Jump to content

User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion assignment

[edit]
Speedy Deletion progress
100%

Progress of speedy deletion lesson

After a regular Google plus a news Google and a news archive Google, I ended up sending Nassau Royal to Articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nassau_Royal. I know I made one mistake in an edit summary while doing it since I misunderstood a direction in the official page that leads you through the process, and I suspect the reason should have been longer, but I'm pretty sure I didn't break anything. Cloveapple (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. The important thing is that you've gone and looked for sources and ways to improve the article before nominating it for deletion, something too few editors do. Your rationale for deletion, we will chalk this one up as 1/5 AFD required comments. Added a progress bar to this subsection so you know how many speedies and AFDs you still need to do. I'll create a subsection, don't edit in it unless you're adding links to AFDs and speedy articles, OK? Also normally best to actually link to the deletion discussion itself, I have fixed that up for you. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you said this exercise might be tedious. I'm finding it more on the stressful side than the tedious side. Even some of the deserved speedies make me sad. (The cupcake business writer was apologetic and tried to remove the page, then was blocked shortly after. I'm not saying the block was wrong - I don't know enough to say that. It's more that I've been thinking about how templates could be friendlier and how I would have felt if nobody had acknowledged my apology.) I much prefer when I can talk to the page creator about getting their page up to snuff. (I've ended up in a couple talk page discussions with people while looking at new pages.)
I've made a conscious decision to alternate this with some of the editing I find enjoyable. I can see this exercise needs doing, and on the good side it's making me understand how easy it is to make a mistake in the deletion process. Is there a welcome template you reccommend? Cloveapple (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can be hard at times, I realise that. I dunno if they should have been blocked though, but some admins are block-happy. In cases where users write articles that don't fit into the scope of Wikipedia, feel free to leave them a personalised message explaining why, and what they can do to improve it to make it fall within our scope. So many people just will point users to a policy page with complex language and it really sucks. With welcome templates, I normally use {{Welcome-personal}}. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looked back on this comment, and decided to clarify one point. This is my personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. If that user (the one who posted the Megberry Cupcakes article apologised and tried to remove their article, then they shouldn't have been blocked, as the reason for the block is now unnecessary. I wouldn't have done the block, but as I said before different admins operate in different ways. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions (5 needed)

[edit]

Cloveapple (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagged articles (50 needed)

[edit]
  • Harry potter cheats for ps1 - Tagged as (no content), was a chat-like request for game cheats checkY Looks good.
  • Megberry Cupcakes - tagged as (db-spam), was a promotional page for a cupcake business & written in promotional language w/ no importance noted checkY G11 is okay, it was deleted as an G7 in the end.
  • The Great Trek (benefit walk) - tagged as (db-a7), looks like an open joke about friends doing a walk "for no reason at all." It was later removed as a G3 hoax & I'd considered that tag but it didn't seem to fit to me. ☒N This article should have been perhaps put up for proposed deletion, as it doesn't fall under the A7 criteria.
  • Is osama still alive? - tagged as (db-nocontent), attempting to ask questions checkY Good work.
  • Kickbutt energy balls - tagged as (db-spam), promotion for a food checkY Good work.
  • Indian civil account service tagged as (db-copyvio|url=http://www.cga.nic.in/html/hrm.htm), copied 2 pages clearly marked as copyrighted checkY Good work.
  • Shailesh tagged as (db-person), no importance & seemed done by a student about themselves checkY Good work.
  • Herpes in wetsuits tagged as (db-hoax), silly made up info on herpes checkY Good work.
  • Laila Hughes tagged as (db-hoax), I looked up the mayor of that town. Also negative unsourced BLP, but I didn't tag it as that. checkY Good work, but would best be tagged as a G10 (attack page)

