User talk:Steel359/Archive 13

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

Deletion of the talk

Hi, Steel.
26 Nov 2007, 11:05, user Giovanni Giove deleted [1] whole section on the Talk:Jakov Mikalja, with comment "usual accuses and personal attacks".
In that deleted section I've explained why I find one of his edits as badintentional (that edit [2] was unexplained, as opposed to RFARB decisions, and was made after RFARB/Dalmatia) .
Instead of explaining of his edit, he deleted that section.
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant to restore that text yesterday but clearly I forgot. I see you've done it now. – Steel 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DEAR!......

We shall have an open speech about your "style" of moderation. Meanwhile try to stay out of me and my questions because you are UNFIT for this task. I' have no time to point out your BIASED actions in recent days. You have openly recognized that you have believed in comments of user of the level of ... Kubura!. I will tell where and why you are wrong. Meanwhile stay away from me!!!! ... and provide me some DECENT reasons for your recent actions!!! I'm quite angry, if you have not understood! ----

We can have a conversation if you want. The first question you can answer is why you are removing other users' comments as personal attacks yet making a number of attacks yourself. WP:KETTLE, much? – Steel 14:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You have a double vision even for the "attacks", concerned on my small points, and ignoring Croatian STONES. Try a better reply, and answer my question. Now I really stop! ... I suggest you to STOP with my question, the disasters you committed in recent days are enough. Regards.Giovanni Giove (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
PS provide to revert this on your own; you have missed it! [3]
I'm more calm now. It is possible to talk I suppose. You did not acted in good faith, and you have recognized this. You did the last block with no real reasons, and just because you have labelled as the "bad guy", because of the complains of several Croatian users (and most of all Kubura!!!!!). For now I just want to tell you that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and one idea is not wrong because several users do not like it. You did an error, and you must recognise it. Regards.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Just for the sake of anyone else reading this, I do not concede the following points: that I didn't act in good faith, that my last block of Giovanni was without merit, that I am unfairly labeling him the "bad guy", and that I "did an error" here somewhere. – Steel 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
An undefinite block for 2 (supposed!) reverts and an alleged "personal attack", after months of *received* attacks? Is this correct? Did you wrote or not that you trusted in the several complains against me, by several Croatian users?--Giovanni Giove (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I apologise for not checking Kubura's links myself before bringing them up in a discussion. Sorry about that. But Kubura's links were only incidental to the point I made on ANI and I stand by my block which was for a violation of the ArbCom parole, a clear personal attack and months of prior edit warring. – Steel 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

personal attack

In talk:Istrian exodus DIREKTOR accuses of sockpuppetry Giovanni Giove and me then reverts editing against you too: is this action against you, me and Giovanni Giove personal attack? I think yes!!!! Leo, 28 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.5 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not a personal attack but I would much rather everyone discussed the article's content on the talk page than have edit wars on it... – Steel 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Refreshing/adding info

Hi, Steel.
I don't want to mess with Arbitration page, but maybe you, as admin, can do that.
Recently, user Giovanni Giove got few blocks.
First one, by you, on 17:02, 16 November 2007 (expiry time of indefinite, because of repeated violation restriction, personal attacks, length block log).
Then, that very night, 02:10, 17 November 2007, Thatcher131 abolished Giove from indefinite to 2 days. Just like that.
I've gave him criticism (on his talkpage) regarding his unneutral attitude (e.g., he started an RFCU with me in question, but not regarding Giove - although there're suspicious accounts, like Cherso, RomanoDD, London321, or their connection with NovaNova; see previous RFCU's about Giove) and superficious approach (Thatcher took "a concert of Cro-users" as a "relief fact" for Giove that made Giove violate 3RR, although Giove violated 3RR rule only when he was intensively edit warring with Afrika paprika's accounts;but, he did intensively reverted the article Jakov Mikalja, ignoring the talkpage from 9 July-6 Nov, almost 4 months, 119 days in such heated topic).
Here's Giove's block log [4].
However, no data about that on WP:RFARB/Dalmatia in section "Log of blocks and bans". No log refreshing.
Someone should do that. Can I do it, or it must be done by admin? If the latter is the case, can you do it? Greetings, Kubura (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Steel.
Have you forgotten my question? Bye, Kubura (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, blocks being logged? Probably, I guess. I'd do it now but I'm in a rush. – Steel 15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Transgender edit

I'll try to get a source to quote, I'm pretty sure with the Transgender Day of Rememberance there is something quite similar, will deal with this later as I'm off for a bit. Benjiboi 04:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. – Steel 15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete Zaft2.jpeg

