User talk:Steel359/Archive 11

Thanks

Thanks for your support.................. Runewiki777 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiberium

Please do not revert the article. This article is waiting a third party judgment on what should happen to it and until then, leave it alone for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warfreak (talk • contribs)

Yes, sir. – Steel 00:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

He didn't ask me though. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Hackney. – Steel 00:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. You could deal with this in return please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Idunit. – Steel 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's 20+ deletions across various articles now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another one and I'll get the banhammer. – Steel 01:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Won't do much good. If you check the deleted histories of the articles listed on Alison's page, they are all single purpose accounts, they'll only come back with a new one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully they're on a blockable IP, then. – Steel 01:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This would suggest not, not without rangeblocks anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ok perhaps not. That would be a lot of rangeblocking. – Steel 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I keep an eye out for them on a regular basis anyway, their articles don't tend to stay up too long. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Elalan is back

Above user, whom you banned from editing Wikipedia last year is back with a different user name and editing exactly the same articles! I have filed a sock puppet case against User:Watchdogb (Possible sock of Elalan) and couple of other suspected socks. Could you please take a look at that. I think only a simple IP check would be enough to prove that Elalan and Watchdogb are the same. ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Some parts of that sock report are factually inaccurate (like the claim that Elalan/Trincomanb is indefinitely banned), but at any rate I would prefer someone else to review the report. – Steel 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article on Allison Stokke

I notice that the article is back, but with a warning about it being in deletion review. It says the following:

While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice.

Yet when I try to edit it to restore a discussion of this athlete's achievements, Wikipedia says something about it being transcluded on your page, or similar. Either the page is locked and should say so and why, or it's not and I should be able to contribute to the article. Can you fix this? Thanks! Bete Noir 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

MaxSem has fixed this. – Steel 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Emerson7

FYI, per your comment at WP:RFPP, Emerson7 (talk · contribs) is indeed continuing the edit war across more than a dozen articles now and s/he appears to need a block. It's becoming very disruptive (just look at his/her contribs for today) and taking up all of my article-writing time. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. WRK (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chrislk02 seems to have just given Emerson a final warning, let either of us know if he continues after that. – Steel 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sorry for the bother. WRK (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Prot

Thanks! —AldeBaer 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

np. – Steel 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Guus Hiddink

You might want to reconsider the unprotection of Guus Hiddink article. That sockpuppet has been after that article the last little while and might be better off protected the next couple of weeks. Kingjeff 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. – Steel 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi. With regards to Image:Design class2.jpg and Image:Support group.jpg, do these images belong to you, or the school? Also, are the terms of their use that they can be used anywhere, or just Wikipedia? – Steel 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I took these images on behalf of the school. As in, whilst I was a student at that school, I took the photographs. The images were then posted onto the School's website, but ownership was still declared to myself. Regarding terms of use, I give my full permission for the images to be used within the Wikipedia domain only.Jason McConnell-Leech 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

Just to let you know, I've sent you an email about the Manchester meet up, regards Ryan Postlethwaite 11:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Album covers in discographies

Please add your input in Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content in reply to your revert in The Beatles discography. Steelbeard1 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is to notify you that I have unblocked Jooler (talk · contribs), whom you blocked in relation with that article. Please see his talk page for the rationale. Thanks. Sandstein 05:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake, and find it rather discourteous that you overruled three other admins in the process, especially for factually inaccurate reasons. – Steel 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You made the mistake. I broke no policy. You and other other two admins were in error.Jooler 12:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. – Steel 14:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way. This is the first time I undo someone else's block without prior discussion, but I felt that a block for the supposed fair use violation of including CD covers in a discography, without prior warning and despite the fact that the user made good faith efforts to comply with a defensible understanding of the fair use policy, clearly violates the blocking policy. Dispute resolution, not blocks, would have been appropriate in this case. It appears that there is no clear consensus as to whether CD covers in discographies can be fair use, although as usual there are vocal advocates on both side of the debate. Sandstein 15:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We disagree, then. Life goes on. – Steel 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment suggests that you do not acknowledge your error. If you abuse the priviledge of position it will eventually bite you back. Jooler 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Steel did not make an error. You willfully violated policy, after you were informed of what that policy was. You were blocked for it. If you continue to willfully violate policy, I am sure you will be blocked again. --Durin 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jooler, have you read proof by assertion? – Steel 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would also like to note Jooler that your interpretation of the policy does not make the policy disputed, and therefore suspended or vacated. The policy to remove images from discographies, videographies, episode lists, and indeed any article that contains heavy use of fair use images has been and is being enforced. Simply disagreeing with it does not mean you get a free pass to willfully ignore it. In every case that I can think of that people tried a similar tactic, it ended up very badly for them. --Durin 01:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Doctor Who Declined---Wrong!

