User talk:Steel359/Archive 5

Anonymous poster continuing to vandalize Depauw and Monon Bell

Unfortunately, the user is back under a different IP, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.17.205.34. He's been making multiple edits to DePauw University and Monon Bell along the same lines that he had done under the other IP address. RPH 20:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks a lot! RPH 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, this guy isn't a very good advertisement for Wabash College. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=161.32.228.36 RPH 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steel

Thankyou Steel for that. This guy is driving me insane. He is currently using sockpuppets and a dynamic IP to avoid a ne week block from Pschemp [1] for using sockpuppets to file a spurious RfC against me. Thanks for seeing through the RFPP attempts (I just wish everyone did). Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your take on the Lifespring dispute

I find it odd that you consider Freely's deletion of multiply sourced paragraph to be a "good faith" edit. I note that the anon IP who made exactly the same edits has been blocked for nuisance vandalism. I did get a chuckle from your comment on Freely's talk page, suggesting s/he discuss the changes on the article talk page. While I admire your Utopian vision of how Wiki should work, I must say I find you naive. If this vandalism continues, my next step is to seek mediation. Jeffpw 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• If the page was semi-protected, then no edits could occur by unregistered users, and (hopefully) a discussion would ensue on the talk page. I am not opposed to changes in the text; I just don't want people editing out entire paragraphs with FIVE sources listed, simply because they don't care for what is written (no matter how accurate it is). As things stand one anon IP and Freely (who I think are one and the same) are deleting to push a POV. I want to talk it out with them directly, and work together to make a good NPOV article. That can't happen without discussion.

One thing I don't understand: Freely has no user page. Does this mean they are not really registered? Jeffpw 19:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My photo

I don't mind losing when the nominator was doing it under good faith. I do mind when this is not the case. Kingjeff 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you're a lawyer now? Kingjeff 21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, the photo was taken in Germany and uploaded in Canada. Kingjeff 21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get over bad faith editing that well. Especially when it involves me. Kingjeff 21:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

why was the skill calculator deleted

the one in the MKDS board thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessmaster3 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC) (Arbitrary date added to ensure archival -- Steel)

Thanks

Thanks for un-semi-protecting the Dragonballz game page, I was having a hard time putting it on the list for pages that need unprotecting. It's such a long title and if you forget an uppercase letter the link breaks.Simondrake 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

EssjayBot III

I've set the bot up with the template you provided; please check this diff to be sure everything worked correctly. If you ever need to make any changes to the setup, please let me know on my talk page. And as always, thank you for shopping EssjayBot. ;) Essjay (Talk) 17:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Essjay)

For some reason it ignored the top section dated 29th October. -- Steel 17:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's odd; I'll ask Misza13 (the programmer) to offer an opinion on why. Essjay (Talk) 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd indeed - this may have something to do with the large amount of code preceeding the first message. Ping my talk if it happens again, and I'll have a closer look. Misza13 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Protecting

Thanks for protecting Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad, as it seems you think that it could helps article to better article. But have you read my comments below the request? Thanks. --Hossein.ir 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Kofun Period

The version of Room218 that repeats Revert without doing Talk is protected. Please return it to the state before Romm218 participates. And, please mediate to Room218 to participate in Talk. --ShinjukuXYZ 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC) The version that you protected is a personal edit of Room218. (As for it, a bold edit without the source is done. )Please look at the history. A lot of users have rejected the edit of Room218. (And, Room218 never participates in Talk. )--ShinjukuXYZ 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 　

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Steel, regarding your protection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of the editors who was reverting posted what he thinks is another editor's real name in an edit summary. I therefore did an administrative delete of that edit, but the effect of that was also to delete your protection (I had to delete every version that had the edit summary in it, which meant every version after he had posted it, and that included the version you protected). I was going to redo the protection, but the deletion means it's now on a different version to the one you protected, and I don't want to mix up my reasons for the deletion with the content dispute. I'm therefore going to leave it to you to decide whether page protection is still needed. My apologies for the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

With that editor now community banned (and being one of the primary warring editors) , I'm not so sure that the protection is further needed. (→Netscott) 02:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

There' still some of this "history's greatest villain" stuff going on, but I tend to favor unprotected articles, so I'm fine with you unprotecting it again. Best, Gwernol 10:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

Image:Korea-arms2.gif was deleted from commons for not having a source however I am unable to unlink it as per protection. I am deleting the image now and ask you to remove it from Joseon Dynasty infobox. --Cat out 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

David Westerfield

You have protected the Westerfield article at the request of “Fighting for Justice” due to edit warring between myself and him. This is a repeat of the situation in April, when Howcheng protected the same article, at the request of TripleH1976, due to edit warring between myself and him. Both TripleH1976 and “Fighting for Justice” are vandals who indulge in personal attacks - see the “Fighting for Justice” Talk page for proof. They could almost be twin brothers. (In fact I suspect that “Fighting for Justice” IS TripleH1976.) Yet in both cases it was the VANDAL’s version of the article that was protected in preference to mine. TripleH1976 was eventually indefinitely blocked, and rightly so. If there is any justice in this world, then “Fighting for Justice” will soon suffer the same well-deserved fate.

Let us compare his version of the Westerfield article, with mine. Basically, his version states that Westerfield possessed child porn. My version points out that, according to some members of Law Enforcement, it WASN’T child porn -.and I give supporting references. Although legally only a misdemeanor, this is an extremely serious charge in the public’s mind: people think it utterly disgusting and get highly emotional about it. In fairness to Westerfield (and the article IS a biography of a living person), and to comply with Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality, don’t you think this contrary - and expert - opinion should be included in the article?