That image is the subject of an ongoing content dispute and has been repeatedly had a tag causing it to be automatically deleted added to it by User:GundamsRus. Jtrainor (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to my good friend, I believe you've gotten your images mixed up... [5] is the one listed as possibly unfree, which upon retrospect it is (images that have been branded by their creator can't be released under that license, so it's fair use now). Zaft and Rengo have disputed fair use rationales due to GundamsRus' WP:POINT campaign against us, and discussion on the matter has basically boiled down to "it's necessary" "it's not necessary" "it's necessary" "it's not necessary" for the past few weeks. Ergo I see no reason why those two should be deleted, especially since even if you were going to side with GundamsRus' contested point of view, the contested fair use did not apply to all articles it was being used in. Thanks. MalikCarr (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What it boils down to is this: as we all know, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution with fair use and copyright-related issues. The fair use of the two images I deleted had been disputed for weeks without any kind of resolution, so in the absense of agreement that a fair use claim would be justified, they were deleted. As usual the onus is on those who want to include the content to establish that it is suitable for inclusion, not the other way round. The second issue was that, rather unsurprisingly, people were edit warring over the images, and had I not deleted the images my action would have been to block both Jtrainor and GundamRus for a good length of time. Deleting the images addressed the copyright concern and stopped the edit warring in a way that avoided me having to dish out blocks. A win-win situation, surely? – Steel 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ - it's only a win situation for the parties who do not believe the image should be kept. In any case, the "onus" was provided, and it was disregarded by the opposition party (negotiating with GundamsRus (talk · contribs) is near impossible in some circumstances). How is it at all helpful to precedent to say that a disputed template, with an editor that will continue to revert it to an image indefinitely, is a good indication that an image should go? MalikCarr (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the justification that the image met WP:NFCC. Can you link me to it? The history is full of edit war and there's not much on the talk page. Anyway, your comment is interesting because it can be flipped on its head and still be accurate. Negotiating with Jtrainor and MalikCarr is near impossible in some circumstances. Why should a problem image stay indefinitely because the deletion tag is constantly being reverted off the page? – Steel 15:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Jtrainor and I aren't the only editors who have reverted that template off the images - just the same, GundamsRus isn't the only person who's reverted it back on. It's a somewhat complicated situation, but my point still stands: I don't see why a "disputed fair use rationale" is some kind of silver bullet for deleting an image. MalikCarr 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a silver bullet. Disputing a rationale doesn't guarantee that the image will get deleted, but it will be unless the concern is either (a) addressed in a timely manner or (b) agreed to be without merit. Neither of those was the case here. What would you have done differently? The images couldn't stay in revert-war limbo forever. I'm not sure what else there is to say... take them to WP:DRV if you think that's a battle worth fighting. – Steel 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying, this is not the first image I've seen having a guarantee of deletion using a disputed FUR template. In the past, I've used the "dispute disputed FUR" template thingus to make arguments otherwise, and more often than not the closing admin just deletes it without reading (or even knowing, sometimes) my arguments to the contrary. Giving the past unsuccessfulness of going through the usual channels, and the months-old project-wide edit war going on between Jtrainor, GundamsRus, A Man In Black and myself, among other parties, it seemed like a bad faith template to me, so the war expanded to those images. Giving the fact that a vandalism report was filed against us, and dismissed accordingly, the fact that GundamsRus continued to call our edits "vandalism" in every revert summary ought to indicate as much.
Maybe I've just been burned by the system, but in my experience, the only way to have an image not get deleted when a disputed FUR template is put on it is to contest the addition of the template in the first place. MalikCarr 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I understand the problem with fair use deletions - often they're done at high speed and the only question asked beforehand is "is this image in a disputed FUR category?" with the result of "if yes, then delete". I'm guilty of this as are a lot of other admins. In an ideal world it wouldn't happen but the system isn't perfect. – Steel 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not act in this way

You have no right to restore uncivil edits and personal attack posted in the discussion pages!!! Concern in the poor behaviour of the user!! --Giovanni Giove 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They are borderline incivil at worst and no worse than some of the comments you've made recently. – Steel 15:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
FALSE. They are offensive. And I never did such comments! You do not act in a neutral way! Your are a puppet moderator that a joined a party! You are concerned to one side and you TOTALLY ignore the other side!--Giovanni Giove 15:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th)

I'm amazed at the check results. The overlap in subject themes, as I pointed out in my report, is so clear. I suspect he's been down at the internet cafe editing from there, or e-mailing them to a friend. AlasdairGreen27 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the checkuser results, Giovanni and the IP user speak entirely differently so I'd say they're different people, yes. Maybe more than one Italian is interested in these topics? :) Giovanni getting a friend involved is possible, I suppose, though I'm not sure whether speculating on that will get us anywhere. – Steel 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Different people? There's really more than one person fascinated by the Birth Place of Marco Polo that also talks about Francization? They should get together over a beer to discuss their mutual interests. AlasdairGreen27 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I would agree that there are far too many anons getting themselves involved which doesn't help much... – Steel 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I added this remark yesterday [6]. No thoughts on the idea that the two people who are into the Birth Place of Marco Polo and Francization should get together for a beer or two? AlasdairGreen27 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm happy they've each found their soul mate. – Steel 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, they'd end up edit warring over who was going to make breakfast in the mornings - whether it should be Marco Polo or the guy with the French-sounding name. AlasdairGreen27 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh. – Steel 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he got his mom to help with the grammar or something? :)
He's probaly just modfulating his IP, like LEO, can nothing be done!? I mean I followed my restriction, he did as he pleased and now he continues to edit exactly as before, while I have to mind the restriction for another 10 months. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If you avoid edit warring and ensure you don't violate the ArbCom restriction you could probably appeal it in a few months. I'm not sure how successful that would be though. As for Leo, it would be helpful he got an account though there's nothing forcing him to. – Steel 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User MoMoMobots