You declined my request for full protection for the article Doctor Who on the grounds "good faith edits being made; vandalism level isn't consistently high." I would like to know just how you came to that latter conclusion, as it is not supported by the evidence at all. Just check the "History" listings for that article, carefully and thoroughly, and you will see something of that sort virtually every day (frequently giving only IP as ID), and on its "Talk" page you'll find a regular to that article, Leeson, wholeheartedly agreeing with me that the situation is "ridiculous." Admittedly, this person, who posted the link that allowed me to make the request, also qualified the idea with, "semi-protection." Is what happened that when the request is for "full," Wiki's regs don't allow you to impose merely "semi" instead, but grant or decline the level requested only? Ted Watson 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In the past four days there has been five acts of vandalism, in between three or four good-faith edits. Some days don't get any vandalism at all. – Steel 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to deny the good-faith edits that happen there, but I deny that they offset (justify doing little or nothing about) the vandalism. Five acts of vandalism in four days is better than one a day, meaning that some days contain more than one such act, and this has been typical for months. I have not encountered such on this level in any other article that I visit regularly. The Green Hornet was given "full" (if I remember correctly; the "History" page's note there merely says "protected," no level specified, and clicking to bring up that version of the article nevertheless fails to show the protected status, but I am very confident that it was full, since as a then newcomer to Wiki, I was worried about my own access) for one person repeatedly reposting the same misinformation/irrelevant link for a few consecutive days. That "Doctor Who" deserves some level of protection is beyond reasonable debate. Accordingly, I repeat (and rephrase for clarity) my last question above--Do the regulations prevent you from granting protection on a level lower than that which was requested? Ted Watson 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do the regulations prevent you from granting protection on a level lower than that which was requested?

No.

I am very confident that it was full

It was semi, but should have been full (though for a different reason than vandalism).

I have not encountered such on this level in any other article that I visit regularly.

Get around more.

That "Doctor Who" deserves some level of protection is beyond reasonable debate.

It doesn't need it for the same reasons I mentioned previously. See the protection policy for more information. – Steel 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the direct answer to my original question here.

[Protection for The Green Hornet] was semi, but should have been full (though for a different reason than vandalism).

As I am one of that article's most extensive contributors, my having no idea as to what you are referring to here is significant (Yes, I said that the protection made me worry about my access as I was a newcomer to Wiki, but my entrance here was via that very article, to which I almost immediately began making sizable additions, corrections and improvements; no self-contradiction here). Please elaborate. Also take a second look at the "History" page there (as I just have), and you will find that protection, initially granted on 24 February 2007, must have been "full" as it was changed to "semi" on 30 March 2007. Or is there an even lower level it could have been upgraded from? When I filed my original protection request under discussion here, the only two options that I could find any indication of were "full" and "semi," so I would have to say there isn't. I've also been to the protection policy page you linked in, and found no lower level indicated there, either, just variant forms for specific items, i.e., "moves" and "cascading." (Didn't find anything there that was of any help in clarifying our dispute here, for that matter, which was the reason I went, of course.) "Vandalism" was the specific and sole reason given for Hornet article's being granted full protection, and such activity there was not on the level of that at Who, which may very well account for the downgrade, I freely admit.

[ Doctor Who ] doesn't need [protection] for the same reasons I mentioned previously.

The same reasons the accuracy/validity of which I challenged, and of which you've done a very poor job of defending? Aside from the above refutation of much of what you said, your Get around more is merely sarcasm that proves absolutely nothing, especially given your categorically inaccurate statement about the Hornet article. If one of us deserves to be warned about the "Civility" rules for this exchange, it is you. Ted Watson 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Also take a second look at the "History" page there (as I just have), and you will find that protection, initially granted on 24 February 2007, must have been "full" as it was changed to "semi" on 30 March 2007.
   There is precisely one entry in The Green Hornet's protection log (see here). Cbrown1023 granted semi-protection on the 24th of February - a protection that is still in place today. It has never been fully protected and it has never been upgraded or downgraded from anything since the 24th as you claim. Perhaps you're looking at a different article.
2. It should have been full because, contrary to Cbrown1023, the activity leading up to protection was not vandalism, but a content dispute. Primarily, we full protect for disputes and semi-protect for vandalism. This is a side issue, however.
3. Back to Doctor Who: We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit; this is foundation policy. We do not disallow anonymous editing unless there is a good reason; this is en.wikipedia policy. When I reviewed this protection request back whenever it was, the level of vandalism did not warrant protection. On the contrary, vandalism was easily being dealt with and was not overwhelming in any sense of the word. This, coupled with the good-faith, constructive edits that were being made meant that not only was protection not needed, but would have prevented these good edits. My "get around more" comment was a suggestion that, if you think the vandalism level there was ridiculous, and the article's need for protection was beyond reasonable debate, then you ought to watchlist some higher profile articles to see the vandalism levels that do warrant protection - vandalism levels higher than those Doctor Who is subject to. An example of this is George W. Bush, which, even with semi-protection in place, still gets more vandalism than Doctor Who. – Steel 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Doctor Who should not have been protected. It seems to be only vandalised infrequently - one or twice a day. The primary method by which Wikipedia deals with vandalism is by reverting it. Many users patrol recent changes for disruptive edits and people watchlist articles they contribute to. Because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", protecting pages is a serious step - in many ways it goes against the rationale that underpins this project. Where the problem is vandalism, semi-protection should only be applied where the usual method of reverting vandalism has failed. This usually happens in one of two circumstances - (1) vandalism so frequent that reverters cannot keep up or (2) vandalism to a very unwatched page that it takes hours or days for people to spot (especially where this defames a living person). The Doctor Who article is not subject to serious vandalism - the vandalism is relatively low for so high profile an article and is being reverted reasonably promptly. It is an article that users are likely to want to edit. I can see no compelling reason why it should be protected at this time. WjBscribe 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Steel---I must admit that between you and WjB there is a reasonable and sarcasm--free case, and I hereby do cease defending my request for protection on Doctor Who itself as of now (I can be fair). However, when you failed to find the Green Hornet protection change logged in somewhere other than the place I told you it was, you should have gone and looked where I said instead of arrogantly assuming that I was probably checking the wrong article. It is there, or at least something about the protection status is. Maybe I'm misreading that, but given what I said, you should have checked. And that was about vandalism, not a content dispute. When somebody repeatedly posts an irrefutable and blatant combination of misinformation and irrelevant link after the nature thereof has been described in clear detail---as it was on each and every one of the first three undos---that is vandalism! Maybe what should have been done was a block on whoever that was instead of protection, since it was not a general situation but a very specific one (admittedly, the initial posting of that piece of junk has a different IP from the others). When Davidkevin reverted it once---after three times by me, and it would be done three more times before protection was imposed---he also called it vandalism and referred to the person doing it as "Anonymous Coward" (after this we saw no point in detailing the problem any more). You can insist otherwise from now 'til judgement day (and cite technicalities of definitions of terms if you wish), but seven times was for all intents and purposes vandalism. As I said at the outset, I do now see, especially from WJB's statement that we are having no trouble keeping up with the garbage there, that protected status for Doctor Who is not necessary, and do cease defending my request for same in and of itself. However, I must repeat my statement from yesterday that the protection policy page you linked in did not support your position at all when I checked it just before making my previous posting here. Perhaps it needs to be revised. Ted Watson 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaking someone changing the tag to changing the protection level. – Steel 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