To me, this is a no-brainer, and I can only assume that “Fighting for Justice” isn’t familiar with the impartiality required in academic work. Please firmly explain it to him.196.15.168.40 04:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The words, "some members" is considered weasel words around here. The article does not need more neutrality. It's got plenty of it. 196.15.168.40 is a vehement supporter of David Westerfield. He came to wikipedia on a crusade to defend him. I know this because: a. he does not edit any article besides the DW one. and b. for every negative thing against DW he has to counter with something positive. Wikipedia is like a court room to them. I don't know how well you know about this case Steel359. But let me tell you the evidence against Westerfield was overwhelming, all be it circumstantial, but still overwhelming.

You would have to believe in conspiracies and horrible bad luck to think he is innocent. The so-called "supporting references" from 196.15.168.40 are in fact defense spin. He deliberately abuses primary sources. He very rarely gives any secondary sources. His reference for the detective saying it wasn't child porn is flimsy at best. The transcript does not quote him, but we're told what he said through hearsay from the judge. Wikipedia policy is that primary sources must have a secondary source to interpret them. Well, 196's secondary source is himself. He likes to provide the commentary.

For example, he gives his own interpretation for discrepancies. He talks about the media; pointing out inconsistencies as if to justify his defense for David Westerfield.. Then to negate the powerful evidence of Westerfield's rape videos, he includes the fact that some still images were really innocent. And that his ex-girlfriend found nothing sexual about the images. All right, well, what does that have to do with the rape video? Are we to think rape videos are ok, so long as you own innocent looking still images? It is little things like these that 196 enjoys doing. As if the wikipedia article is his forum. But, now, onto this law enforcement guy. His statement should not be in the article, because it is BIASED. Now only that it is highly controversial, because Westerfield was convicted of child porn possession. The judge threw out the opinion and stated the jury would decide if it was child porn or not.

My version of the article simply affirms the jury's finding. It is not my imagination, it's a fact - the jury convicted him. 196 wants this ignored as much as possible. It never says it was the right verdict. That's what all wikipedia article should have to do. It is not wikipedia's duty to make it seem like the jury got it wrong. The article does not need anymore statements from either Detective Armstrong or the nameless U.S. Attorney. The transcripts you provide give no name to this Attorney, not only that there is a mountain of pages to go through if one would like to find his name. People don't have enough time for reading so many pages. Enough positive spin is included for his pornography. The article mentions that many of his photos were legitimate. The article is not a mouth piece for the defense. If you don't like the fact he was convicted then make him a website. Don't come to wikipedia and expect people to jump on your Westerfield is innocent bandwagon. 196's goal is to make the article the most positive article for Westerfield at any cost. He does not care if it requires twisting, spinning, misrepresenting, or adding frivolous information. The article is extremely fair to DW. I understand wikipedia's article have to be neutral. We kneed to strive for that, however, it does not require articles to reach perfect neutrality. Just how neutral do you have to reach for a biography on a death row inmate? They are not in prison for winning an outstanding citizenship award. As for me being TripleH, let me tell you, I am not him and I don't appreciate your accusations. [[User talk:Fighting for Justice|<sup>(talk)</sup></font>]] 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reading all this. Keep your comments concise. -- Steel 11:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'm sorry. All you need to know is that 196.15.168.40 is an individual with a crusade. A crusade to change public opinion on David Westerfield. His edits are ALL in bad faith. And so long as he has access to edit in wikipedia the Westerfield article should remain protected. For he will alter it the first opportunity he gets. I hope that is concise. [[User talk:Fighting for Justice|<sup>(talk)</sup></font>]] 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Fighting for Justice’s response:

This shows you what I’ve had to put up with for weeks. (MONTHS if you include TripleH1976.) Yet it’s very simple, really. Is there (authoritative, verifiable) contrary evidence? Yes, there is. Then it SHOULD be included in the article. Is this an important topic? Yes, it is. Then the contrary evidence MUST be included. End of story. (I‘m also not going to read all of his long diatribe against me. I used to patiently reply but it doesn’t do any good, I just get more of the same in return.)196.15.168.40 03:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No it does not. You have a terrible misconception about wikipedia then. Wikipedia isn't a court room. Go make David Westerfield a website, you'll do him much more of a favor with a website then being a disturbance on wikipedia. [[User talk:Fighting for Justice|<sup>(talk)</sup></font>]] 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”: I consider it a self-evident truth that important information, for which there are authoritative and verifiable sources, SHOULD be included in Wikipedia articles. Please explain why you think otherwise. Not being a courtroom is irrelevant: academic work is very similar to a courtroom: both are concerned about the truth. There are already several websites defending David Westerfield, we don’t need another one. What we do need is for public sources of information to not mislead people, they must not suppress important information. Administrator howcheng explicitly said that Detective Armstrong’s conclusion COULD be included (see the Westerfield Talk page for August), yet you have repeatedly removed it. Clearly I am not the one under a terrible misconception.196.15.168.40 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, because you use weasel words in your description. The article is balanced and long enough. To include EVERYTHING you want would turn the article into a novel. The child-killer shouldn't have a long article just to satisfy you. All you want is a kind article for him; that's been your goal since the day you came here. We shouldn't hurt Westerfield's whittle feelings. Howcheng's example is under the assumption that you have a secondary source. You can not quote straight from the transcript, without a secondary source. Without a secondary source is comes across as original research. read it for yourself. The quote doesn't even come straight from his mouth. It is hearsay from the judge. And what the hell is this academic work crap you talk about? You are so full of it. Wikipedia isn't academic. It maybe trying to be, but it's got a long ways to go. One prominent person already took issue with his biography. A law-abiding person that is, not like your child-killer Westerfield. [[User talk:Fighting for Justice|<sup>(talk)</sup></font>]] 08:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The lowly little janitor sends her thanks!