The user user_talk:MoMoMobots has been heavily vandalizing the web page for cartoon Challenge of the GoBots‎, basically moving it to different page, then re-editing it to make a bad joke about then being "Transformers ripoffs". While I'm sure he thinks it's funny, it's clearly messing with an article for the sake of a bad joke. I reverted it once and he redid it, I didn't want to get into a reverting war. Can you help? Mathewignash (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it all and blocked him :) – Steel 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New admin coachee

Hi. I'm here to undergo some admin training, so when you see my name in the Stats page, don't fret. Also I would prefer if we conducted my lessons on my talk, if that's okay with you. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done for asking beforehand? See my update to the status page. – Steel 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Darn! Well, thanks anyway. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have specific questions about things then I'll be happy to answer them, but I don't particularly feel like writing up excercises, challenges or whatever in a proper coaching setup anymore. Sorry. – Steel 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Hi, Steel.
Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove.
I've started that RFCU, because those, currently inactive user accounts, might be Giove's sockpuppets in the "sleep" mode, that might awake later.
At the time, when those accounts were active, it was very hard to explain to admins (some of them still don't get it) what kind of problems I had with Giove (a dispute over 1 year long) and severity of his propagandism and revisionism.
Many 'd think "what's wrong with his contributions?" (because they don't know the disputed matter). They'd see no reason to block him (admins mostly notice 3RR and nothing else; many don't notice rule evasion by 4RR's in 2 days by 2 accounts - many see it as "normal edits", not to mention perfidious propagandism) or to take any action at all. If admins haven't understood the problem, it was hard to believe that CU would.
So I needed time to pass (many edits to be done) and arbitration, so that others can see the problem properly.
Now, my RFCU may seem "too late", "obsolete". Though, admins now know a lot more about Giove than half year ago. So, I want to "locate and identify" that wiki-disruptor and ignorant troll whenever and wherever it appears. I don't want to pass throught the same movie again. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun and joy.
I hope this explains my starting of that RFCU. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, right, but that doesn't explain why you listed, say, GiorgioOrsini and Cherso. London321 and RomanoDD's last edits being March/April makes them too old to checkuser, aside from the fact that they have a handful of edits each and would be of little use as sleeper sockpuppets anyway. – Steel 14:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. First, I thought and expected that all RFCU's regarding Giove's case 'd be in a same "directory".
Later, I've seen that there were already investigated CU cases, but under the names Giovanni Giove (2nd), (3rd), (4th) (who could expect that under such name an CU case'd appear?). That's why I've started already investigated suspicious relations (e.g. Cherso)
Second, why G.Orsini? Well, I don't have to file 10 RFCU's for every permutation and combination of suspicious user "pairs". It's easier to file only one RFCU with the suspicious puppetmasters and puppets (especially when they all deal with the same matter, similar behaviour and edit pattern, etc.).
I hope this has explained my action. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Giovanni_Giove/personale

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What was that?

Richmond, The American International University in London
What was that change? Who is Two Hundred hum?"
Thanks for the repair!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPickett (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably some bored kid. Happy to help. – Steel 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RPP script

Heya Steel! I tried to use your lovely script at RPP today and it didn't seem to be working right. When I clicked 'edit' on the appropriate section, all the links to the different codes appeared as normal on the left. However, clicking on them didn't add them to the text box. Just wanted to let you know ~Eliz81(C) 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. I'll see if I can catch you on IRC tonight or something, it's working on my end although I have been fiddling with it a lot lately... – Steel 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gadget!

Steel359, I've imported your protection script in to Special:Gadgets, as the first sysop type script to go live. What does this mean? It means that the current (stable) version of your script pages has been copied to the MediaWiki namespace, and the script can be one-click installed in Special:Preferences. The obvious benefit is that it is very easy for others to add this without having to muck about in their .js files, the drawback is that bug fixes or feature improvements are not globally activated. This is not meant to be a fork of your code, just a stable repository. If it isn't working out, it can be quickly removed without deleting lots of pages by editing MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition by removing the line referencing it, though I hope that won't be needed. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 04:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently I've been reverted already, but I plan to start a conversation to readdress this. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thread at MediaWiki_talk:Gadgets-definition#Admin_Gadgets. — xaosflux Talk 04:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow. I'm flattered. As it happens, it doesn't matter that it's been reverted for the time being - if we're going to be putting the script in Gadgets then there's a couple of improvements that could probably be made to it first. I'll try and do that today if I get the opportunity. – Steel 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(bug?)Haven't done a lot of testing, but it appears that when I load in your script, it breaks the interlanguage links box, have you seen this? — xaosflux Talk 13:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it, um, is supposed to be doing that. The problem is that one some pages, like Wikipedia, the interwiki box is a mile long. This means a lot of scrolling down past tonnes of language links before reaching the protection tag box and that was a bit of a pain back when I was a WP:RFPP regular. The script, in a less than ideal fashion, originally removed the interwikibox entirely, with a link to reload the page with it present. I changed this the other day and now User:Steel359/protection.css is responsible for hiding the interwiki box unless the user hovers over it. I quite like this solution but I should probably mention somewhere that the script does this :/ – Steel 15:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah ok, makes sense, don't suppose it could squeeze the protection box in between the toolbox and the language box? — xaosflux Talk 03:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Does this work? [7] – Steel 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That worked great, thank you! — xaosflux Talk 14:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The random Transformers vandalizer is back