One less fascist POV pusher to worry about.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

At least until the autoblock on his IP expires. – Steel 01:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime, so he won't be difficult to spot. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I agree. – Steel 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong conterfeit

Thanks... gotta love it :) Jmlk17 01:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to do this right, can you help?

Okay, I have a picture that it was complained I didn't source properly. It's a single low resolution image of the members of a comic book team together. Mutants-transformers.jpg I picked it because I thought it was a good example of how the characters look, and I had it on the page for each of the four characters. It's from 3H Enterprises Transformers: Universe - The Wreckers comic book. What information else do I need? Can you point me in the right direction? I'm trying to learn the proper etiquette so there are no more complaints. thanks. user:mathewignash

You'll need to explain where you got the image from. From the internet (please link to it in this case), or scanned from the comic itself? Then there's the fair use rationale where you need to show that the image complies with the points on WP:NFCC, see an example here (I'll check back in a day or to and fix up anything if needed). – Steel 12:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tuscany Residential Village

Dear Steel359, I had created an article for a masterplanned golf course community in Las Vegas, called Tuscany Residential Village. The article was deleted on April 17, 2007. I would like to contest the deletion and would like a chance to edit the article so it meets Wikipedia's criteria. Please advise Dkovachev

Has anyone other than those associated with the golf course written anything about it? – Steel 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde

He is onto the Andreas Ottl article. Kingjeff 00:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to protect Batting average. Kingjeff 00:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Hello, can we get semi protection for User:Dppowell/PPP and the accompanying talk page as well? =)) Thanks in advance! --Palffy 00:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. – Steel 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert vandalism

You recently made changes to Image:CsBrainstorm.jpg and removed the fair use description for this image. If yo have something to contribute, then by all means, but removing the valid fair use descripors is just vandalism and has been reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reillyd (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection for Ho Yeow Sun

Greetings — thanks for reviewing and protecting Ho Yeow Sun, but I think that semi-protection would be better. As you can see from Talk:Ho Yeow Sun, the logged-in users (who are probably the same person or in the same church, cf. [1], [2], [3]) are at least amenable to discussing things, while the anonymous hit-and-runners are not. Jpatokal 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. We'll see how it goes. – Steel 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A consensus has pretty much been reached that the section is allowed by policy, so now the anons have started deleting it again: 11 times in the last 24 hours as I type this. Could I ask you to semi-protect it? Jpatokal 05:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar unprotection

In your decline of theBrock Lesnar unprotection request you asked me to take it up with the protecting admin and then after seeing that I already did that without success you denied the request? Are page protections upheld simply because 1 admin feels they need to be? Is there any valid justification for it being continually totally protected?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Yamla the page is still being targeted by a banned user. – Steel 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

fair use

hi, steel. i notice you're involved in another mass tagging of images regarding fair use rationale. my own feeling is that copyright paranoia is rife on wikipedia. you might want to have a look at this village pump discussion and share your thoughts? --Kaini 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much copyright paranoia (even the most anti-fair use people agree that we're probably not going to get sued for fair use violations), more people adopting the ideals of free content and trying to create a free encyclopedia. – Steel 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers....