Hey Steel, thank you very much for keeping an eye on my talk page. My friend has posted that piece of trolling has about five times in the last couple of days...Hopefully he'll get bored soon. Thanks again for reverting; I really appreciate it. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

Template:Philosophy navigation. -- Sock of Steel 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Block on The End (A Series of Unfortunate Events)

Thank you for protecting it from editing. The other editor and I had different ideas on how to seperate the page and were very stubborn. When we tried to discuss it, we didn't listen to each other or try to compromise. The protection will let someone else decide. Thank you. Clamster5 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about your response. Since the page is blocked from editing, an actual decision about the formatting will have to be reached before it can be editing it again. Clamster5 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to get a concencus? At this point, I'm very against working with this editor. Clamster5 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A concencus on the talk page from other editors, especially those involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events. I posted the beginnings of a discussion there, but I am not going to take part in it and I'm asking the other user to do the same. Clamster5 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ingria

Thanks! :D Khoikhoi 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Request to unprotect

May u please unprotect this page S. Jithesh and allow to recreate the article with more references and sources...? Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But a second Afd was like this.Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh (2nd nomination) The first article was created by someone without proper references or sources. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. Thanks in advance. --Mardavich 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for protecting the pages Seljuqs, Khwarezm Shahs, etc. Please also protect the pages Babur and Timurid dynasty, until the problems are solved. Thanks! Tājik 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kofun Period

Please release protecting in the Kofun Period. It is a Korea version that you protects. (The root in Japan is Korea. )　The South Korea version doesn't have the source. And, they are running away from the discussion. Please release protecting that insults Japan early. 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (Note: This message was unsigned. An arbitrary date has been added to ensure archival)

An injustice

Thanks for ur reply and advice. The matter is discusssed in the talk pageTalk:S. Jithesh of the deleted article by Kerala wikipedians. The deletion was against the opinion of all native wikipedians.Please have a look..? Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for help/advice

Hi - maybe you can help me. I've been working on Rodney Mullen to cleanup various POV issues and uncited material. You can see on the talk page Talk:Rodney Mullen where I raise various issues. Recently another user has been reverting back to a far older edit that he made. You can see on his user page: User talk:72.177.206.131 where I raise some issues of POV. My question is, how should I proceed? The older version is heavily POV and that's why I edited in the first place, but I don't want to start an edit war. Thanks in advance. Steve-g 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Steve-g 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I think it's this version just before I cleaned it up: [[2]]. Although the user isn't signing in, I think he used to be User:Nominay. Steve-g 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I managed to get the user onto the talk page, although it wasn't construcive: Talk:Rodney Mullen Steve-g 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help... over the past few weeks or so, I've had to ask for semi-protection for a series of astronomy-related pages that seem to continually bring out streams of trolls and vandals. It is somewhat disconcerting to have to restrict editing in any form, but in the case of those articles it has really helped to reduce the "noise" so that editors can focus on improving the content. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for seeing to the Schizophrenia article. I will leave you a message if problems persist. Regards. --Muchness 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:209.80.152.109

Only 48 hours? It's the third blockade, after many warnings. Xx236 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese pretender

In the page Hilda Toledano why you protect this page in favour of a vandal ( user:195.93.21.41 ) that continue to libel this pretender as "impostor pretender" ??? Please if you want insert this category in this article put here the impartial source of this your affirmation, at the contrary this is only a personal point of view of this vandal and a libel and in this encyclopedia has no value. Jackind 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This anon user and the registered name he is signing as are sockpuppets of a banned vandal named Manuel de Sousa. Charles 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Babur Protection

You recently protected the page Babur, but I can't find the RFP on the WP:RfP page. I do note that you posted a comment to User:Tajik about this protection[3], where it seems that you protected it in response to a request from him, although you also advise him to go through channels regarding another page he requests be protected. I appreciate that you advised him to go through normal processes on the other edit, however, I don't agree with protecting his edits, as he has clearly indicated in his discussion on the Babur talk page, and on other talk pages, such as the one for [Herat], that he is unwilling to discuss the issue in a civil manner with other editors. If he continues to act uncivil, this will result in his essentially getting his edits protected. I am concerned that this user engages in edit wars, then requests his edits to be protected, without going through the RfP process, then essentially locks in his edits by his refusal to engage in civil discussions. I would simply like you and other administrators to become aware of this situation. Thank you, KP Botany 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with KP, Steel. I noticed you have protected several pages that Tajik and E104421 have been revert-warring on. Instead of protecting articles they get in arguements over, I suggest you try to talk to them individually and remind them of WP:AGF, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. I urge you to unprotect the articles in which they are the only two revert warriors, and then post a message urging them strongly to cease revert warring and engage in civil debate. If they persist in acting in the disruptive manner they have clearly been acting, perhaps an enforced cool-down period in the form of a block is in order. Let me remind you that you have protected Babur, Timurid Dynasty, Seljuq dynasty, Mughal Empire, Khwarezmian Empire, Template:Turkish History Brief, among several others. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You definitely make a good point, but the six articles you linked to had more than just E104421 and Tajik edit warring on them. Can you link me to one where it was just those two edit warring? -- Steel 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Babur was really just an edit war between those two. Regardless, perhaps a request for mediation is in order to try to organize all the parties involved in this together. Since the Mediation Committee is really tied up at the moment, maybe a couple neutral parties could try to resolve the dispute. -- tariqabjotu 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to pester you, but why was Template:History of Iran protected? -- tariqabjotu 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Timurid dynasty

