User talk:Steel: Difference between revisions

Click here to leave a new message

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Thanks for deleting Image:DBL.jpg

Thanks for deleting that image, It was the only copy of it I had, when my computer system crashed it wiped out my hard copy :( Nightwolf 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope there is another copy of it somewhere, but I'm not holding much hope... Nightwolf 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas [1]. – Steel 12:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) Have a cookie :) Nightwolf 06:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear steel,

I, 63.135.11.194 and AirFrance358, wish to redirect User:Gabeyg to User:AirFrance358, because I recently changed my ID. However, since you made my discussion page to be protected, I can no longer say anything. The last activity was redirection of User:Gabeyg, I didn't touch any sockpuppet tags. If you can not trust me, please keep watching for 3days.

Wikipedia:Protection policy#Unprotection

Dear Steel: I normally would not write the reverter but go to the relevant article Talk page. In this case, however, I'm stumped by your Edit smmmary and think it would be unprofitable for other readers if I used that Talk trying to discover what you meant by:

Unprotection - but it *is* ok, this is what we've just been discussing

I suppose that you mean that your Edit expressed just what you intended it say. My Edit summary, however, tried to fix what is seems to me is an implausible interpreation. Here is my Edit summary:

Unprotection - 2nd para., 2nd sent.: rm "content dispute" to clarify & avoid (wrong) inference that rm semi-protect for vandalism discussed on Talk p. is OK

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. My point was that it is not only Talk page content disputes that the prospective unprotector should consider. If there is discussion of semi-protection for vandalism on the Talk page, current wording suggests that the "free-lance" admin should ignore that in deciding whether to unprotect. Is that what you intended? --Thomasmeeks 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it implied that admins should ignore talk page discussion. I mean, part the discussion on WT:PROT is from people opposing "admins should..." type language. Perhaps the unprotection paragraph is best reverted to the way it was before people (including me) started fiddling with it (check any old revision before today to see). – Steel 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, please do revert to May 25 (or allow me to). I still have problems with that Edit, but I'd try to offer improvements on that better version but on the Talk page first and to keep your comments and those on the Talk page in mind. --Thomasmeeks 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. – Steel 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thx. That was queek! --Thomasmeeks 01:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

template:uw-deletionpolicy1

An editor has asked for a deletion review of template:uw-deletionpolicy1. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -N 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR against Taharqa

By the way, the three-revert rule violations against Taharqa (talk · contribs) come from the fact that 71.198.168.41 (talk · contribs) is apparently him. Note that when Egyegy (talk · contribs) accused Taharqa of having a "vandal sockpuppet" on the Al Fayyum article, Taharqa said in the next edit summary that he just "wasn't logged in". A similar series of events occurred at Fayum mummy portraits. In fact, the (recent) histories of the two articles looked so similar, I had to double check to make sure I didn't just look at the same article twice. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the info. – Steel 01:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels

The future name and direction of List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels has been discussed [2] and nearly everyone is agreed about keeping the focus purely on comics and the majority favour my suggestion of also moving it to Warhammer 40,000 comics - if you can unblock it we can move it ot you are welcome to do both if you like.

As it happens the creation of Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) has helped in some ways as it has helped establish clearly what the current entry isn't and the two should be complimentary once we can edit them both.

Thanks for the help. (Emperor 02:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

I'll unprotect but leave the move to someone else. – Steel 12:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that's great. (Emperor 13:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

David J. Tholen

Why are you deleting sourced and factual information about David Tholen's Usenet activities? Tholen's Usenet reputation is considerable and an important part of his story.

The current sources were not adequate, especially for less than flattering information. – Steel 12:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods

I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Random Cookie

Have a cookie!

Jehochman ^Talk 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent revert

Dear Steel: Would you kindly respond to your most recent revert at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Edit dispute on relation of WP protection policy and WP vandalism? --Thomasmeeks 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)