....for the lightbulb award - I'm honoured! Oh yeah, and my house mate hasn't mentioned anything about her room being in a state - so I guess you did a good job sorting it out! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music

Hi, I mentioned this at the meet up. You might still be interested even if you're not writing articles anymore. Take a look anyway. Cheers

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I just found a fair use violation over there so it was a productive trip. – Steel 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On that subject, can you take a look at these for me please? I don't know much about licenses and the like or what I really should have done with them, but I know for a fact they aren't GFDL licensed like he claimed. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He needs a talking to. I'll deal with it later this evening. – Steel 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave it in your more than capable hands then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sooner rather than later might be an idea ;) Largely because he's just uploaded more images with totally incorrect GFDL licenses, such as Image:FuchiDirector.jpg which comes from sportsnavi which has a clear copyright message at the bottom *rolls eyes* One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. I just couldn't be bothered last night. – Steel 12:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. – Steel 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One day I'll learn the ins and outs of all the image policies, but not just yet. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest avoiding that, purely so you have an excuse not to clear up after people like this :) – Steel 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

MPFAPP

It was suggested on the talk page that the policy be rewritten as prose. Do you think it should stay as a polarized for vs. against? How do you think it should be written? Richard001 11:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That edit introduced about 3,000 bytes worth of text to the page. Any rewrite which needs that amount of extra text to get across the same meaning is a bad rewrite. – Steel 11:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Problematic IP editor

84.203.122.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is adding Irish names to articles which don't need them, eg Charlie Bird, whereas Google says Cathal Bird is not used. There's also other dubious edits, like changing "Northern Ireland to "North of Ireland". If this carries on can it legitimately be classed as vandalism? I've left various messages asking the editor to stop, but he seems intent on carrying on. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Feh. Well, no edits since that test3. I'll try and keep an eye on it. – Steel 11:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have gone into vandal mode now anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How odd. Still, I'd rather wait and see what his next edit is before doing anything. – Steel 11:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he's not edited since the vand4 anyway. Also you might want to check the latest image uploads from the editor we discussed above, he doesn't quite seem to have got it yet. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're well ahead of me I see.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on top of that one :) – Steel 11:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

help me..

please help me...i think that primary school and elementary school should be two different articles..but some other user keeps reverting it...whose right? There is no one on the discussion page..how do i talk to users? (MrsMacMan 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

The same way you talked to me. If you need a mediator, try WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. – Steel 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I already told this user. this user ignores me. Elementary school and Primary school should have two articles. They shouldn't be merged. Did you even read the article that you reverted? I disagree with it. It makes no sense when most countries use elementary schools. It's only the United Kingdom that uses primary schools and some other countries. So why should the article accommodate UK and some other countries when the majority uses elementary schools? That user doesn't have any references stating that elementary schools is only used in the US. (MrsMacMan 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

If you want help you're going to have to start making sense. I have reverted nothing. If everyone disagrees with you then perhaps you ought to move on. – Steel 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The other people are the ones who are wrong...so how do I prove that I'm right..(MrsMacMan 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I thought in order to put something on Wikipedia...there always has to be a reference and if it's not there within a week doesn't it get deleted? (MrsMacMan 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Do you have citations to back up your claims? – Steel 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The other user had no citations stating that elementary schools is only for the US. The UK formerly had elementary schools. Wouldn't it make sense to have a separate elementary school article? (MrsMacMan 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

(a) I don't care, and (b) do not dump an entire article on my talk page [4]. – Steel 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You said you would help me. Sorry, but the UK talks about elementary schools..wouldn't it make sense to have a separate elementary school article?(MrsMacMan 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Isn't that what was proposed on Talk:Primary school under "page title"? – Steel 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes another user agreed with me that there should be two articles. (MrsMacMan 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

(deindent) Right. So what's the problem? – Steel 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I want two articles. So how do I create two articles? (MrsMacMan 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

May I recommend a centralised discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools to avoid any further problems? Apologies for spelling centralised with an 's', but that's the proper (ie English) way ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Yeah thanks, I left a hidden message saying thanks to you! Cheers --The Sunshine Man 18:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please semi-protect it as it says they can be indefinitely semi protected at user request (protection policy), or if you are willing to, could you please fully protect it (even thought it hasn't had much vandalism). Cheers --The Sunshine Man 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, guess I forgot about that. Cheers --The Sunshine Man 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh also thought you maybe interested in this user account which was created a few minutes ago, its already been blocked for the obvious reason. Regards --The Sunshine Man 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears Safwwefe didn't listen when I suggested that s/he finds a new hobby. – Steel 22:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re; A descriptive header

Hey Steel, thanks for your message on the weekend. I'm afraid that I really didn't do very much. I noticed the vandalism when your talk page popped up on my watchlist and I immediately hit the rollback button but someone had beaten me to it. I then went to block the genius but someone had beaten me to that as well! So the only pleasure I had was to decline his unblock requests. Kinda bizarre to see someone using such a ridiculous username protesting that they were blocked without warning and demanding the autoblock be removed! Anyway, thanks for saying gday and I hope all is well with you, too. Take care, Sarah 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

V McMahon page protection

Steel, an editor is requesting at RFPP that an article you protected be unprotected. Cheers, Iamunknown 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems someone else got there before me. – Steel 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Kige Ramsey

Please consider undeleteting Kige Ramsey. You deleted it under WP:CSD#A7, but it seems to me that "Kige's videos have appeared on the ESPN.com blog hashmarks(2) , Sports Illustrated.com on campus(4),and the sports blog Deadspin(3). In the SI.com on campus Kige was referred to as the next Bob Costas." is at least a claim of notability. Whether this would sirvive an AfD is another question, of course. DES ^(talk) 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The AfD that article was undergoing had three people suggesting deletion and none suggesting it be kept. The sources, one of which was simply to a youtube user profile, gave nowhere near a non-trivial mention to Kige. There was an edit war going on, and protection had been requested. Several birds, one stone. – Steel 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I could wish, then, that you had deleted it as per a speedy close of the AfD, which would provide a link in the deletion log. The last version before deletion did not include the AfD tag. I also think that a total of three comments in less than 24 hrs is a rather slight basis for deletion consensus, but it is not without precedent. DES ^(talk) 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