Cloveapple (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adamas nu omega - tagged as (copyvio), taken straight from copyrighted site checkY Good work.
  • Doofer della tagged as (db-hoax), clearly made up info (may also be BLP) checkY Good work, but the better tag to use would be (db-vandalism)
  • BbbAT tagged as (db-nonsense), random letters checkY Good work, but it would have better fit A1 (no context)
  • Pervophile tagged as (db-attack), when I Googled one bit of probably Swedish text I found it could be a proper name checkY Good work, as most criteria could cover that page, but attack page fits best.
  • Marcus Lazell Shaw 2nd tagged as (db-person) by a 13 year old with no importance unless you consider his opinion of his "hotness" (forgot edit summary here but then did dummy edit to fix) checkY Good work.
  • Movers and packers in gurgaon tagged as (db-ad), completely promotional Cloveapple (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC) checkY Good work[reply]
  • Jijo John PJ - tagged as (db-person), name, address, and phone number type info. Either thought this was a spot for personal profiles or was outing someone's info (probably the first) checkY Good work
  • Johnson Oludeinde Oluata - tagged as (db-person), looked like the person's own unremarkable bio (I left a note on their talk page pointing them towards their user page as a place for personal info with a link to get them there. Later I noticed an admin userified the article) checkY Good work
  • Jake Wallis - tagged as (db-hoax), somehow I doubt he resurrected Hitler and killed Chuck Norris. checkY Very amusing article, but still clearly a hoax. Good work.
  • What is solar system? tagged as (db-copyvio|url=https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/nuclear_energy/277/space_nuclear), just a copy of site checkY Good work.
  • Capilano Honey Shotz - tagged as (db-ad), ad for product with link to buy it checkY Good work.
  • Larry Prather - tagged as (db- person), they were making a series of pages saying how "awesome" family members were checkY Good work.

Cloveapple (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 9, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got this too. The filer evidently has no grasp of what "involved editor" is supposed to mean. NickDupree (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From an apparently non-involved party

[edit]

Wow, Steve, I don't know whether to be hurt or grateful over my exclusion from the list of "Involved parties" here. I think it's most Wikipedian to see the glass as half full, so I guess I should thank you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I must have forgot to add you. Sorry, will have to add you :P Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I should have taken Italian lessons from Aldo Raine. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, Steve, I don't know nothin' about birthin' no arbitration statements. Will I get in trouble if I just keep my mouth shut and ignore it all? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, not really, but statements are pretty much a summary of your views on the situation. Not too hard :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I deserve an explanation for you bringing my name before the arbitration committee, either claiming or implying that I am in a dispute, and that there has been dispute resolution.  Until your ArbCom posting, I had no disputes with anyone involved in working on any of the abortion articles.  I made a late posting at the mediation cabal, where both you and the closing admin ignored my comments.  I agreed with you at this latest Med thing earlier today that it was not timely for more formal actions, and I suggested more talk with the closing admin was timely now.  Yet here you are escalating, claiming to the arbitration committee that you have attempted dispute resolution with me, when we have never spoken; and just what this dispute is, I also don't know.  I have no specific knowledge of edit warring at pro-life, I made a couple of edits months ago that resolved an issue, and I don't recall opening the edit history at pro-choice.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merely added all parties I saw contribute to the MedCab. Nothing personal or anything. It's a procedural escalation to ArbCom as I think they can resolve this dispute. It has no reflection on my interactions with any of the users listed as parties, or my view of the dispute, and I apologise if it seemed otherwise. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask again, what dispute?  When you used the phrase "this dispute", what is the antecedent to "this"?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one that was at MedCab...that you commented on. If you don't wish to participate that's fine, as I said I did a quick skim of the MedCab and listed people who commented quite a bit on the case. I will remove you from the case if you want. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best that I be removed, because my only dispute here is with you for listing me as a disputant.  Since both you and I have (different) issues and you still think you can contribute, I would support your reopening of the MedCab case.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The adding of you to the case was purely procedural. I don't feel I have a dispute with you (I hope you don't think you have a dispute with me) but will honour your request, and remove you from the list of parties on the case. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 12:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-Word

[edit]

Hi, I see that the title issue is still in full state of chaos.  :-)

I only commented briefly (and late) at the informal mediation. It now looks like formal mediation will be rejected, and ArbCom will only address user conduct. Does that mean the two names you supported are now pretty much determined, or might there be a way to tweak them?