I've mentioned this guy before, be he randomly goes in and vandalized Transformers articles. He's now using 170.215.130.116 to do his dirty work. Can anything be done about this guy? Mathewignash (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell since I know nothing about Transformers but some of his edits look a bit dubious [8] and I'm sufficiently convinced it's the same guy who's been blocked before on that other IP. I'll block, but perhaps leave him a message asking him to explain some of his edits? – Steel 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I've not been editing a whole lot recently so if you need faster responses WP:ANI is always open. – Steel 22:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiturfing

Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly? You've had several pages userfied recently and this seems like a lot of pages for you to be working on improving to mainspace standards all at once. In fact, they've done nothing but sit there... – Steel 15:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mathewignash's parole

Mathewignash has been blocked for violating his parole agreement. Since he claims that this was done with your permission, can you please take a look and decide about unblocking him? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. – Steel 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. It seemed to me that his statement was probably true, but that you would know for sure. In cases like this, I believe that the correct way for a third party to handle the situation is to inform you about problems, and otherwise stay out of it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the photographs that Matthew is currently uploading are still not valid under the GFDL. According to the Wikimedia Commons page on derivative works, they would be subject to Hasbro's copyright (in the 3-D work of art) as well as Matthew's copyright (for the photo) and Matthew has the right to assign only the latter. They could only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. I've advised Matthew of this, and posted on AN/I to recommend the photos be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE give me an example of a proper copyright notice for these toys? I worked so hard to do all these PROPERLY, by Wikipedia standards, and now I'm told it was wrong. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a major problem understanding this, because in the past pictures I posted of toy box art, screen shots or comic books of a Transformer were removed under the arguement that there was a free alternative - the home-done picture of the toy itself. People yelled at me to remove the screen shots and instead post the "free" pictures of toys, which I did. If these toy pictures are NOT free, then arguing that there was a free alternative to screen shots or box art is invalid isn't it? Since ther IS NOT free alternative, the box art pictures become legal to use as non-free images, yes?Mathewignash (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Snake Plissken Memorial Playground

Speedy deletion had been declined multiple times on this article by multiple users telling him to take it to AfD. There's a belief that this could be notable if sources could be found. Can you undelete it so I can list it at AfD? --SmashvilleBONK! 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There you go. – Steel 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Gracias! Just posted to AfD... --SmashvilleBONK! 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since u've locked the Ryan Seacrest page, pls fix...

Since u locked the Ryan Seacrest page. Fix this pls. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Seacrest#1990s in the staza beginning "In 1995" words are missing. The sentence beginning w Gladiators 2000 doesnt make sense. Thx. Happy Chanukah Chandler Ross & Monica.13:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hi. I felt like testing out my new toy and rather than give it to some random test account, I +rollbackered you. You clearly meet the requirements and if I recall correctly you were strongly in favour of it during the poll phase. – Steel 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:O Controversial choice! I failed my last RfA and all – Gurch 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Living life on the edge. Yeah, that's me. – Steel 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Toy copyright confusion

For future reference:

– Steel 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Toy pictures

I had a question. Can I post toy pictures or not then? Someone was saying even pictures I take myself are copywritten as "art". thanks Mathewignash (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very grey area in policy and I am not 100% sure myself. I can only suggest that you look through my talk page achives and ask whoever it was that raised this problem last time, or start a new thread on WP:ANI. Sorry. – Steel 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If they toy pictures are just as copywritten as th screen caps I had tried to post before, then shouldn't I just post one screen cap on the page? For instance the page Dirge (Transformers) has had every picture deleted. Can I just add a screen cap or box art then? IF they have a proper fair use rational? Mathewignash (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems that the toy pictures are not GFDL, so posting them is a no-go without a proper fair use notice. Can I please have my restrictions on screen caps/comic book pics lifted if I agree not to go crazy with them and only use reasonably sized ones on articles where they lack decent pictures? Mathewignash (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't mind, given the confusion over these toy photos, but I can't guarantee that someone else won't complain. This whole toy issue has irritated me somewhat since each new discussion I read on it seems to contradict the last, and there appears to be as many different understandings of what's acceptable and what isn't as there are editors. – Steel 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, as long as no one minds or will block me, I'll see about adding ONE nice non-free comic or TV shot per character to some articles that lack any good photos, and I'll make sure they are not too large and that they have proper non-free rationals. If anyone has a problem with them please just write me and let me know and I'll stop right away. Okay? Mathewignash (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. – Steel 18:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lhiev