With hindsight I agree that deleting it per (and, in the process, linking to) the AfD would have been better. – Steel 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This Barnstar is for you, for reverting and blocking tiressly! You are also a great contributor!  PNiddy  Go!  0 16:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Impostor

Steel, thank you for tracking down and blocking that impostor account. I really appreciate it. Thanks, mate! - Alison ☺ 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console North America Protection

I think you pre-emptively unprotected the page. If you had read the talk page, you'd see that an agreement had NOT been reached, it was just Miles. Please re-add protection. Edit war has begun again. LN3000 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd nomination. It's unbelievable how long this petty party has gone on. SashaNein 03:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy in parapsychology

Thanks for protecting the page. I would like you to know that my last revert -or edit or whatever it was I'm not sure now- was by mistake. I was trasferring my editing to a sandbox to get away from VanTucky, and I saved the main page instead of the sandbox by mistake. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, ok. Do you want it reverted? – Steel 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at it now, it is my version in there... so I'm happy... Must have been saved seconds before you protected it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best for them to take this back to Afd? Protection on the site is not going to be help them resolve this matter. The whole merger conflict and wanting to keep a page that isn't very wiky and just two problems. If the guy opposing merger felt that his articles can rest on Parapsychology it might help, but only if they go through a 2nd Afd. Mike33 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not up to me. I don't care what they do as long as the edit warring stops. – Steel 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "rest on parapsychology"? Everyone else wants to merge, it's only VanTucky... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"rest within parapsychology" I meant. Its his words he lisenced his words under GFDL he doesn't want them dead, but he doesn't want them buried in subcat either. I just want warring to stop Mike33 23:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the article -almost all of it- in the first place. VanTucky just appeared out of nowhere. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Naval ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation

Steel, thanks for re-semi-protecting it, and thank you for adding the LTA link in your block summary. I was not familiar with Roitr when I originally requested the page be un-protected; had I been familiar, I probably would have not. Have you noticed Rostik. (talk · contribs)? I am quite positive the editor behind that account is the same as was behind User:Roitr. The same "full stop"-convention as was used in his previous sock accounts, working in tandem with IPs to repeatedly (read: twice daily) remove speedy deletion tags of unsourced images (that Roitr has previously dealt with). A block may be in order. Cheers, Iamunknown 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked that Rostik chap - see also Horesa (talk · contribs · logs) and Hosare (talk · contribs · logs) who were responsible for re-uploading those naval uniform images each time they were deleted (working in concert with the IPs undoing orphanbot). – Steel 15:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Omg, there are so many. See Rebote (talk · contribs · logs) and the account's one contribution; Rebote and Rostik. are definitely socks at least of each other; Rebote, then, is probably a Roitr sock. I didn't realize how widespread this was. Do you have any recommendations on how I should handle this? That is, for future sock-spottings, should I go to ANI (or elsewhere)? Thanks, Iamunknown 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And another - Hasere (talk · contribs · logs). --Iamunknown 16:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

On the flip side, however, Hasere did provide a source for those images.  :) I don't think, however, that they are free; I'll probably list them at WP:PUI to get other opinions. --Iamunknown 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguably speedying them under G5 would be better. What do you think? – Steel 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You blocked me with an expiry time of indefinite (Probably Roitr) - Probably it is not good argument for block. I am not Roitr. All my edits from official sites and I have for them proofs. You also have hastened to block other users, though them edits were correct too. Because the block, I have been compelled to create the new account to write to you it. User:Rostik.

It's a good enough reason for me. If you don't want to be blocked as a Roitr sock then don't cause trouble on known Roitr targets. – Steel 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RFPP

Well, I have fresh memories of being on the requesting end of RFPP :) If something hasn't been handled within a couple of hours, IMHO there's a dissatisfied editor somewhere :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Protection requests for Italian Army Ranks and Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Italy

Yep, you are right, thanks for the tip. -- ReyBrujo 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rwlinda

Rwlinda whom you unblocked has immediately returned to spamming his/her own website again. IrishGuy ^talk 16:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How disappointing. Note left on user talk, I'll reblock myself if it comes to that. – Steel 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the site I link to used to have a link up there for I believe over a year and was removed because I thought it was ok to add additional links to films that star Robin Williams. I do not intend to add any other links, I only re-added this one, because it used to be there and I know it's being appreciated by a lot of people. Please advice (since the talk page doesn't seem to be very active)~. I also added some additional information to my talk page. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --Rwlinda 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block to Giovanni Giove