Though you may not have intended it, there's a big neutrality problem with characterizing one side as unsupportive naysayers, and also there's no need for British (or American) spelling. Don't you think it would be better to have these: "Support for Legality of Abortion" and "Support for Illegality of Abortion"? I hope it's not too late to reconsider this matter. There's a reason why both sides chose to be "pro" something, and it's a basic principle that no one likes to be considered as "anti".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin did say that tweaks could be made to the proposed titles, but user conduct will probably need to be addressed first. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be okay with these tweaks? I have no idea where would be the best place to request them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't mind, as long as whatever is done has a consensus. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but...

[edit]

...you seem like the best person to explain. What decision can the ARBCOM make with regard to the abortion-titling "dispute"? What kind of user conduct could be sanctioned? Although I do not like the request for formal mediation and the attempt to immediately overturn the mediation cabal closing, I am simply not clear on what is sanctionable in people's behaviour here (I'm generally unfamiliar with ARBCOM processes). I'd like to know before I ask to be listed.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Heh. Do heaps of other work and no talk pages, file an RFAR and my talk page gets flooded :P ) Anyways, as I am not an arbitrator, I cannot really say what remedies they will apply, if indeed they do accept the case. Generally, the Arbitration Committee will review the the background to the disputes brought to RFAR, as well as evidence presented. Conduct by users is also investigated, with issues such as edit warring, personal attacks, or using Wikipedia as a soapbox or battleground, as well as being unable to be objective and neutral are considered. If they find reason that these issues are causing significant issues on the articles these users edit, they may impose topic bans, prohibiting the users from editing articles related to the dispute. At times they impose site bans, prohibiting editing anywhere on the Wikipedia project, and sometimes they impose discretionary sanctions on articles related to the conflict, so in future if issues remarries administrators can take action to solve these issues. Arbcom does a lot of discussion and thought before imposing these measures, and generally only as a last resort or when in Wikipepdia's best interests. Does that answer your questions?
That makes things much clearer. Thanks. If I want to have my say at on that page, do I need to be listed? I'm hardly uninvolved.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you can add yourself as a party. If you want, I will do so, but let me know here first. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made a comment and added myself as a party. Thanks for your help.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of Stefan Nedev Karagiosov

[edit]

You chastised me for adding a speedy delete to Stefan Nedev Karagiosov as a hoax. I did not add the tag. It was removed by editor who created the article, so re-added it back. I've been chastised for not adding back a speedy delete tag I thought was inappropriate (speedy was declined). I've now been chastised for adding it back. I've been going by my policy of, I'm not an admin, so I re-add any speedy, prod or AfD tags that are removed. What do I do the next time I come across when a speedy tag has been removed by the creating editor? Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the comment I left on your talk page, it was an automated one done by a script when I declined the speedy and has no impact on yourself. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment at RfAr

[edit]

I noticed my mistake and fixed it right before your comment at me ^^; - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Help Is Requested

[edit]

Hello, your help is requested at WP:SPI a backlog has formed, and needs attention. 173.206.86.161 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC) ipsock of Magnonimous (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)[reply]

Banned from IRC???

[edit]

As posted here, I would like to know the exact reason for me being kicked and banned in IRC. Thanks. Suraj T 05:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have lifted the ban. I would like to offer you my apologies, and an explanation. For the past week or so, a user that has recently been banned, Thepoliticalmaster (talk · contribs), who has used usernames in the past very similar to yours (starting with Suraj) has used web chat extensively in the past week or so, and has used it to abuse users in the channel both via private message and in the channel. As a result of seeing an IP address similar to the one that he had been using in the channel, and very similar username to past names he has used on Wikipedia and in IRC, I jumped the gun. I apologise for jumping the gun here, and hope you accept my apology. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I needed was an explanation. No need for the apologies. It was perfectly rational on your side to have banned me. As I know I've done nothing wrong, I thought I'll demand an answer and I've got that now. Thanks. Suraj T 05:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will re-join the IRC channel so we can help you with what you needed assistance, and hope this hasn't dissuaded you from using the channel. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in question is being discussed here. I'll join IRC presently. Thanks a lot. Suraj T 05:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about SPI & block

[edit]

I'm really confused here. I'm trying to understand a particular SPI and block. I asked one other person[1] and they didn't fully answer, perhaps because my question was too muddled. I'll try to ask more clearly here.