Hello, you protected that page. I just wanted to let you know that certain users are trying to insert racial templates into several articles. Racial templates, such as the history of Turks which is currently on that Timurid page, are inaccurate and misleading. First of, different Turkic peoples have completely different histories. For example, the Huns had nothing to do with the Timurids. Secondly, grouping a bunch of people like that is also inaccurate, as the Huns were by minority Turkic, and the Mughals were mixed. National templates, such as the history of Russia or the history of Iran templates, are not racial, and are about different historical periods within a nation. This attempt to make a racial template is unacceptable, what if there was a History of Aryans template? Please remove that template from the protected page.Khosrow II 23:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version. -- Steel 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the article m:The Wrong Version and its comment, "There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the 'right' version." Any time my version of a page has been protected it has always been the 'right' version. This will always be true. KP Botany 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual, many thanks

Thanks again Steele, for the vandal revert on my user page. Best as always, Gwernol 00:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you block American Football

This page is not that big and needs to be edited (Out Of Date) please tell me on my talk page Cocoaguy 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[Statement of gratitude]

[Unique statement of excitement]! [Your username name, not subst:ed properly], [statement of gratitude] for [your specific vote] in [link to request for adminship], which passed with a final tally of [final tally][percent in parentheses (optional)]. I plan to [statement of intentions regarding admin tools] and [statement acknowledging oppose votes as helpful]. If you [type of desire for help] or want to provide any [type of feedback], feel free to [link to talk page or e-mail]. [Statement of gratitude, again (optional)] [signature of new admin]

Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Hello. Could you take a look at this, please, and tell me why I shouldn't have reported them straight after the blatant warning was given. I thought that was the whole point of the blatant warning? Not being funny, just trying to get things straight. :) Cheers. Bubba hotep 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave the bv after the attack to my user page. But the point is, I could have given tests 2-4 prior to this and my userpage would have been the one after the final warning. From what I can reason, giving a blatant vandal warning means just that - they should be reported whether or not they vandalise after? Maybe I'm wrong. Just seems a bit strange. I'm trying to stop these people doing damage and it gets taken off AIV. Bubba hotep 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I'll bother in future. Or I'll go through the pointless rigmarole of issuing tests 2-4. Thanks for the clarification. Bubba hotep 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians

Thank you for controlling the editing on this page. This will now either force them to discuss and/or stop them from continuing their spread of lies. Ramapoughnative1 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Neofascism Article

It was protected at version x, then unprotected, then reportected at version y. Please revert back to the version x prior to the recent edit war. It was protected because of contentious edits regarding Israel pending mediation. They were all taken out in the brief window of unprotection. Supposedly it was unprotected because of inactivity of mediation. We have all been patiently waiting for a mediator to show up. In light of Avigodor Lieberman's inclusion in the Israeli cabinet it is just ridiculous for every country in the middle east to be listed as neofascist except for Israel.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FULL, m:The Wrong Version. -- Steel 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My block ...

It's interesting that in Wikipedia, certain people - like User:NisarKand - are allowed to insult an entire nationality by calling them "rats", while others like me are blocked because of criticizing knwon POV-pushers (like E104421). Just take a look at the talk pages of Hephthalites as well as Babur and Timurids. It's not me who is insulting an entire nationality, it is not me who is insulting leading scholars, and it is not me who is pushing for unsourced POV. Yet, out of all, you had to block me, while NisarKand is still editing pages, and while User:Karcha and E104421 continue their agenda. That's really sad.

Tājik 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the all seeing eyes of God. If others are making personal attacks, feel free to point them out. -- Steel 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Locking off of the Deir Yassin Massacre page

Congratulations - you've caught this page at a point that is in a relatively acceptable condition.

I don't know how to advance this part of the project, the details of this business are fairly well known, the village was friendly, there was a massacre. I cannot understand why otherwise well-intentioned people keep trying to insert "battle" when the word "attack" is so much more a match. Some of these revisionist edits are still in there, but fairly well concealed.

PalestineRemembered 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't "catch" it anywhere... of course it was a battle from a an iraqi/syrian outpost and all this will be changed. Amoruso 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

I know protected versions aren't endorsements of version but you still shouldn't have protected the version which blanked out so much sourced material IMO. Cheers. Amoruso 09:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You've done it again and I think it's wrong despite the "wrong version" policy. You can see here that User:Zero0000 deleted mass material which is sourced and provided no reasons for this except for one quote in the discussion page. I think something needs to be done as the protected versions for some reasons protect this obvious vandalism. [4] It's not content dispute when he doesn't explain why. Amoruso 12:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:E104421 and User:Karcha

Are you sure these two users are sockpuppets of each other? I know E104421's contributions reasonably well and he always seems to be a holder of a moderate Pro-Turkish POV who always played by the rules. I do not know Karcha well but he looks like a bearer of much stronger Turkish POV. They look to me like distinctively different personalities and I would be surprised if they are just the multiple accounts of the same person. Obviously as bearers of the same POV they are often on the same side in editorial conflicts. Both have a reasonable amount of edits for new users (Karcha - 227 since October; E104421 - 1100 since August).