There seems to be another user who did exactly the same revert to the Marko Marulić article here. Can this be his clone or are they ganged up together? Please check this out. --No.13 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A small update. From the moment you blocked Giovanni Giove for edit warring and 3RR another user has appeared and he continues exactly the same edit wars and makes exactly the same reverts. He now completely replaced Giove in his edit wars on Giovanni Lucio, Marko Marulić and Giacomo Micaglia. Honestly I don't really consider this a coincedance, the possibility for something like that to happen is just huge. They are definately connected somehow. --No.13 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(See my recent comments on yesterday's ANI thread) My recommendation is to gather evidence of them reverting to each other's version (particularly where one turns up in a dispute when the other gets blocked) and go to WP:RFCU. – Steel 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. GiorgioOrsini all of sudden appeared when I wrote to Giovanni Giove that he's been warned for the third time (although, he had been in many other ways warned not to do edit wars, but discuss on talkpages and give arguments... about 70 (yes, seventy) times. See messages and links on the talkpage of Giovanni Giove, [5], [6]).
Now, after that, Giorgio Orsini appeared out of nowhere and "pushed" in again Giove's POV versions (I dare to say that, because Giove persistently avoided any discussion, even if he was explicitly being asked to give answers). Maybe for the reason that Giove can avoid the accusation of "breaking the rule of being warned for the 3rd time/and still continuing"?
See this change [7] from 3rd July and even worse one (on 3rd July) [8] with comment, that blatantly ignored the talkpage; 5th July - [9]. He continued to editwar same day with [10], without giving any argument on the talkpage.
These changes ignored all arguments (the hill of arguments and sources) given on the talkpage. The case is heavier, because the size of the talkpage shows how long this dispute is goin on.
In fact, he played dumb and even dared to object on the warning ("for the third time") told to Giovanni Giove. He said "The 'proof' above is simply a nonsense. The above use of a particular and a generic term does not prove anything. Also, you are obliged to be civil and not to 'support' your text by your anger". Sent on 5th July [11]. And even more. Same day, 5th July, on the same talkpage, he send an ...inflammatory message, that is in fact his personal point of view... or a personal wish [12]. "former Yugoslavia's republics... must comply to a single linguistic standard i.e. to the same language" (?????????!) "Balkanization of this language..."(??!!!). Same political views as Giove. To deny any possibility of Croatian language mentioned as independent (described in talkpage of Jakov Mikalja article).
Further, he continued to insult with word [13] ("political propaganda in Croatia"), without any argument given for that. ...If opposer doesn't agree with him, than he "throws mud" on the opposer.
Now to other problem. In this message from 3rdJuly to Giovanni Giove, Giorgio Orsini encouraged him to ignore warnings and (continue vandalizing) [14]. To be correct, this is the change where he stated that [15].
It would be nice to see if we have a sockpuppet case. Is he the same user as Giovanni Giove? Greetings, Kubura 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There's not much more that I can do, other than agree entirely. Requests for checkuser is the place to go. – Steel 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Steel's Day!

Steel359 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Steel's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Steel! Love, Phaedriel 09:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Wow, congratulations. Qst 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! Happy day, Steel! :D --Iamunknown 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to thank me, dear Steel (and I'm so sorry for not making your day earlier! ;) because you've earned it with your hard work, your positive and kind attitude and your friendship. I hope you had a wonderful, beautiful day, friend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Human Height and Unfreeride

Thanks for protecting the human height page from Unfreeride, though he is so persistent I fear that he'll be straight back at it.

He is working from a POV that Northern Chinese are the superior race, and has made many such statements to that effect, and bought arguements about race and intelligence into the human height article.

Also, he has made many ad hom attacks - accusing me of "dementia" being a "white supremacist" and a "troll", and "idiot", a "liar" and having 2 sock puppets.

His tactic in editing an article is to push his POV (in this case that Asians would be the tallest if not for X Y Z)and then heavily references his statement with irrelevent articles, that people either won't bother to read, can't read because they are in chinese, or find hard to delete because of how conviluted his edits become.

He violates just about every rule that wikipedia has, and I don't like the edit wars he is sure to begin on return. Check his contribs on other pages and you'll see human heiht is just the tip of the iceberg, he uses similar tactics on many pages with a similar agenda and even references his own statements to support subsequent POV pushing.

220.253.68.210 10:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright

I know that you unprotected the article per request but the vandalism to this article continues and I am requesting that it be protected again, the problem looks like it will just continue unless the IP adresses are blocked from editing. Here are some of the vandal edits since you unprotected the article,diff diff 2diff 3diff 4, Thanks --Joebengo 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the last seven days it's been vandalised twice. I've just blocked an IP for two weeks if that helps (the one that hit the page on the 4th after being blocked on the 28th. – Steel 20:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why have you blocked me?

1) Why have you blocked me? I have not broken the 3RR on Mako Marulic/Marco Marulo article. I've done some edits, and they were referencied (for wikilinks, sources or self evidence). For two time user:Zmaj reverted them. Then I did some further edits (still referencied), this time User:No.13 did 2 rv, giving no reason (just accusing me of 'vandalism'). I did other 2 rvv to defend a NEW version of the article, so I havent broke the rule (as far I can know). All my edits are referencied, and I am open to discussion. What should I do? I'm alone against several Crotian user that don't like what I write. They conducts edit wars against me, and I am alone here...
2) User n°13 break the rule for sure, starting from here[16]. He should be blocked (law is the same for everybody). 3) Why a so long block? accutaly I break the rule for one time only. THe second and the third time, admins themself recognized the error. Tx for your attention. best regards--Giovanni Giove 20:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block was for a clear 3RR violation: [17] [18] [19] [20]. Each reverted the preceeding edit, it doesn't have to be the same text reverted three times. No.13 does appear to have broken the 3RR too; I hadn't noticed that. Regardless, that was three days ago and no block for that now would be justified. If you feel people are ganging up on you, try finding an impartial mediator at WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB to help resolve the dispute. You'd been blocked three times previously; none of which were overturned. Without checking myself, I'm going to assume that they were valid, since 3RR blocks are usually swiftly overturned if it turns out there was in fact no violation. – Steel 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not broke the 3RR rule, there is a clause where it doesn't apply if someone is reverting vandalism and this is clear vandalism by Giovanni Giove. This is not a content dispute, this man has absolutly no sources or arguments for his cause. Marko Marulić is a Croatian poet who wrote in Croatian and in Latin. He never wrote one thing in Italian. Also all international sources know him as a Croat including Encylopedia Britannica and Italian sources. I have looked into Giovanni's edits and he constnatly edit wars and his contribution to Wikipedia was no less than constant disruption. His actions immediately after his block expired say more than enough - he immediately went to continue his edit wars. --No.13 20:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot: even Zmaj broke the rule, just have a look. I have restored my version, and I am ready to discuss it. On my talk page you can read that admins recognized their errors about the 3RR. See [21] and [22]. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Zmaj reverted three times. As for your previous blocks, you appear to be right. – Steel 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Group edit war : Zmaj + N°13 + Kubura

