Jump to content

User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Re: ParserFunction

I just offered it to him, as you probably noticed. Sure, go ahead, I'm sure he wouldn't mind. Tip may want you to get some sort of exercise with that, which I don't have there, but you're more than welcome to look them over and give them a try. Enjoy! Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Martha Logan

Actually, I meant the second image, not the lead image. The second image should be replaced with a critically acclaimed moment ideally, or a very dramatic and important moment. Day six looks good, just briefly say why she is calling Anya. And as to whether it can achieve GA, that depends on whether you can find more information on how the character was created, portrayed, and received by critics. It's a good start, and I suspect there is more out there, so you have a pretty good chance. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are out there, there's no doubt about that. I'm searching on Google now, the sources are out there. Hmm, I'd have trouble getting an image for Day 6, unless it's on 24 Wikia. However, I know of an image that would be better suited for Day 5. You think 2 images would be too much? Additionally, I just would like to say, I know the article still needs a fair bit of work. The reception section is by no means complete, it's something I'm still working on. The thing I'll have to be most careful of is the lead section, I don't want to repeat content that is mentioned in the article further down. I'll keep working on it. If you find any sources on Martha on the internet, could you let me know? Cheers. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure will! Don't worry about the lead, just write the article and do that last to summarize. It's not repetition in the lead, its to summarize content that is already in the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

24

Try actually clicking the links I deleted, then I will go ahead and let you re-revert. Tool2Die4 (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with our policy on dead links, it states that "Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." Wikipedia:Linkrot#Repairing. The standard procedure is to use the wayback machine to repair the links. I intend to do this. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well don't I feel like a stupid jerk. Sorry. Tool2Die4 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Email