Darn. Beat me to it by a few seconds.  :-) — Coren (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To the block? One-click blocking javascript = :) – Steel 00:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Steel, thanks for the very kind welcome back - its, mostly, good to be back. Best, Gwernol 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indianapolis Children's Choir

You were listed as the most recent deleter of Indianapolis Children's Choir. I am an alumni of the group, and it is an internationally recognized group. With your permission/blessing, I want to restart this page. I'm unaware of why it was even deleted in the first place. Azuroth8609 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. Presumably you don't need the deleted text? – Steel 13:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I was just making sure it didn't stick out in your mind for some blatent reason for being deleted Azuroth8609 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Hi, Steel.
I'm planning to put a tag "suspected sockpuppet" on the userpage of user:Ragusino.
Recently, while I was maintaining and fixing some articles (adding templates like "unsigned"), I've encountered an interesting edit.
That edit (very old, from 30 Mar 2006) [9], [10], [11] (vandalism - unexplained blanking of the section of the talkpage) has drawn my attention, and then I saw that the user Ragusino, that did that, "disappeared" (and since then has never appeared) at the same time when vandal/troll user Giovanni Giove was banned, at 3rd of December 2007 (Giove was finally banned on 4th).
Also, they both had similar interests and actions (Republic of Dubrovnik, noble families of Dubrovnik, famous historical persons from that Republic, presenting old Dubrovnik as Italian).
These facts brought me to conclusion that these two users might be the same person.
I'd like to file an RFCU. Am I too late with that? Kubura (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino (talk · contribs) is certainly not Giovanni Giove. – Steel 13:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive language

Here's an unregistered user, 24.86.110.10, that has repeated his insults [12], on 09:05, 13 January 2008.
There he said this to me: "coming from your sick brain".
He did that previously [13], on 16 Aug 2007, 06:19, he calls user Mir Harven (" 'MIR KURVEN..OOPS, 'HARVEN' IS NOT ONE PERSON, BUT A GROUP OF CRIMINAL CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALIST... RETARDS LIKE HIM AND THOSE FEW OTHER CRO-NATIONALIST RETARDS ...". Besides personal attacks and use of abusive words, now he in his personal attacks he calls the opponents as "criminals".
To make it worse, he uses adjective "criminal" together with "Catholic fundamentalist".
This could be treated as an attack against Catholic community.
Previously, I've reported him to admin Joy (on 30 Nov '07 [14] and [15], section "Reporting of personal attacks"), but he did nothing on that case. I saw no block, no warning - User_talk:24.86.110.10. Months have past, no action of Joy.
Besides this 24.86.110.10 (talk · contribs), his possible (or obvious) sockpuppets are:

User Ante Perkovic, admin on hr.wiki, reported him also to admin User:MastCell, see User_talk:MastCell/Archive_11#Users_editing_only_talk_pages.
Here's my first message to Joy:

Unfortunately, all this actions had no effect.
After all that, this vandal (that doesn't comprehend that Wikipedia is not a chat nor a forum), continued with abusive language, recent case was two days ago.
Wikimedia doesn't have to rent disk space for such insults and unconstructive contributions (better to say, disruptive, these are persistent tries for the inflammation of the talkpages). Kubura (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Joy knows Croatian, so I haven't translated all. I owe you few translations; I'll translate it later. Kubura (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) for three weeks. – Steel 13:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Hvala na razumijevanju. Kubura (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Steel:

I appreciated your message. I feel very much like vox clamantis in deserto. I've been trying to impress on others in the LGBT community that the deletion culture in UCfD is the problem, and that as long as that is true the LGBT user cats will keep getting recreated and deleted ad nauseam, but the argument doesn't seem to take any better than the idea that our arguments have to as well rooted in Wikipedia policies and guidelines as the opposition's or else they will fail.

Thanks again for the support. --7Kim (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Psi

I request that you again semi-protect Phi Kappa Psi, or take some other action to prevent its vandalization. After a series of anonymous deletions of the section “Controversy”, the section came under attack from registered accounts, but was then the subject of a mediation that ended in agreement that the section was appropriate. Now it is again being deleted by anons.

I recognize that other steps might be taken besides semi-protection, and that reasonable people might think that some other option was the best way of responding to this problem. —SlamDiego←T 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP only edited for 20 minutes before disappearing again. I guess I'll watchlist the page and think for a bit. – Steel 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I am grateful that you are watching this page. —SlamDiego←T 10:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