First my questions:

  • I'm not sure I understand the SPI archive at July 6 Did it decide User:Zappyzac should be blocked? The block happened here and says the SPI is the reason but the SPI said "Likely but not blocked as behavioral doesn't seem to match at a glance" and "new case needed for second part as they look like a different case" etc. Am I misunderstanding?
  • Whatever the situation is (guilty/innocent/unclear) should or could somebody explain it to Zappyzac?

I wouldn't even be paying attention to this but I had interacted with Zappyzac about an article he or she'd worked on. (If I remember right, I saw the article while I was looking through New Pages for my deletion assignment for you.) So I saw this post by him/her and have been trying to figure out what happened. It's possible that I'm being naive and that Zappyzac is a sock who understands quite clearly what happened, but I'm doing the Assume Good Faith thing until I understand better. Cloveapple (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Looking into it now. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - User has been unblocked. Seems to have been a little bit of a judgment call gone wrong, all sorted out now. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. I'm relieved to have it straightened out. Cloveapple (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-abortion issue! (DOD IG article)

[edit]

Steven, I know you're not an admin (though I can't imagine why not), but you're as knowledgeable a person as I know on Wikipedia. Can you look at my post here and tell me where I should take my concerns? WP:ANI was the closest thing I could think of, but a) I don't consider this an "incident", and b) I'm not upset with anyone--I think this is a really innocent matter by a naive editor. On the other hand, I may also be incorrect, it may be that nothing wrong has happened at all. Anyway, I really appreciate your time. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Taking a look over it now. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks for bringing this one to my attention. Most of the text is either directly copied from that bio you linked to on the talk page, or closely paraphrased content from there. As I have recently found out (I live in Australia where the laws are different) information from US government websites are in public domain, so the larger issue here is plagiarism which does need to be addressed. As for why I'm not an admin (well not yet anyways) let's just say I did a very stupid and dickish thing three years ago, which I've learned a lot from, but still remains a stupid thing. Let's leave it at that. :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, just happened to notice this pop up on your page, you may want to review: WP:PLAGIARISM, especially: Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources and Wikipedia:Plagiarism#How_to_respond_to_plagiarism. You are generally correct, though it is a little too much to say that "information from US government websites are in public domain". Technically works of the US Gov't are not copyrightable under US law and are therefore deemed to be in the public domain. However, not all things on US Gov't websites are works of the US Gov't. To keep it simple, works published by a US Gov't agency or credited to a US official working in his or her official capacity can generally be presumed to be works of the US Gov't (e.g. (from today's Army Knowledge Online login page photo) "U.S. Army photo by Tim Hipps, IMCOM Public Affairs (Photo by U.S. Army)"). Text on an agency website that doesn't credit an individual can normally be presumed to be a work of the US Gov't. However, there are lots of exceptions that people on here rarely recognize. 1) Military websites often have photos by Soldiers taken in combat, if photography isn't part of their official duties those are actually the property of the Soldiers and may (or may not) be licensed to DoD; 2) official work, such as professional papers, created during off duty time by a civilian, may technically belong to the civilian; 3) work produced by contractors usually results in a copyright which is transferred to the US Gov't; 4) if the work was created by US Gov't personnel in their official capacity outside the US it may be subject to foreign copyright, even if the agency is the only credit given and not an individual (the US has generally not asserted such claims). 5) Some agencies, NASA in particular, post pictures that are not created by the United States gov't at all but come from commercial or foreign gov't sources. Those are just a few examples of problem areas to look out for.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Doug, that's a lot of nuances. Thanks for clarifying this, I will definitely have to read up on all these details a bit more. Cheers. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, are you going to AfD or SD on the Heddell article? Can't quite tell; there is a notation in the history, but I do not see the posting of notice.IndtAithir (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the speedy deletion is invalid. I'm going to leave it. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving it a look. What do you think the next step is? Or is there a next step? (By the way, you don't sound Australian.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to butt in, but why don't we let the editor struggle with it a bit; seems like he or she is attentive to critique. I checked the authorship history, and this Editor is brand new. If it doesn't clear the plagiarism concern in a few weeks, maybe something more should be done. Good catch by all of us, though.IndtAithir (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nice catch by all of you. Husky, how do I not sound like an Aussie? You haven't even heard me :P Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 22:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@IndtAithir: Good point; there's nothing pressing on this, and perhaps the editor will acquire some education over the next few weeks. HuskyHuskie (talk)
@Steven: How do you not sound like an Aussie? Well, I should think that would be quite evident. I've had no trouble understanding you. In fact, you're so accentless, you could be from my neck of the woods. :-) HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ew, me, American? You haven't noticed my use of British English? :P Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