What evidence do you have to suggest they are the same people? I have noticed that you have pasted SockpuppetCheckUser template on the Karcha's user page but I failed to find any checkuser requests for these users. Alex Bakharev 03:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. E104421 maintain that they are two different people on the same campus. I suggested him to Email directly to Dmcdevit. Dmc has the Checkuser facilities and we do not Alex Bakharev 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shamir1

Hi, for your information I have complained about User:Shamir1 at WP:ANI#Violation of good faith by user Shamir1 concerning his recent page protection stunt that involved you. Cheers. --Zero^talk 05:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ian Pitchford was unblocked for Palestine

and it won't help because others are there too battling it. I think you should re-consider. Thanks. Amoruso 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 22:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again for your kind words, I hope I won't disappoint you! ReyBrujo 22:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

POV template

Sorry for bothering you once again, but please take some time to look at this: [5] Tājik 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kofun Period

The article in the Kofun Period that you are protecting is based on a source not academic. The article in the Kofun age that you are protecting is based on a source not academic. Did the Korean establish ancient Japan? Do you agree to this Korean's insistence?　 The hypothesis of Egami announced in 1970 is not a main current according to the gene investigation and ruins. Moreover, The insistence that the Soga clan is Korean is not being written in nihonshoki at all. Is the character written in Eta Funayama Sword an ancient Korea language? Why do you understand that it is a ancient Korea language though are not researched ancient Korean at all? This article is a big insult to the history of Japan.

Please execute a limited block by this version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kofun_period&oldid=87363124 I prepare the discussion. --61.23.13.243 05:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for unprotecting american football i thought protection was unneeded though i am able to edit it. :) Cocoaguy 02:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel request

[6] The amount of vandalism is increasing since the anonymous IP/new user protection was lifted. This was done in the past with disastrous results, and should only be increasing now that another "raid" was conducted. I am requesting the same protection until such nonsense can be patted down. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IBM Rational Quantify

I'm a bit confused as to why the article on Rational Quantify (a profiling tool of the same family as Purify was deleted. I'm relatively new -- have gone through the notability/validity criteria but haven't found a clause that covers this instance. Help. --HonoluluMan 04:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

CSD A7. -- Steel 09:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(Arbitrary header)

Why did you block classical liberalism in its current form? The edits I made were minor, for example, most of them were putting quotes into block quotes. I also moved a few sections under one another, for example, the Classical Liberalism as Neo Liberalism now included Criticism of Classical Liberalism as Neo Liberalism. This makes perfect since. But ShawnFitzgerald, who has no legitimate complaint as to why this should not be, in fact, I posted it on the discussion board before I did it and he never participated, reverted my changes to which you have protected it. At the very least, since he is in violation of comity on the discussion page, ie he reverted without any discussion while I made changes after I included a discussion section on the changes, it would be most polite for you to protect the page including my edits not the illogical and impolite revert of Shawn Fitzgerald. Thanks. 09:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (Note: This message was unsigned. An arbitrary date has been added to ensure archival)

See WP:FULL and m:The Wrong Version. -- Steel 09:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anax Imperator (band)

Anax Imperator's page shouldn't have been deleted, as the band conforms to WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" pt. 5 and 7. The band is listed with half a page in the norwegian pop & rock encyclopedia, and was a major contributor to the industrial & goth scene in Norway. I added this undelete req. to WP:DRV. -- Hba 18:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what deletion review has to say. -- Steel 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, thanks for the swift reply -- Hba 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

529 plan

Thanks for unprotecting - I posted a request just a few minutes after! Could you do Car donation too? It was semi-protected at the same time for the same reasons. Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 17:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Siobhan Hansa 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ProductWiki Link

Hi Steel, I responded to your rejection of my request. I think there's a misunderstanding of what ProductWiki actually is. Thanks. Omarismail 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Barbie

The article Barbie has been unprotected. Hopefully this will not lead to the constant round of nonsense editing and blanking that led to the semi-protection. If this happens again, there will be little choice but to semi-protect the article again.--Ianmacm 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:65.25.106.203

I noticed her grammar was perfect so allowed user creation but rv'd my comment after seeing yours. We should get her to create an account tho  Glen  17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My God then I think we both left each other comments at the same time! Great minds...  Glen  17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP Unblock

One of my students just received the message informing us of the unblock. I would like to thank you for taking the time to review the request that I sent in. I can assure you that nothing like this will happen in the future, as I've made sure that the students responsible have learned their lesson. Again, thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Mrs. Dawn Booher 65.25.106.203 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jay-Z

Hi. Not to be too critical of your actions; but you unprotected the Jay-Z article the weekend of his 24 hour tour, and five days before his new album was released. I've requested that it be semi-protected again; I'm just curious as to your thinking in this situation. Thanks. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a routine unprotection because the page had been protected for a month. If the page is getting vandalised then reprotection is not a problem. -- Steel 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule

What should I do if someone violates the three revert rule afer already being warned about removing content? --Ted87 19:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --Ted87 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sony protection

Hi. I'm not questioning your judgement at all. I was just wondering why Sony was unprotected? Mark83 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. It was a routine unprotection because the page had been protected for a month. -- Steel 03:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Mark83 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Protection

Sorry, I just felt some of the articles could be unprotected after nearly two weeks. Apparently, some of them are being hit hard again. Nishkid64 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Reprotected African Elephant

Got whacked in the last 24 hours... re-semiprotecting. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

MariusM Editwaring Again

In late October the Transnistria page was locked after user Evilalex reverted the agreed intro to the page edited by user Penambuco with agreement from all. Today the page reopened and I inserted the agreed Penambuco edit with use of the words 'unrecognised country' instead of calling Transnistria a region . Also, this was because we were to to do this to keep it consistant with the rest of Wikipedia. Also it was agreed to remove the emotive word 'Terrorism' but MariusM likes like because it discredits our country, These changes were reverteds within an hour by MariusM . This was the exact same revert that got the page locked. Can you please invertigate this. It is sadly possible we may need to lock the page again and mediators brought in Mark us street Nov 25th 2006.