I noticed you declined a page protection request [25] due to a comment by an admin that a single disruptive editor was involved. The admin failed to note that they were highly involved in the dispute and that the block itself is turning into a controversy. I consider it highly likely that the page is still going to be a target for revert wars, as the parties involved have all but tossed out any possibility of discussion (including the admin that made the comment in the above diff). I would appreciate reconsidering your deny. Thanks, Justin chat 00:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Justin's assessment. I have been involved with the article for months, and Justin has only posted a few times at the talkpage over the last few days. Based on my view, the disruption was indeed being caused by one editor, PHG, and with him removed from the equation, the talkpage has been much calmer, with all involved editors working together cooperatively towards a consensus version of the article. I have seen no other examples of disruption, though if Justin would like to supply some diffs or any kind of specific examples, I would be happy to review them. --Elonka 02:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard enough through the gossip channels that I'm inclined to agree with Elonka, but regardless, there has been no edit warring in the 24-ish hours since I declined that request and I stand by my decision. Controversial or otherwise (I haven't looked), the block seems to have been successful in that regard. If edit warring resumes after the block expires, then options can be considered, but there is no need for any admin action at this point in time. – Steel 13:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I see that the Naruto article has been protected since May. Do you think it could be unprotected to see if the vandalism is over? Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It's still getting vandalism more or less every day even with the protection. I think that one is best left as it is.
Also, someone in the eight grade shouldn't have too much personal information on their page, so I've removed some of the details from yours. Hope that's alright. – Steel 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I guess your right. Oh, sure. Thanks. I had even more information on there before; do you think you could delete it to get rid of the history? Earthbendingmaster 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you did get rid of the history, thanks. Earthbendingmaster 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Syriacs

can you please redirect Syriacs to Syriac people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.192.85 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, and bear in mind that the article you started here is clearly an attempt to bypass the various protections that have been put in place to stop edit wars, in which you have been a party. Please read over WP:POVFORK carefully for an explanation of why we don't do this, because you are on the verge of being blocked. It would be most productive is you discuss your changes with the editors you have been fighting with to reach a consensus on how the article(s) should read. – Steel 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

please

Please don't remove comments from other people's user pages. You can do that to your own user page. Thank you. Please don't make this dispute uglier than it should be. If you have concerns, I am willing to discuss them with you. I am concerned that you wrongly think that I am a religious zealot and are acting badly because you think bad behavior is ok if you're dealing with a religious zealot. Fairchoice (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Psi again.

Could you please caution Triberocker about edits such as his removal of the Phi Kappa Psi “Controversy” section, and revert any subsequent deletion that he (or anyone else) has made of it? —SlamDiego←T 06:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The text in the article says little more than "there was a rape[1]", so I'm not surprised it's being removed as irrelevant or insignificant. Perhaps if the article explained exactly why this rape is relevant and significant (assuming that it is), it would be less strongly and less frequently disputed. – Steel 20:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What it asserts is that
It is alleged by the state of Virginia that on the night of 4 October 1984, a member of the University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi drugged seventeen-year-old Elizabeth Schimpf, and that on the morning of 5 October 1984, William Beebe and members of the fraternity gang-raped Miss Schimpf.
How do you suggest that it be noted that it is significant that members are alleged to have done this? Should United States Marine Corps explain why
Their time in Iraq has also courted controversy with the Haditha killings and the Hamdania incident.
or Roman Catholic Church explain why there has been scandal over child abuse, instead of simply stating
In 2001, the Church was roiled by what became known as the "Priest Scandal". Lawsuits emerged claiming sexual abuse of minors by some priests in countries around the world. These events led to some resignations and defrockments of abusing or negligent priests and bishops and significant financial settlements for victims.
I am hard-pressed to see where explanation is to stop if it has to continue beyond the present point. —SlamDiego←T 01:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What impact did this rape have on the world that all the other rapes that aren't included in Wikipedia didn't have? – Steel 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I'm asking for rollback permission, if you would be willing to grant that. KC109 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) – Steel 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Steel KC109 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

National Tramway Museum tramcar list

why bother protecting it?

why not just delete.... it's pointless

BG7 16:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Focus on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#National Tramway Museum tramcar list → Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum, then. – Steel 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Why should I waste my time doing that when it's easier to just delete it now.
I knew i'd be better elsewhere... why did I bother coming back? oh, i know. To give this pointless site another chance, to become an admin, and get a DYK. obviously not now...
Thanks for nothing
BG7 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome? – Steel 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against you, you were acting how a good admin should. Thus, i award you with this:
The da Vinci Barnstar
For acting like a great admin! not sure if it's the right barnstar to use, but from the descrips it looked right - feel free to change it! BG7 16:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's annoying people and this site.
Thanks,
BG7 16:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

Yeah, I don't see where the deletion was necessary. There are so many more articles you could be watching, It was a biographical article and I just had to get the exact numbers on my records to make it sagnifigant, the fact that Winfield Dobruck Jr is the youngest player in the clubs history should be something. Yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy6418 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Winfield Dobruck Jr. you? – Steel 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Priestland

Hi there. You (unjustly?) deleted the article on Rhys Priestland back in October. The article has been recreated since then, and you have done nothing. The player's situation has not changed and yet, somehow, he is more notable now than he was then. Anyway, that's not what I'm here to talk about, so I apologise for sounding a bit belligerent just then. If the player is notable enough to have an article, could you perhaps restore the version you deleted, as that version was much better than the version that exists in its place now. Cheers. – PeeJay 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Priestland <-- there. I'm still not sure whether Wikipedia should have this article but it seems there are a lot of similar pages and I'm not interested in starting a fight to get rid of them. – Steel 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm extremely sorry about this, but I think I've made a bit of an error. A few months ago I wrote an article on Rhys Priestland, and I thought I'd submitted it, but I obviously hadn't. I'm very sorry to have come down so hard on you, when in fact it was my error all along. I guess I'll just have to write the article again. – PeeJay 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly call that "coming down hard on me", but ok... – Steel 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to be polite :) – PeeJay 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Help?