The above users have started to push edits in different articles (see Italianization, Croatization, etc.), without to discuss them, and trying to make me break the 3RR. I ask you your opinoion. You can see on your own our edits, and you can judge where and if we are wrong. I will hear your suggestion to stop this nationalist war. Tx.--Giovanni Giove 14:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you that both Croatisaion and Italianization articles were just fine before you stomped in and totally ruined them with your propaganda. As I promised you I will be there to watch you and remove your crap. If admins won't do nothing agianst a vandal troll like yourself I will. --No.13 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that the moderato will judge on his own. BTW to restore historical name, instead of present days names, it's not 'crap'. It's 'crap' to delete other users' comments, as you have done in this talk page. Anyway, it's not on us to judge. Our friend the admin will do it on his own. I will just wait for his opinion. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against historical names I actually endorse you in this. What I do not endorse is your falsification of historical facts. Total vandalization of fine articles where after you finish with them nothing is left but a rubble of poor grammar, POV statements and weasel words. Now this is my last reply to you here, Steel has nothing to do with this and I apologize to him. I am deeply sorry for torturing your talk page like this. --No.13 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's on you to show that I am a vandal and a falsificator. Do not forget proper sources! --Giovanni Giove 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

your block log speaks for itself. Over and out. --No.13 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove

He continues to edit war just as his 3RR block expires. See here --No.13 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. – Steel 20:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In case of Giovanni it takes only one. --No.13 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

... for your incivilty yes. I give proper references to my edits. If you don't like my edits on Marulo/Marulic, if you are so sure about yourself, why you can not perform a civil discussion?mmmh?!.. why?!!!! Do not forget that I 'won' nearly all my edits on Dalmatia's history. And I am alon against 20 Croatian users. You shold wonder why I won....--Giovanni Giove 21:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is your reference for Marko Marulić? I have yet to see one. You edited the article without any source or research to version that suits you, without asking or consulting with anyone and you are accusing others for incivility?! You have some nerve. And I have seen some of your edits, your only constant on Wikipedia is edit warring. --No.13 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a few days ago that you go to WP:RFCU. What happened when you went there? – Steel 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. Since I am newly registered I don't know how to make a complaint there. --No.13 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Scroll down just past the contents (see the box "To request a check") and follow the instructions. It's mainly a case of telling them what you told me the other day. – Steel 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Steel. I've noticed something interesting, but I don't know...will that be enough for RfCU.
I've noticed an identical method of "threatning" to opposers by user Giovanni Giove and NovaNova.
They both use the picture of "stop hand" and with accusation "You're a vandal", followed by a threat "You'll be reported to admins, moderators...".
Maybe too little for RfCU, but... that's too specific, I haven't seen any other users that do so. See this [23] by NovaNova, [24] and [25] by an IP (anti-Croat attitude, pro-"Serbocroat"), [26] and [27] by Giovanni Giove.
Similar method of "threat, warning" I had on it.wiki, though, by another user (is Giove someone's "prolonged hand" or a sockpuppet, I don't know. Giove appeared in a next message sent to me.), however, other wiki is out of "hand of en.wiki-law" :) .
Possibly other users (that disagreed with Giove and company) had same experiences, I haven't managed to see them all. Kubura 12:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I managed to get ahold of a checkuser yesterday evening and it turns out that NovaNova and GiorgioOrsini are socks of some user banned long ago, and so I've blocked them both. Giovanni Giove is apparently a different person on a different continent. – Steel 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm but how do you explain the fact they make identical reverts to the articles? For example on Marko Marulić article when Giove was blocked for 3RR Orsini came in and did exactly the same revert, identical 100%. I've consulted with Kubura who follows this user for some time and I have found out that this was not the only time he did something like that. Also I came upon the fact Giove/Orsini issue was subject of RfCU couple of times. If the IP shows they are on different continent I don't find that reassuring, they must be somehow connected. It is obvious I think. --No.13 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the simplest answer is that Orsini is simply a troublemaker. If reverting to Giove's versions will annoy the editors who are reverting him on other articles, he'll do that. *Shrug* – Steel 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There were cases when it was also the other way around, Giove reverting to Orsini's version. What about that? --No.13 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not a mind-reader. Is this conversation going anywhere? – Steel 15:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Steel, No.13 is new here. Please, don't be angry at him.
No.13, you're pushing Steel too hard. Steel is only a human, and he has no software-tools that read minds :) .
On the other, we always have to have in our minds, that we sometimes deal with the pairs of vandals/trolls (like Giove and GiorgioOrsini). It doesn't have to be the same person, although we can suspect.
So, as Steel said, "shrug".
Don't be afraid, No.13. Giove is so getting progressively egoistic and vandalistic in his behaviour (with expressed obsessive behaviour, see changes from 7th and 8th July 2007, that someone else'll is going to loose nerves because of him, and give him hard wiki-punishment, before we start any procedure for something like that. Kubura 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is funny to read that Kubura calls 'troll' another person. On the contrary of you, Kubura, I give the reason of my edits. Never forget it.--Giovanni Giove 07:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with Giove on another article Zadar. After edit warring with him (he didn't participate on the talk page), a RFC was started, he continued with edits and changes despite the discussion, I added tags to the article [28] with explanation in the talk page [29]. Giove deleted the tags [30] without explanation and made 9 edits after that. He doesn’t worry about RFC which started 30.06.2007. After this date he has 26 edits of any kind (changes, reverts, deletions) [31]. And that is just a little part of his vandalized contribution to the article, his contribution to the talk page is nearly zero.