Re:Protection of Fluirse

Thanks Steel, I understand now the difference in this entry and 'notable' entries, please accept my apologies. however, I would suggest you unblock the Flúirse entry for the word meaning, as it is notable as a Gaelic (Irish Language) word meaning "Pleantiful", which there should be an entry for.

I will adhere to the username policy (did not see any note of this when signing up) and will not make any further entries under this heading (or at least until such a time that there is content that is notable)

Cheers

I have removed the protection. -- Steel 15:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

840

Hehe, it took precisly 25 minutes after unprotecting 840 for that anon to come back and start reverting to the non-consensus version. I fixed it, lets see how determined this guy is. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it has been a few days and the same person is still coming in from many IPs and making the same changes. It appears the reason the page was originally sprotected still applies. Perhaps you may consider reinstating the sprotect? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reprotected. -- Steel 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks wikibuddy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Poop deck

Almost as soon as you unprotected it the vandals started in on it.

The article itself is unlikely to be added to since it is broadly "complete", and replacing that semi-protection appears to me to be a great idea. Otherwise we end up reverting vandalism just for the sake of it. Let's face it, it has the exciting word "poop" in it Fiddle Faddle 00:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Only two vandalous edits since it was unprotected. That's not a whole lot. Send it to WP:RFPP if things keep up. -- Steel 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I did last time. It escalated to more than one per day. What prompted you to unprotect it? Fiddle Faddle 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

More than one per day? Whatever shall we do? Clearly the world is coming to an end. Anyway, I unprotected it because it had been protected for a month or so, and semi-protection isn't a permanent measure. -- Steel 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall ignore the sarcasm. Since we are meant to be running an encyclopaedia here it seems strange to have an obvious target for vandalism left open to vandalism. The vandalism tends in this article to make it ludicrous and useless for reasonably long periods. So, since semi-protection is not a permanent measure, what do you suggest? Fiddle Faddle 09:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection is supposed to be only used when it's the only reasonable option left. An edit a day isn't enough to justify protection. Since it's been unprotected, one vandal has been reverted by the bot and another by me. Leaving it open isn't causing major problems. -- Steel 11:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That deals with what semi protection is, but it does not deal with a better suggestion. Would you be kind enough to turn your thoughts to that, please? Fiddle Faddle 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem that needs a solution. -- Steel 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I too wish you would not just "on principle" unprotect entire lists of articles. The semi-protection has been built up over time based on the collective knowledge and experience of folks who have had to deal with the vandalism for that particular page. Semi-protection has become a fact of life and an essential tool for keeping up with increasing volume of users/vandalism, as Wikipedia moves from growth to quality (Jimbo's own words). Could you please be more discriminating when unprotecting? For example, if you're familiar with RC patrol, you'll know that Anus, Asshole, Douche and African elephant should never have been un-semiprotected. I fear you're causing more mayhem than you think. [7] -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

(margin Reset) I am grateful to another admin for reprotecting this article. I'm not sure whether that was an "own initiative" or after a request. To me this is both within the rules of semi protection and pragmatic. I do not see that you have provided sufficient rationale for your unprotection, and concur with many of the sentiments expressed by Fuzheado. Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note from th epolicy you quoted: Semi-protection is usually a temporary measure, and lifted once the problem is likely to have passed, but some articles with a history of vandalism, such as George W. Bush may be semi-protected on a continuous basis. Poop Deck falls into the category of articles with a history of vandalism. It is not the frequency we look at here, but the pure fact. It has ben vandalised regularly, thus requires semi-protection. Fiddle Faddle 10:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Poop deck has been unprotected per consensus on the incident noticeboard [8]. -- Steel 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I expect, in due course, there will be another consensus, and then anther and yet again another. You have not answered the thoughts put to you, though. But then it is also wholly unimportant. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection question

Hey, I saw you just protected User:Hibou8. I was wondering if I was wrong to deny the same semi-protection for User:JForget? Nishkid64 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay. I personally didn't think two hits of vandalism by one editor was really enough to justify userpage protection, but I guess it really doesn't matter. I ended up blocking the user for a period of 48 hours, but I guess they would come back and vandalize JForget's userpage again. Thanks, anyway. Nishkid64 16:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: RFA

Well, thank you for informing me about this. I will keep this in mind in the future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MariusM Editwaring Again

In late October the Transnistria page was locked after user Evilalex reverted the agreed intro to the page edited by user Penambuco with agreement from all. Today the page reopened and I inserted the agreed Penambuco edit with use of the words 'unrecognised country' instead of calling Transnistria a region . Also, this was because we were to to do this to keep it consistant with the rest of Wikipedia. Also it was agreed to remove the emotive word 'Terrorism' but MariusM likes like because it discredits our country, These changes were reverteds within an hour by MariusM . This was the exact same revert that got the page locked. Can you please invertigate this. It is sadly possible we may need to lock the page again and mediators brought in Mark us street Nov 25th 2006.

I don't really have the motivation to investigate stuff at the moment. If you need someone to look into this the folks over at WP:ANI will help. -- Steel 16:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ashley West

Hi! I just wanted to know why you deleted my page? DavidJJJ 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No assertion of notability. -- Steel 17:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued incivility

Again, have you seen these? "You are really a waste of time."[9] "It is you who is a totally hopeless case." (Although in reply to same, still, as I've been told, someone else's bad behaviour doesn't excuse your own.)[10] "You mean we should let people like you flood Wikipedia with nationalistic ... nonsense, ...."[11] In edit summary, "rv of nonsense...."[12], in midst of edit war between the two, something pages have been blocked for. It's rampant in this area of Wikipedia, but more so by some users than others, and continues, although he appears to have stopped attacking me. KP Botany 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I intended to, but it's so hard to figure out where to post these things. And I think, because there are so many people involved with this one poster, that it is better to post there. Motivation? Energy? What's that? KP Botany 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

IT Branch

Hello,

I do not see a reason for this page being deleted and protected. Where is that reason available and how can I unprotect and fix this link? Thanks.