It appears that User:Jplozai, the editor who created and has contributed 99% of the content to Gordon S. Heddell may actually be one of his employees (see here). Does this affect how we handle this article? She certainly does not seem to be catching on to our concerns. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have attempted to discuss your concerns with the article with them, as well as their conflict of interest, and they do not understand your concerns, explain them a bit better. I find the Plain and simple guide to conflicts of interest useful for pointing newer users to, as opposed to the formal Wikipedia policy. If after that, there are still issues, the best avenue to raise them is the conflict of interest noticeboard. Hope this helps. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion RFAR

[edit]

I should probably be included in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Abortion. I contributed to the informal mediation fairly extensively and strenuously object to its close. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add yourself to the list of parties and make a statement if you wish. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

[edit]
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RFAR on Abortion

[edit]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Amanda Fraser

[edit]

Thanks for adding this article. DYK needs you. Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Days

[edit]

Actually no, the article Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Last Straw (film), according to the source, should be at Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (film). Which is why I need to move the contents from The Last Straw to Dog Days. —Mike Allen 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying, I read the speedy template the wrong way, I assumed you were trying to move the content (which there was none) from the Dog Days article to the Last Straw one, and not vice versa. I've reverted my edits. Thanks. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 04:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Steven. Thanks. —Mike Allen 04:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm wondering can you go ahead and delete the article so I can perform the move? What's taking so long for an admin to do this? —Mike Allen 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind it was done. :) —Mike Allen 01:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not an admin so couldn't do the deletion myself, so I got someone else to do it for me. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

[edit]

Sorry about placing my proposal in the wrong place at arbitration. It's now in the right place.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a category

[edit]

Is creating a category like creating an article? In other words is it a be bold and just do it sort of thing? Or is there something procedural involved? Cloveapple (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somewhat. There are a few things to note. Articles are added to categories by adding it to the article, not adding it to the category manually. For example, if I add Category:Living people to the bottom of an article on a living person, they will automatically appear in the category. Addtionally, creating categories needs a little bit of thought. The category should not be off too wide or too narrow a scope to be useless. For example, a category of Category:American things would be pretty useless, as it's too broad. Additionally, something like Category:American swimmers that live on 123 Fake Street would also be useless, as it's too narrow. Avoiding duplicate categories is also important, so try to search for an appropriate category before creating a new one. Hope this helps. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I often follow link to link to link and end up reading odd bits and scraps all over the pedia. So I've read some Cfd (I think that's the right abbreviation?) discussions and saw some very oddly narrow ones deleted. Stuff like Left handed Japanese-Hungarians in Italy who play frisbee. ;-) So I get what you mean about needing to have a decent usable scope.
A similar meandering path of links took me to Jimbo's page and next thing you know I was babbling.[2] Having said that in one of the most public places I could pick, I figure I ought to actually do it, but I've never made a category so I figured I should make sure nothing would explode if I made one.
By the way I suspect Jimbo's page is often more of a soap box than an actual useful discussion area (no offence to anybody --including me! --who's posted there) so I was wondering what page(s) I should put on my watchlist for where actual working discussions happen. Would the Village Pump be one? I've never gone there. Cloveapple (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's CFD :). Personally, I have all of the big noticeboards on my watch list (WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:VP, WP:VPR, WP:AN/EW, WP:AIV, WP:BLPN) but Village Pump is an ok place to start. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 08:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That alphabet soup of noticeboards makes my head swim. I've been to a few boards and followed a few cases (or whatever one calls them), but I can't keep them straight. I was peripherally involved in a 3RRR one and I don't even remember which board that one was at. LOL. I think I need to make myself a list of noticeboards with notes to straighten it out in my own head. Right now when editing or communication gets weird on an article I tend to just go silent, or wait to see what the more experienced editors are doing. Cloveapple (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm off to work now, but later I should ask you some questions about the mechanisms of collaborative editing.) Cloveapple (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still learning