I'm trying to create a sports page for a particular RUgby Club in my Area, do you think you could help me make the box with the team jerseys and the team nicknames and all that?

Dboy6418 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2008

I see you also asked User:PeeJay2K3. He's probably the better person to go to for help on rugby topics and I can only echo what he's said. Look at how it's done elsewhere and copy it. :) – Steel 02:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about "original research" accusation

There is a difference of opinion on an article about a toy I thought I'd ask you about (an uninterested third party) rather than get into an edit war. Here is the background. There is a character named "Silverbolt" who appeared in different TV series and toys. In the TV series Beast Machines he was protrayed as being purple with yellow highlights, but they toy they released was rainbow colored. A couple years later they released another toy named Transformers: Universe Silverbolt, which was purple with yellow highlights. So I said in the line about the Universe toy that it was purple and yellow, making it similar to it's TV show appearance in Beach Machines. I was accused of original research, and that their matching was only a coincidence, and how dare I even mention the similarity! I don't think it's "original research" to say two related things are similarly colored. It's pretty plainly observable, and the 2 guys just followed me from a message board where they have attacked me before. What do you think I should do? Mathewignash (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two objections: (a) that they don't resemble each other colour-wise, and (b) that saying that they do resemble each other requires a source. If their resemblance was a trivial, undisputed fact then I wouldn't consider (b) a strong objection, but since people don't seem to agree that they resemble each other asking for an authorative source for this claim seems reasonable to me. The reviews you provided on the talk page aren't really adequate for this purpose. Of course, I've only seen an image of one of the two characters. Oh, and you appear to have violated WP:3RR - try not to edit war over this too much since it'd be a silly thing to get blocked over. – Steel 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I did start a talk page subject about it and ask that it be settled by a majority rule. As for the pictures, the original toy looked like this: http://www.tfu.info/1998/Maximal/Silverbolt/silverbolt.htm Then they had him appear in the tv show looking like this: http://home.comcast.net/~gericovins/silverboltiiibmtechspec.jpg A few years later then released the first toy repainted to look like this: http://home.comcast.net/~gericovins/silverboltiiiuniversetechspec.jpg Mathewignash (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, one looks more blue than purple... – Steel 14:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Which one? Mathewignash (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[26] <-- that one. – Steel 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That one is grey. Maybe I'm not explaining it well. The original toy was grey, then they turned him purple in the TV show [27], then they repainted the toy purple to match. [28], then Mathew says "hey, they repainted the toy to look like the show" and then annoying people say "how do you know they repainted it to look like the TV show? You are making an assumption! ORIGINAL RESEARCH!" Then Mathew scratches his head and wonders where these people keep their heads. Mathewignash (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
lol. I see. Still, I'm not sure this is worth fighting over, if people look at images of the TV character and the toy they'll notice a similarity without having to be told that they're seeing a similarity... if that makes sense? Or you could just wait and try again in a few weeks and maybe nobody will notice... – Steel 13:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for semi-protecting Linkin Park as well. I was about to request that page as well. This guy has been harassing me since about May of last year, undoing my edits and being a general pain. He uses dynamic IPs, which makes blocks all but useless. Anyways, thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. – Steel 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy

The IP he was fighting with is a banned user who has been using multiple IPs to stalk him and undo his edits. Please lift your block. – Steel 17:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that the IP is banned? Otherwise he is not exempt from 3RR and the block will remain. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It does seem to be the case. See also the histories here where the IP user repeatedly removes a request, and here where he reinserts simple vandalism. – Steel 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That shows that one or more IPs have stalked Parsecboy, but fails to show how Parsecboy's edits were 3RR-exempt (which would require that they were reverts of simple vandalism, which they weren't, or that the editor was banned, or one of the other exceptions). Who is the banned user? Stifle (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm about to head out, but if you satisfy yourself that Parsecboy shouldn't be blocked because his reverts were exempt from 3RR, I won't object to you unblocking him (but his rollback bit should not be restored). Stifle (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Just wondering why you removed on of the supports for Parsecboy on his RfA. Did I miss something?--Pewwer42  Talk  23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This should reveal all. (Sorry for late reply) – Steel 21:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
After I asked, I saw that but I couldn't figure out who he was impersonating, doesn't matter, Parsecboy looks like he will have all the support he needs and more.--Pewwer42  Talk  21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
He was impersonating User:Ryulong, although most of his edits have been deleted so it might not have been clear. And yeah, Parsecboy's doing fine. I'm sure he's happy. :) – Steel 21:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Leap Year semi protection

Hi, it turns uot that semiprotecting Julian calendar, Roman calendar and Mercedonius is not good enough, this person has now moved on to Leap year. Please add this to the list.

I am going to submit a formal request for the IP addresses associated with this user to be blocked. This has been going on for a month now. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied at ANI. – Steel 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. It may not be enough, but thanks for doing what you did. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find out how active the range as a whole is. – Steel 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I discovered that our anonymous friend has moved on to February 29. Thankfully someone else has taken on the task of trying to manage him, but could you add this to the list of semi-protected pages. THanks.