Deepsea007 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia would rather you didn't create articles about your company. -- Steel 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

List of MGS characters

I think all your issues have been seen to, input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Metal Gear Solid characters

†he Bread 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

polonium

Hi, I don't think it was necessary to protect Polonium. There was repeated vandalism from one IP address which is blocked, then there was a single incident from another address that seemed to have the same person at the other end. I think it's better to just block that address too if it persists, instead of protecting the page. Several more anon users are trying to contribute to the article and the protection gets in the way. 67.117.130.181 06:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Poseidon

I have cleaned up a month's worth of edits. You formerly un-semiprotected this article. Reverting the page seems to have reinstated the semi-protection. do please look at the last hundred edits of the Edit History if it shouyld occur to you to unprotect this page: isn't it a disservice to responsible adults to leave this article wide open to vandalism? Look at the time that has been spent in keeping it free of scribbles. --Wetman 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks. No more "Remember Me" functions from now on! Protoss Archon 19:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

TJ Spyke

He continues to revert the poster at WWE New Year's Revolution with no good reason or discussion. RobJ1981 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this. Page protected. -- Steel 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

If you've got five minutes. Can you take a look at the two taiwan articles listed at WP:RFPP, I think they shouldnt be protected but the editor in question should be warned and if continues listed at WP:AIV. Since I've only been an admin for less than a week I'd prefer to get another opinion before responding. Thanks Gnangarra 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the advice I've gone with page protection as the editor does indicate continually edits so I think 24 hour block wont be effective. Gnangarra 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule

I see that you deleted the redirect page for Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and the comments you put. The point on creating the redirect page was to redirect the user to the page he/she meant. --Moreau36 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects are discouraged and I generally delete them on sight, as do a number of other admins. -- Steel 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that they had an RfD a few months back [13]. -- Steel 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarfication, but please notify me about the deletion beforehand and the reason. Thank you --Moreau36 19:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenia article

Hello, when you unprotected the Schizophrenia article you asked interested parties to leave you a message if the editor continues edit warring. This is just a note to let you know he removed the content again today: [14]. --Muchness 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I remember this - you had that RfC and everything. At any rate, he's only removed it once in the last 15 days, and I noticed you've already left him a talk page message, so there's not much for me to do at this point in time. I'll try and remember to watch over the article. -- Steel 21:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Unfortunately, he's subsequently blanked the talk page message I left him[15] and reverted the article again[16]. --Muchness 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've left him a strongly worded warning. If he removes it again he'll be blocked. -- Steel 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issue

Hi Steel, I think it has been very unfair to block Elalan indefinitely when the case has still not been confirmed with any statistical evidence or just any information at all. An issue was raised, Essjay suspected something very inconclusively and now it is being declared to be a sockpuppet issue - a lot of coherence is lacking and it appears as if this whole thing has been foisted upon him. Elalan has contributed immensely to WP:NCSLC and has done a lot of good work. As per the Checkuser request Essjay has clearly mentioned that it very inconclusive and that it could not be confirmed at all. Furthermore, it has been mentioned in his block log that he has done 'abusive work' which to me is a very derogatory statement to use against a fellow editor who has a lot of edits nd contributions in Wiki. I would be very glad if you could provide a clarification on his indefinite block, which sounds too harsh towards any editor with all the contributions by his side. Looking fwd to hear your opinion on this issue. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I second the above request, according to clerk who did the check user, he said there is no way of confirming hence the community has to decide based on other evidence, but that process is still open see here how can without the community deciding what is the final decision as the conclusion is still open some one may be blocked. What is the next process to contest this decision ?RaveenS 14:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steel. You permanently blocked Elalan (talk · contribs) for 'abusive sockpuppetry' [([17]) ], and tagged his user page as a sock of Trincomanb (talk · contribs). Could you point me in the direction of this abusive sockpuppetry, other than the 'likely' verdict on checkuser? I can't find any, and am currently considering an unblock request. Proto::type 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Steel, can you please provide us the elements requested by the above user and I would like to mention you one thing. I know Elalan personally, and I know he is not a sockpuppet. While highly unlikely, at worst, Trincomanb may be a sockpuppet instead. Can you kindly reconsider the block? And I would like to ask you one question - If I and one share the same global IP, would it become a sock-puppetry? One account per user right? Not one account per IP right? -Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for a somewhat slow reply to this, I wasn't around yesterday and the only reason I'm here now is to sort this out. I made my decision based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Trincomanb - their editing pattern, !voting the same way, using exactly the same edit summaries, etc. Also worth noting is that some comments made by Elalan appear (to me at least) to strengthen the sockpuppetry case than weaken it ("For the TFD I voted for "Very Strong Keep" and justified my reasoning. You can see how long the discussion was on this. Trinncomanb voted for "Strong Keep". On the ongoing AfD (here [41], I voted for "Very Strong Delete" and he voted for "Speedy Delete"" and "My contributions have steadily increased since I joined wikipedia, while Trincomanb's participation has steadily decreased since the beginning of school year"). "I voted very strong delete but he voted for speedy delete, and over here he voted for strong keep but I voted for very strong keep" appears to be Elalan's defense, and it isn't a very strong one. He's also bringing up WP:AGF repeatedly. I get suspicious when people do that. I checked WP:ANI before replying here, and it appears Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has done a thorough check of their contribs and found that there's little there in terms of the times of their contributions to suggest they're different people [18]. And then we have the CheckUser, though given the existing evidence it was almost unnecessary.
Sechzehn: it is not one account per IP, and simply sharing IPs doesn't result in all but one account being blocked for sockpuppetry. It's only when two accounts appear to be working together that sockpuppetry issues are raised. -- Steel 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Emergence

