyone will consent to. I'd appreciate any help you can give, in collecting and evaluating the various sources - I'm afraid I have not followed the discussion closely over the last few days, and I want to avoid (if I can) having to read through a huge list of documents. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well for all practical purposes, both SR and his TN counterpart are speaking as serving Chief Secretaries of the respective states and are surely not talking in their personal capacities. So their views reported in that DH piece are as good as the official views of the two states and they cannot be said to be biased (if that is what you meant by 'partisan'). The dispute, at the moment is still being discussed at the state level and neither has approached the Courts. Both states view the falls as their own and dismiss the other state's claim. Sarvagnya 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. All I mean by "partisan" is that he is one of two opposing parties that are in dispute. I'm not saying he's biased, and I'm sure he's taking the position his State asks of him, I'm just saying that he is involved, rather than being simply an observer (like the newspaper). So when he says something, we have to attribute his statements to him, rather than repeating them as facts. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there has to be a "horse's mouth" somewhere. Here it happens to be SR and his pronouncements can safely be attributed to the Govt of Ktaka. And DH which is a long-standing newspaper source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is the "observer" here. Unless, the issue goes to the court or the Center sets up a "Tribunal" as they did in the case of the "Kaveri dispute", there are just two parties in this dispute as of now - TN and Ktaka. What I'm trying to say is that, from that DH report, we can gather the following facts -
  • TN communicated to Ktaka.
  • In the communication TN claimed the falls as its own and intimated Ktaka about its planned projects at the site.
  • Ktaka has expressed serious concerns over the communication as it does not accept TN's view. In Ktaka's view the falls belongs to Ktaka and not TN.
DH's summary of the report at the top which reads - "Karnataka has decided to explore legal options in dealing with Tamil Nadu's recent move to launch drinking water and power generation projects at the disputed Hogenakal falls." is evidence that the falls is disputed even in the eyes of the "observer" or atleast, that is what they make of the situation as it stands now. Frankly, we could just paraphrase them and be done. Sarvagnya 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

Really, you're not an admin? That should be fixed someday if you're willing. I won't even hold it against you that you're a Clash fan. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent ANI comments, &ct

Now, now, don't be modest! Why would anyone be interested in your opinion? Because you seem generally balanced and considered of word. Thanks for clarifying your position on the matter; your statement was a careful presentation of the good/bad faith perspectives. My bad for attempting to interpret your earlier words into a specific position.

I will also join the growing chorus here that you should consider an RfA. I'd be willing to co-nom you as well. Despite your recent dust-up with the RfC referred to above, I still think you have pretty good judgment from what I've seen. Of course, I haven't gone through your contribs at all yet and I reserve the right to backpedal furiously if I find unrelenting and unmitigated horrors there. We all make mistakes on Wikipedia. The golden quality is to learn from them and do better next time. Quite a few editors don't but I think you do. Cheers, Pigman☿ 01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you. I'm still learning, though. I can see a few things in my recent history that are fuel enough for dramaz, if sufficient people wanted that. And there's no deadline :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I've seen about 5 admins tell you that you should be an admin. Let me know when you're ready, I'll co-nom (unless of course, there are too many noms, then I'll "strong support"...you should be able, because of your dedication to Wikipedia, your overall and well rounded goodness, be able to see everything, and do everything, that I can do. There's no good reason why not. Let me know...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Piling on as #6 here. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
zOMG harassment!!!11!!1!111one1!!!!eleven!! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your continuing, never-ending work and patience on the Hoggenkal Falls page...the falls that go on and on and on.... Renee (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Renee; it's been enormously tiring and stressful and I really do appreciate this. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in my RfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: from my talk

There is absolutely no reason to apologize. It's my fault for not being specific in my statements. Because of this, there was a lot of general confusion about my intentions. In my opinion, clear cut vandalism should in fact be reverted upon sight. Edits which are questionable should not be labeled as such, or subject to revert. The only reason I responded at all, was to clarify. No harm done, happy editing, and Best regards from SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do the same thing myself all too often - I think I've spelled something out clearly and then I find someone's got the wrong end of the stick. Thanks for clearing this up. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been snooping (a bug in your ear)

As I've been looking through your contribs the last few days (trying to decide when would be a good time to push you closer to RfA), I just wanted to stop by and say I very much enjoyed this essay. That's all I wanted to say. Keep up your fine editing. You would pass RfA as of right now, but I understand if you want to wait. 4000+ edits, plus 1+ years tenure = you should have as full of access to Wikiepdia as I, (with less tenure, and less edits at the time of my own RfA), have. Does that make sense? Check out this page to see a bit of my track record. At least two similar editors to yourself have received noms from me. One has passed, and the other will in a matter of days. Just to bug you again (I'm sure I bugged you before), just keep thinking about it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That essay's really just me summing up the problems I've seen most often, and wishing that our policies were clearer - or easier to find, perhaps. As for me applying for the tools - no, I think too many people would point to the botched RfC (see above), where I was not only impolite but obviously didn't know enough about the process to do it right. No one wants to see that in an admin candidate, least of all me! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You're too modest. Mixed in with the "botched RfC" are several high caliber editors/admins saying "Wha? You're not an admin?" and telling you to go for it. As far as I can tell, it's about a 5 to 1 margin or better, which is 80% or better, which is a passing RfA. Alas, you are to use your best judgment though, as you usually do. I know I've bugged you about this prior. Please hit up my talkpage once you think you're ready for hellweek, I mean RfA. You'll pass most certainly, and you'll gather an oppose or two, maybe 3, and it will be stressful. But you'll come out the other side with a very intense editor review, regardless of pass/fail. Keep me posted! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield

Hi there. You don't like Def Leppard by any chance do you? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't dislike them. Why do you ask? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll bet it's because they're a heavy metal (ie, steel) band from Sheffield, England. Just a guess...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps you're a Joe Cocker fan? I don't know why I keep posting here...I'll leave you alone..:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Arg. I think the only Sheffield band I listen to is The Human League. So :P SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: RFA comment

Except you provided no evidence of a mistake, but anyways, RFA withdrawn now, I did oppose myself, but I felt your comment was a little unjust.--Phoenix-wiki 18:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still rather surprised at being challenged for !voting Neutral, given that the consensus seems to be that a Neutral is essentially just a comment. Anyway, SynergeticMaggot and I have now resolved this (see above). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)