Extended content
Sorry that I can't oblige you Steve. I work in a controversial area where the risk of stacking the votes, rallying friends, editing along partisan lines by using private venues like email and phoning, is very high. Recently one senior administrator was caught out doing this, asking others off line to 'cover his back' he edited etc.etc. As a matter of policy then, I refuse to enable email (one pro-Palestinian editor had asked me once to enable it) or phone contacts because things must be above board, and appear to be above board, when one is editing. The risk of appearing to rig the votes, fix tag-team edits, game the system, is great. As I said to the one person (on my side) earlier when this request was made, in my view, every comunication between editors must be visible and above board, so that adversaries can at least be assured that one edits according to conscience, and one's judgement of the facts and the rules, and not out of a group interest or shared political bias. I've seen administrators overthrow the rules several times because one or two persistent violators of good editing manners prove to be very persuasive in their off-line personal contacts, explanations of how bad and unpunished the adversaries are, how unfair it all is etc.)
I don't include you in this, because you are not editing here, but trying to manage a dispute. In dispute management a certain degree of private consultation is generally efficacious. And perhaps much could be ironed out. My problem is, I want to keep the appearance at least of being a conscientious editor, fair in that anything I do can be judged for what it is, and not only the visible result of an iceberg of off-line discussions with friends where 'strategies' might be agreed upon. Nothing personal then, and best wishes for whatever mediation you undertake. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've absolutely no objection to that. Since this farce is based on a linguistic quibble, I suggest we all ask for three or five bureaucrats or Arbcom members who have a strong background experience in the linguistic side of the English wiki, to come in, ignore the political stuff, and just look at the linguistic evidence, pro and con. The linguistic evidence can be clipped out, each side looking back at the record for its evidence on this question, and pasted into a page. Once this is done, get native users among the higher bureaucracy or Arbcom, with a special interest in the English language, and no position one way or another on the specific politics of the area, to look at the meaning of 'uprising'. Let them vote on it. That shouldn't take more than a few hours, if people are cooperative. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this won't happen right away. We need confirmation from all parties before this can continue. Ideally, I'd prefer it be 3 Arbitrators, however it could be 3 admins, 3 bureaucrats, 3 members from the Mediation Comittee, or 3 from ArbCom. They will look at the discussion, and vote on a decision. The "for" side will select one, the "against" side will select one, and MedCom will select the other. I'm not 100% sure, but the decision will probably be binding. I still need a response from a few more users. All need to agree on this idea if it's going to progress. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Cripes, you're going to ask three senior people to submit themselves to the execrable torture of reading my longueurs on English usage, dozens of pages to corroborate why the O.E.D. definition of the term is what it is? Think twice, you may be endangering the prospects of a bright career in Wiki by imposing the linguistic water-torture on the grey eminences of our august institution's bureaucracy! Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This was the idea of an arbitrator. I'm not endangering anything. TO be honest, I really don't understand that last comment at all. This was an idea to help resolve a dispute that is deadlocked. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Strewth, I thought Australians were world-famous for their dry humour and sense of irony. When a person puts himself down, as I did, it is usually apologetical, at least to my generation. Still, I won't argue the point at length!Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • On second thoughts. I retract my assent. I'm not confident of a situation where friendly language and openness by someone like myself, with four decades of professional writing experience, is misinterpreted as a sly dig. This is the second time this week (the other one was in an exchange with Jaakobou, that a gesture of pleasantry on my part has been read as an attack. Misreading is what all this controversy is about, and, though this may reflect generational differences in one's feel for language, an old timer like myself can hardly trust a call on the English language's historic usage to an anonymous panel that is not formally qualified to judge such simple straightforward questions. So it will have to go to arbitration I suppose. No harm done then, and best regards Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for simply bloody brilliant idea - {{AIV}}. Having just let off a rant on the AIV talk page I saw this iconology on the AIV main page and I really hope there is a take up on it. I can see this solving alot of problems if there is buy in from other admins. Khukri 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I truly think people have accepted its use, even though all don't use it. I've also updated the template just now, added another thing to the template. I think you should also give one of these barnstars to Luna-San, she was pretty much the one who re-developed the new code, I've just built on it further. Thanks again, and for what it's worth, as you can see on the AIV talk page, I also have a strong opinion on anti-vandalism, and I don't hesitate to decline reports that have been insufficiently warned, specifically issued a 4im only. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 10:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd already given one to Luna, as the other main contributor, and things like this are bold and in my opinion will hopefully resolve some of these issues. I will certainly be using them from now on. Could also be beneficial to have one with a tick or similar icon, showing block has been actioned, with the bot clearing it off after ten mins. Before I was an admin was always a chore to scan through the edit summaries and diff's to find out who had done what etc. But anyway I digress, nice work. CheersKhukri 11:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that as an idea, however I think it would be rejected. Doing so would require modification of the helper bots, and would possibly create more work for admins, not less. I also considered adding something like a  Confirmed template, but it's probably pointless. You are free to discuss it on the talk page, or on the WP:AIV talk page, but at the present time, I feel the community would reject such a proposal. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks yes as soon as I got the message I knew who it was."That wiki guy" I happened to stub a few red links on russian universities which can be expanded. Not exactly what you'd call wiping out the wiki database is it. I'm sure most people here appreciate my efforts but there are one or two who are rather peculiar. Regards ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Visit Mr. Bigglesworth?" 10:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah I think I'm getting him mixed with somebody else there ar eso many editors who call themsevles a "wiki editor". Seems an honest mistake. Thanks anyway buddy. Best regards ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Visit Mr. Bigglesworth?" 10:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I think us clerks and administrators look at users in good standing mre favourably, as in, we're more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, as users in good standing with the community are unlikely to lapse into such acts such as vandalism. Hence why I removed your report, I barely had to check it. No harm done. P.S. I saw you annotated your original comment. :P Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 10:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the trouble I seem to have is with teenagers who have tried to even speedy delete start class articles before!! Its a learning curve for them. Now I have some referenced Burkina department articles to get up and running so far about 55/301 have been started -theres about another 250 like Niangoloko Department to do!; hopefully this won't bring on another vandalism report! All the best ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Visit Mr. Bigglesworth?" 11:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalising?? LOL. Check my editing history over the last few days even and it'll confirm I'm not exactly what you;d call a vandal. LOL ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Malformed AIV report

Regarding this AIV report, I've had to remove it, as it was malformed, and no username was on the report to be able to investigate the report. After a brief discussion, we suspect there may be a bug in your vandalism patrol software that caused the malformation. If you still know the username, please feel free to re-report, and we will look into it. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm using WikiMon and some of the macros are a bit heavy-handed. I appologize for bringing any white noise int AiV, just a bit of a clunky interface to get used to. LeilaniLad (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We thought it was a glitch with the software. Might I suggest Huggle? It's my preferred anti-vandalism tool, and it's very easy to use. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I put myself on the list for Huggle, but I may be short edits to qualify (I believe they are looking for 300+). I'm using WikiMon as a stopgap measure. LeilaniLad (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just keep at it, and I'm sure you will be there before you know it. Thanks again for helping us, best of luck editing. :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering

Hey Steve I was wondering. When you give warnings to other users, doesn't those warnings just last 24 hours? When that is done, you have to give the same warning next day? --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No I wouldn't think so. It would really depend on whether the IP is dynamic or not, a dynamic IP would likely have a shorter period of time before warnings would be considered stale, as opposed to, say, a registed account used only for vandalism on a long period of time. That's just my opinion on it. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh ok, because I saw a article saying that about warnings, just I don't remember the page. So, a registered user: If he gets 1 warning 15h April [for example] then at 17th April, he vandalize again. Would he get the same warning or does the date count? --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Double warning