With regard to the Emergence article, could you please restore the References section, part of this edit [19], and the reference to Johnson in the header paragraph, also part of that edit. Also, the See Also section was organized [20]. Could you restore that please? Also, could you restore balance or remove the ad hominem attacks on me by Fourdee in RfPP "User:Hu refuses (among several editors)" that remains after you blanked the explanatory material by myself and Psychohistorian. Thanks. Hu 14:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take note of the protection policy, admins shouldn't edit protected pages to restore sections in a content dispute. And I wouldn't worry about those "attacks" on WP:RFPP, nobody will take any notice of them and they'll be removed ina few hours anyway. My suggestion would be to take this dispute through mediation or submit a request for comment. -- Steel 14:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially as the reference section only contains one reference. -- Steel 14:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am always reluctant to invoke heavy duty machinery. Now that Fourdee has succeeded in getting the page locked into his state (after we all backed off and stopped editing it), the references edits and other edits are frozen out the way he clobbered them. An unfortunate state of affairs that will take sometime to untangle. I had hoped to avoid all that. Sigh. Well, thanks for doing what may have been necessary once the machinery was engaged. Hu 14:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Should not have unprotected Hrisi Avgi

You shoould not have unprotected Hrisi Avgi without discussing that on the discussion page, or without investigating exactly why the article was protected. User: Mitsos, who was the reason the article needed protection, has immediately launched a series of edits as soon as you unprotected it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:-Bobby/Desk for a rough draft of a RFC admin notice about the editor in question. Spylab 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Spylab started edit-waring again. I think he must be blocked. Have a look at the article's history and you will see I made a lot of compromise and encouraged Spylab to use the talkpage. He didn't and instead he started a revert war again. Mitsos 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a reason for requesting unprotection and I "launched a series of edits" because I want to improve the article. Mitsos 18:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly Auto Parts Speedy Deletion Dispute

I wrote that page in a style that I thought would be considered SPAM. Now someone posted on my User page that I have posted spam for that page. I guess this is a new Wikipedia Policy so I now have to go by it. I have posted a Speedy Deletion notice on the Auto Zone page as is was in almost the same format as mine. How in the heck should I write a page on O'Reilly Auto Parts without it being considered SPAM Sawblade05 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued problems with TJ Spyke

He hasn't assumed good faith and has done personal attacks against me: Talk:WWE New Year's Revolution and here: Talk:WWE Armageddon. After posting a AFG1 template on his talk page, he removed it. I've re-added the template, along with a no personal attacks template. I'm not sure what else to do at this point. There was a note about him on WP:AN before but it didn't seem to solve much. He controls articles, and attacks people. This is getting very tiresome. His latest page he controls: WWE Armageddon, the match order doesn't make a big deal... but he reverts any and every edit he hates (dispite there being a talk page discussion about it, which isn't settled). RobJ1981 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any personal attacks, but we have a dispute resolution process which you can go down. If you want a specific dispute resolved, file a mediation case here or here, or request comments. If it's just about TJ Spyke, submit a user conduct RfC. -- Steel 12:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

MELTDOWN

Hello. I see that you deleted the entry for MELTDOWN, the new Image Comics comic book series. I'm curious as to why it was deleted without an opportunity for discussion and/or revision, and how the entry could be altered in order to make it acceptable. Thanks, DBS 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (Note: This message was unsigned. An arbitrary date has been added to ensure archival)

Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza

Has been protected for weeks this page only because some users want delete the category "impostor pretender" in this page. Infact this is only a libel against this pretender in order to favour the other portuguese pretender Duarte Pio of Braganza. There is no source where we can see this lady be a impostor, at the contrary there are important sentence of Tribunal and newspaper articles of all the world confirmed here rights to be pretender. Why so in Wikipedia is possible an libel as this? Where is the impartial source where I can see she is impostor pretender? Please unprotect this page and delete the libel "impostor pretender" in this page.82.60.186.107 08:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been protected because, from what I can remember, some banned user has been edit warring with his IP(s). Make an account and remove it, or something. -- Steel 12:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem was some users (I think supporter of the pretender Duarte Pio of Braganza) continue to insert in the page of Maria Pia of Braganza the category of "Impostor pretender" ( Toledano, Hilda ). This is only a libel so other users delete the category "impostor pretender" in this page. So started this war. Why now in the page of Maria Pia continue to be the category "impostor pretender"??? This is only a big libel, there is no impartial source affirm this. So please you are an administrator and you can delete in this page the libel of the category "impostor pretender". I hope in your seriousness.82.60.186.107 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* [21]. I still suggest you make an account. -- Steel 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK! Thanks, now this is an impartial article of Wikipedia. Nistork 14:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Steel, the anon user posting IS the banned user! Charles 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hilda Toledano

Hi, I've sent you off the email you requested. Charles 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Userpages

Do you know if it's possible to create categories in userspaces? --sonicKAI 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You can make lists, but not proper categories. -- Steel 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Steel359

• Are you a boy or a girl?

Yes, he is – Gurch 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)