Can someone take a care of Giove, please? He already got a rich dossier and it's increasing every day with new vandalisms. Regards Zenanarh 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! If I am a vandal, why you was never able to revert my edits?:-) Lacj of argumets?... take care....--Giovanni Giove 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring with you doesn't interest me. You are not the subject of my interests. Article is. My arguments are on the talk page. Yours are... remind me please... Britannica? Like this [32]? This text is full of POV and sourced by Italian writers. And it's not Britannica. I can dispute almost every sentence taken from that source. Through RFC of course. But not yet. At present we are discussing about the name of the city used in the article. Reverting doesn't interest me. By the way I reverted the page to the moment when I put the tags and you deleted it again [33]. The article needs protection. Zenanarh 12:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've answered to all you arguments in the discussion page. The names that I use are the historical names, according to the Wikirules (your 'Zadar' was intrduced after 1947).--Giovanni Giove 14:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer to any of my arguments. You talk about the Wikirules but you don't use it. Anyone can see it. It needs just a few clicks here Zadar, here [34], here Talk:Zadar and here [35]. Zenanarh 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys...

In response to this entire thread, I'm going to suggest you all go to WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB and find an impartial mediator. Each party here is accusing the other of not discussing/providing sources/whatever and mediation will ensure everyone does these things. I would much like to speak to some of you in private but no-one here has their email enabled. Constructive comments are always welcome here, but no more bickering on my talk page, thanks. – Steel 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My is confirmed. Depsite bickering, the group edit war was done...--Giovanni Giove 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

U funny

Hi,

I just wanted to say thanks, I liked your comment to what the other guy said about the Homosexuality page. It made me laugh. :) 74.70.171.23 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (I assume you're talking about this?) – Steel 14:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Report: 3RR breaking

See N°13 in [36]. Best regards--Giovanni Giove 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to provide diffs of the four reverts because I only see three over the last 24 hours. Or, better yet, go to WP:AN3 for 3RR reports. – Steel 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He can't because I did not broke the 3RR rule. He on the other continues edit warring and I was forced to request Croatisation page protection. He also disregards the discussion and RfC on another article (Zadar) and performs his small private edit war there. While he mentions 3RR he broke it on the same article as can be seen in these edits: 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th. I treat his edits from 11:31 to 14:55 and edits in 18:36 to 18:40 as one edit per Wiki rules. Also observe the Zadar article history, it's a total mess and Giove obviouly mistook this page for his own personal page, observe. --No.13 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious user

Please look into User:Ehud Lesar. He recently registered on 22 May 2007 and has caused tension between Armenian and Azeri users especially on the already troubled Church of Kish article. He claims to be a member of WikiProject Israel, but his edits appear to be mostly Azerbaijani-oriented. Hetoum I suspects that he maybe a sock of User:AdilBaguirov, who was blocked for a year per an ArbCom ruling. -- Aivazovsky 19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI where you might find users familliar with AdilBaguirov; I'm certainly not. – Steel 22:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Food irradiation

Did you mean to protect food irradiation for more than five weeks' time? Seems awfully long. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was deliberate and, I think, necessary given the types of users that were edit warring. Bear in mind that until recently all protections were indefinite; if this dispute is resolved earlier we can always unprotect it manually. – Steel 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pissis

Just something I found when using the new toys...

Do we need to DRV this article you deleted? (It has been recreated and deleted again since, but I'm talking of the revision you deleted.) Basically, I'm puzzled in regards to why this article was deleted without going through AfD; it appears to me it was tagged for speedy deletion by an anon user under bizarre rationale ("This article is about small scale southern Finnish teen cultural phenomenon, not valid subject for English Wikipedia. Similar teen culture exists all over the western world.") in January. Eh, I think that's a potential merge offense at worst, and for what it's worth Finnish article has three citations to say this isn't just made up...

That said, the article version you deleted was not probably the best imaginable article anyway, unsourced, and it probably needs a rewrite anyway =) A bizarre situation and it probably needs to be resolved somehow, I'm just not sure what would be the best way - I'm thinking of restoring the old version and adding tons of cleanup tags and stuff for what it's worth... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's fine to restore. As for why it was deleted in the first place... I was hoping to use the "it was late and I was tired" excuse but it appears I deleted this in the middle of the afternoon. Hmm. – Steel 13:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)