User talk:Steel

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

Click here to leave a new message

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Team effort

In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic

May I ask why you deleted the article of 'Republic, The Campaign for an elected head of state'?RepublicUK 16:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. – Steel 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dog Pound deletion

It appears this item has been created four times today and deleted that many times. I saw its recreation while on RC Patrol. Recommend a protected deletion. Morenooso 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got recreated a fifth time as I went to protect it... – Steel 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Value Model

Why did you delete this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meldrop (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[2]. – Steel 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue deleting this page? How can I change it so you don't delete it? Please explain what is wrong with it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meldrop (talk • contribs)

It's spam for some unremarkable "automated real estate evaluations tool". – Steel 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not spam. AVM's are used all the time in the US for property appraisals. I'm trying to add useful information about AVM's on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meldrop (talk • contribs)

Useful maybe but it wasn't all that encyclopedic. – Steel 23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other Chrishan album AFD

is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/17_(Chrishan_album). - Richfife 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I'll note that on the AfD. – Steel 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block to Bmdsherman

Greetings! Not sure if you're monitoring his talk page, but User:Bmdsherman is wondering what he needs to do to get unblocked. I didn't see a tag on his Talk page for the reason for the block, though I did see the block log. (Personally, I don't quite blame any admin for blocking a user whose two contributions are a copyvio article creation and a disambiguation-type link toward the page.) Since practice is to start everything with the admin who made the block, I just wanted to relay the message on his behalf, to make sure this doesn't go unaddressed. Regards, —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Pack deletion

Why did you remove the Proposal Pack article I was working on? Its under the "Business Software" category describing a software book on writing proposals. It follows the same format as other business software entries. It's mu understanding that is what the Business Software category is for, for describing a business software tool. It's a neutral description of a proposal pack and a discussion on topics related to proposal writing such as what to include. User:ilauder

Which other articles was this one based on? – Steel 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Request for Unblock on Autoblock" template ettiquette

(Sorry for such a clunky heading :-)
Hi Steel359, maybe you can answer a couple of minor autoblock questions I have that I didn't find answers to elsewhere. When the autoblock is removed, should I remove the "request for unblock" template or does the unblocking admin usually do it? Also, I have never seen people with "Your request to be unblocked has been granted" messages on their talk pages, like here -- do users generally remove those? I was under the impression that autoblocks are not that uncommon, but also that removing content from talk pages is discouraged. I'm just wondering what's the best thing to do here. Thanks in advance for your help, Icemuon 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few exceptions (removing declined unblock requests to make way for a new one, for example), but users are allowed to remove what they like from their talk pages. In your case, nobody is going to yell at you for removing the autoblock lifted template. – Steel 12:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

.... For reverting the vandalism on my userpage, its much appreciated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the delete

Thanks for deleting the Casa By The Sea page a place that many people suffered threw, and some people were trying to keep that from happening to others. Threw awareness of history, and instead of giving suggestions or tips to help the "POV problem" (in your eyes), you delete it. It wasn't tagged with Neutrality dispute so power trip succeeded. --Lettruthreign 02:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puncture fairy

You deleted this page, after I had added a 'hangon' tag and given a reasonable explanation for its existence in the talk page. Your explanation is invalid. Please tell me how to appeal against your action. Bards 13:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page you said that this is well documented. Do you have non-trivial sources about the term? – Steel 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common part of contemporary cycling subculture language, as yet documented in minor ways. The fact that that search gives over 1,000 hits on the term "puncture fairy" should tell you that it needs to be debated, not speedily deleted. I believe you acted against the rules, and in bad faith. Bards 13:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to take it you are ignoring me now? Bards 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Your Recent Message

Can you tell me who it was that you mentioned e-mailed you regarding a warning? I do not keep track of who I warn, because of the volume of reverts and warns I do weekly. ThePointblank 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember what was happening. I was thinking he was trying to delete my speedy deletion notice and deleted the whole page by accident, so I moved to restore the deletion notice and warned him. He could have instead changed the deletion notice to the {{db-author}} notice himself, or sent me a message to have the notice removed or changed. I can't read people's minds, especially if I am reverting and tagging articles at a very rapid pace and give little to no second notice except when tags and warnings are removed by the author, which I keep track through the Recent Changes page. ThePointblank 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raintime

A band who is going to play on the same venue as bands such as After Forever (check Google hits) cannot be deleted without even sending it to Requests for Deletion. Moreover, notability was asserted in my edit with the inclusion of the fact I just cited. It is, for all intents and purposes, a notable band - again, Google hits. I'm restoring the article. Thank you for your time. --Sn0wflake 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Institute Deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Haven Institute. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. William Meyer 07:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed the protocol to request a Deletion Review. Have I done this properly? What is the usual time line on such a process? I am eager to make whatever corrections are required, if the pages are undeleted. Thanks for your help. Respectfully, William Meyer 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel School Deletion

This is unwarranted...I was actually going to flag it as sounding like an advertisement (not me, btw), but to just delete this entry altogether is not really on. Surely the first stage is to flag a disputed entry and it can go to the talk page first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk • contribs)

It was painfully self-promotional. – Steel 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]