--Chris Bennett (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As with the other IPs he's used more than once, I've blocked it. – Steel 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but since the addresses are dynamically assigned could you also semi-protect the page? THanks. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's watchlisted. – Steel 00:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User categories for discussion

Re: the voting for Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Unix-like_Operating_Systems it would seem that I broke the #1 rule when using a publicly accessible computer: forgetting to log out. My apologies for the person who did this under my identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnl1479 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Transformers Vandal is back

User talk:65.73.217.77 is posting false information in Transformers articles. The same sorts of false postings seem from anonymois posting before. Making up name, series, voice actors, etc. Can you help? Mathewignash (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This guy needs to grow up. – Steel 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Master Passion Greed's entry on WP:RFPP

Apologies for missing that, and thanks for spotting it. I've responded, btw. AGK (contact) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw. :) – Steel 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Annika Kjærgaard

Hi, I saw a Google cached page of an article of the artist above and saw that you had asked for the actual article to be deleted, is there any chance of its return or is it considered not notable enough? Alastairward (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to recreate the article if you're willing to look after it. – Steel 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Loser49 question

why u get rid of the harriet stowe pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loser49 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would answer you if I had any idea what you're talking about. – Steel 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

I can has mop?
 Hi Steel359! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).
I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being
an admin to the high standard that the community deserves.
Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mercedonius again

Hi, the Nameless One with a bee in his bonnet about Roman leap years is back at Mercedonius, could you please semi-protect again, for a good long time.

Thanks, --Chris Bennett (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman calendar

Thanks! --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... sorry I wasn't around on the 18th. Looks like you got it taken care of regardless. – Steel 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

He's back again on Leap Year. I'm completely convinced that the only solution is to block all these articles against IP editing permanently. --Chris Bennett (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

He's edited outside the range he was previously restricted to so instead I've removed the expiries from those semi-protections. – Steel 15:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Transfomers vandal

I wonder if you could help again. The guy who makes random stupid changes to Transformers articles is back here: User talk:65.73.217.77 I and others have left several warnings. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. – Steel 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but he immediately moved here and made the same edits to 2 Transformers more pages. User talk:74.46.56.204 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs)

Hmm. 6 edits. If he uses the IP again I'll block then. – Steel 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

24 February

My anonymous friend is now starting to promote his leap year theories on this page. I have replaced his text with text giving the most basic facts and redirecting interested readers to places where detailed (and accurate) information is more appropriately given. No doubt he will respond in the usual way. I'd be grateful if you'd start a watch here.

Thanks, --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this anonymous user has a history of disruption. It continues at February 24. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I managed to get some information on the activity of his IP range. Turns out that there's very little, so I've blocked it now I know that collateral damage on other possible users will be minimal. – Steel 17:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That helps, thanks, but this guy also uses other IP addresses not in the 156.61.xx.xx range. His first edit to this page was from 195.3.113.166 (see [29]). In the past he has used 217.169.37.146, which turns out to be a terminal in the Islington public library, and 62.140.210.158, at least. IMO semi-protection is a more effective method. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. But hopefully a handful of static IPs won't be that hard to handle. Semi-protection is nice but not when the problem just moves onto a second article when kicked off the first. – Steel 11:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
As predicted, the latest efforts, which you just reverted, were from 62.140.210.158!
I take your point, but at least one of those addresses is one I would think twice about blocking. Also, look at the particular circumstances. This guy is pretty rigid and he is narrowly focussed on just this one topic. If he were more flexible then IP blocking wouldn't be effective (and he might actually engage in debate!) There are only so many calendrical articles related to this particular topic. This is about the last one I can think of, though I could be wrong. But I'm willing to bet that when he runs out of calendar articles he will stop. If he moves on to articles which are only indirectly related to the issue then I would concede the point. --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of João Rui Freire

Hi

I was wondering why you deleted this page. This is an author with 3 published books. As far as I recall, they were all listed here with external links.

Krytzum (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to recreate the article if you give some indication that this guy meets WP:N. One line stating that he exists and he's a poet is not enough. – Steel 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of tramcar list?

Hello Steel359.

Could you possibly unprotect this page? I am going to put the list on it, and use the other as a more detailed article.

Thanks,

BG7 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be better if you create List of National Tramway Museum tramcars or something since that's more in line with naming conventions than "National Tramway Museum tramcar list". – Steel 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks!
BG7 14:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin Rights

Hi there, I was wondering how i would become an admin? I have loads of edits behind me but wasnt sure of the edit count. I really really want to become an admin can you help me become one. Chris19910 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chris19910 might preclude your becoming an admin for the forseeable future. – Steel 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That case wasnt very conclusive and has been closed as the two other accounts concerned have been either blocked or have retired. Therefore would you think that it would be possible or not? Chris19910 (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

...this comment on Jimbo's talk page might be about you.. — E talk aussie 07:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the note. I know exactly who that is... – Steel 15:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (Note to self: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Lindström)