I think we were sending the warnings at more or less the same time, with me just a beat behind you. I didn't realize two warnings were sent. freshacconcispeaktome 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

conflict about Ming Dynasty

Hi, Steve. Some conflicts happened once again in Ming Dynasty. A new map of a combination of 2 maps (Sinomap Press and Havard) has been revised recently according to the negociation last time. But it still cannot please some guys who have no resources to support their personnel thoughts. I'm not willing at all to bring the article once again into edit war. You promised you would watch the article, so I hope that you could handle with this ongoing conflict. Thanks!--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't been watching it closely recently. What is the issue specifically, and could you provide me a link? Also note, I'm rather occupied at the moment, so I can't promise I'll be able to look at it right away. Cheers. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response immediately. In fact, I'm also busy with my personnel affairs recently, that's because why I was late to revise the new map. And frankly, I don't know really where comes the conflict of this time. The new map separates Ming China proper and others parts clearly, which can be certainly please some guys, in my opinion. I also advised to show the scholarly debates in the sections of article if there're still disagreements. But some guys are so willing to modify the article without sources supporting. I really don't know what I can do in this case.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your warning is misplaced

Reverting vandalism is not subject to WP:3RR. Inserting "...is a terrorist organization" into any article is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, namely WP:WTA. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Block

Was just about to say that. Yes, their page creations had a similar pattern to the IP edit, so I figured I could get two vandals with one block through the autoblocker. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Whacking Stick award

Your page is virtually constantly vandalised and you remain calm, I hereby award you this award.

Vandal Whacking Stick
I award you this barnstar for putting up with vandalism from all users and still finding a way to accomodate the innocent annon users. This is for combating and fighting against vandals.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Martha Logan

The page seems to be fine though a few sentences remain unsourced suchas "Martha is a close personal friend of David Palmer." While I am aware it is a true statemen it could be interpreted as original research. The article in general is fine but just a couple of little things like what I have pointed out bring the article down slightly, good work none the less.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... I know a source I can use to cite that, its from the TV show. I could cite multiple episodes if needed, but as its really common knowledge, I think one will do. The question I have, does it pass your issue on notability, as Seddon is waiting on an answer so the mediation can progress to the next article. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 13:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be enough sources to justify notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Reference added. It's currently under GA drive. I've looked at the other articles under mediation, perhaps we should select an article that is unlikely to meet notability criteria. Which one would you suggest first? So, tick off Martha Logan as done? I'm glad. I worked very hard on that. There re still more sources out there for her, they just haven't been added yet. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 13:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am watching your pags but hey talk back messagea are nice to recieve.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation Barnstar

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
This is for adding sources and citations to what were though to be unsourcable articles and statements.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is awarded mainly for the establishment of notability ono the 24 articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Well, if you keep giving me so many, I might get clogged up :P Anyway, I saw this edit, and the edit summary was slightly amusing. In a good way of course :) And this one, I never knew you knew complex coding like that :) Say, do you do any template work? I've made a few, Template:24CharFUR, Template:24EventFUR, and Template:AIV. What do you think? Also, which article should we look at next? And, outside the mediation, the state of the 24 character articles, really concern me. Regardless of the fact they have notability in-universe, i.e Aaron Pierce, they're still written from an in-universe perspective. What would you suggest we do here? Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we plough throuh the ones in mediation and then the truly non-notable such as Drzen and Doyle can be mnerged. I say the next article sould be Ryan Chapelle.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Doyle I've struggled to find any sources for, and I have looked. Also, have a look at tis. My edit summary explains why I removed the whacking stick. I'm trying to be less bitey on "vandals" as I feel people are becoming too quick to label test editors as vandals, which isn't what our policy says. I think everyone needs to reread that policy.

Would you help me search for sources for Chapelle? Show the others you really are editing in good faith, even if I know you are, they don't feel so. Prove them wrong :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Amazing!

Hi, I am amazed! Where did you learn your bahasa Melayu from? I used to be very active in Wikipedia bahasa Melayu but have started my own Malay website about a year ago. The site at http://teknologi-maklumat.com is down a moment ago because I tried to remove the word "wiki: from http://teknologi-maklumat.com/wiki . If the attempt still fails within the next few days, then I will be forced to revert. Just a few comments on your Malay, if it helps:

  1. Helo, User saya yang adalah:Steve Crossin Di Bahasa Inggeris Wikipedia.
    • Helo, saya User:Steve Crossin daripada Wikipedia Bahasa Inggeris. (NOTE: Malay adjectives are always placed behind the noun that is being described.)
  2. Saya merupakan menghubungi anda sebagai seseorang telah pergi dahulu dan tercipta satu akaun di sini, di bawah nama saya, dan telah digunakannya untuk vandalise.
    • Sentence is not so clear. Seems like "I contact you as the person who had created an account in [Wikipedia English] under my name and had used it for vandalism."" Is it "here" or "there"? Let's say "here" means "Wikipedia English." So the translation becomes: Saya menghubungi anda yang merupakan pengguna berdaftar di Wikipedia bahasa Inggeris yang telah mempergunakan nama saya untuk melakukan vandalisme.
  3. Melayu saya tidak berapa baik, jadi jika saya telah membuat kesalahan-kesalahan tatabahasa sesetengah, saya meminta maaf. (almost perfect!)
    • Bahasa Melayu saya tidak berapa baik, jadi jika saya telah membuat sesetengah kesalahan tatabahasa, saya meminta maaf.
  4. Saya mahu untuk menyunting Melayu Wikipedia juga, tetapi menggunakan saya nama, Steve Crossin.
    • Saya mahu menyunting untuk Wikipedia Melayu juga, tetapi dengan menggunakan nama saya, Steve Crossin; OR
    • Saya ingin menyunting untuk Wikipedia Melayu juga, tetapi atas nama saya, Steve Crossin.

Hope these helps a bit in your continual efforts to master the Malay language. I am still learning and have just attended a short course. You can contact me here — PM Poon (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandals

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:24tv.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done All resolved. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you! I'd like to thank the Academy for—wait, wrong speech. :) Yeah, AIV's a dirty job sometimes, but somebody's got to do it, and I think I've even salvaged a vandal or two into decent editors along the way, so it's all worth it. Again, thank you for the barnstar! —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

...very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)(Mark)

MS Wikipedia

User "Steve Crossin" has been renamed to "Steve Crossin - Old". Yosri (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your 17 and your married!

It must be part of your tradition or something because that is damn young! Unless you met the girl of your dreams and decided to make her part of your life forever so no one else can steal her. Seriously that is really young, you mostly find the trend these days that people are getting married later but your bucking the trend. Unless of course its part of your tradition which i think it is. Good luck with your studies and have a happy married life. I hope you know what you got yourself into! Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with getting married young. If I'd have the change I propably would marry Her(the girl/woman of my dreams) instantly. Skele (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright alright alright. Yes, I am married. Yes, I love her. Yes, th fact is on my user page. Yes, she's he "girl of my dreams." But please, can we not discuss my love life on Wikipedia? Sorry if I'm sounding annoyed, but having people ask "are you really married" 5247 times, does get tiresome. Sorry. I'm married, yes. But I'd rather not discuss the details on site. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, it wasn't part of any tradition. We just decided to marry young. That's all I have to say about it. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Card

Thanks :D Er...hang on. Do people give themselves birthday cards? After all, you are my admin sock :P Thanks a lot. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A problem

I was browsing through pages and noticed an anomaly (sp?). The page Claudia Zacchara was deleted, but during the deletion debate, a recently found out sockpuppett and the originator of the debate were used to gain an unfair advantage in order to get their way. In recounting the "votes", it would be a tie, which would mean no consensus and therefore the article wouldn't have been deleted. I think that something should be done to rectify this problem and that the page should be restored so that there can be a fair debate over whether the article should be deleted or not without sockpuppets.--Lan Di (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you notify the deleting admin about this, and see what they say about it. If that's unsuccessful, you can take it to deletion review. There's really not a lot I can do to help, sorry. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Adoption

  • I'll be offline now until tommorrow afternoon western time. I'll think it over. BTW, you have an exact same thing as Tiptoety. Anyway, I'll tell you tommorrow. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, just something I need to mention. I've seen your article work and vandalism patrol, which is a good thing, and you should keep at it. However, I'm concerned you may not be familiar with our deletion policy. Generally, we should try and give unique answers to AFD !votes. While "per nom" votes aren't prohibited, they generally show that the user may not be familiar with our deletion policy. Additionally, closing AFD's as a non-admin has rather strict guidelines, this concered me a bit. You can have a look at the guidelines here. I'd generally advise to steer clear from AFD, at least for a little while. I'll teach you the deletion policies, don't worry. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • About the assignment, I don't know how the formatting came that way. Sorry. Can you fix it? Also, your going to put the answers on my adoptee page, right?--RyRy5 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to butt in here and say "thanks" to Steve for taking the time to help RyRy, who I know has every potential to be one of our very best users, but needed a little guidance (unfortunately, "time" is one thing I can't offer right now, or I'd have stepped up myself). Steve, thank you, and Ryan, thank you for being willing to listen to Steve. He's a user that I trust, and I've always thought his actions wise. This is a great partnership, and one that I'm pleased to see develop. - Philippe 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven_Crossin/Archive_12&oldid=1147873408"