[edit]

Sorry about that, Steve. I have never been involved with this stuff, and as much time as I spent trying to prepare that post, I still misunderstood how the page was organized. I would be really appreciative if you could check out my new post and let me know if I've done it correct. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: I see that User:Objectivist has place comments in a section called Motions and requests by the parties. But it looks like the same kind of thing that the rest of us have been placing in the Proposed final decision. Am I doing this right? Does any of this matter? This crap is so confusing. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, I've drafted 2 ArbCom workshops before so I'm used to it. As for your second question, you're doing it fine. All the best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRN request for watchlist notice

[edit]

I hope that you are okay with MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Proposal_for_request_for_help_at_DRN this. Stuff is backing up and we need more help, as you recently noted on the DRN talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I don't mind. Help from neutral third parties is lacking. The more the better, I say. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 12:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question on your closure of WP:DRN#Yadav

[edit]

I just want to be sure that I understand your close. Are you stating that ancient sources, by which we mean sources that all fall under WP:PRIMARY by wikipedias standards, should be placed equally alongside modern, secondary sources? If so, then I think we have a problem because that is directly contradictory to WP:V. For example, our article on Maximum life span does not state "The longest recorded life span for a human according to modern scholarship is 122, though the Bible records people living for up to 700 to 900 years." Similarly, we cannot have an article on an Indian caste state, "Modern archeology indicates the group is likely a splinter group of the XYZ's who migrated from Country A to Country B; however, the Indian Epic C states that the group is directly descended from the God of Fire." Do you understand why I'm confused about your closure? That is essentially what you're asking us to do when you say the lead should include both modern and ancient sources. I'm not saying that we shouldn't cover the group's mythic past; I'm merely saying that we should not do it in the lead, and we shouldn't do it anywhere in the article as if two radically different types of sources are equivalent. I'm not trying to be challenging here, but I have to assume I'm not understanding what you meant because what you say is seems to be so radically at odds with how history works. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you make a valid point. I looked at it in the light of things in the past like the view that the Earth is flat. The details should probably be included into the article, but not the lede. I overlooked that fact slightly, so I will tweak my close. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Cheers. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Steven. At least one editor is already unhappy with your close (he said something to the effect of "completely at odds with WP:V and WP:OR"...we'll see if xe persues it further. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My job isn't to make everyone happy, it's to resolve disputes, or discuss the issue and decide on the consensus on a discussion in situations like these when discussion ensues and is unproductive. That's the tough thing about DR...you can't please everyone. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a very real sense, that seems almost axiomatic. "DR, the place where someone is guaranteed to leave unhappy." In any event, I did point MangoWong to WP:NORN, which seems to be the most useful place for them to continue the concern. P.S., I'm watching here if you reply further. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in ideal situations DR solves the issues and everyone walks away happy. As for them taking the matter further, I think mediation would be better as opposed to just another noticeboard. Forum shopping till one gets the result they want should be discouraged. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he hasnt

[edit]

He hasn't replied to my questions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a right way and a wrong way to approach situations. Initially, you requested a reasoning for the topic ban, which AGK provided, and after that, you have continued to ask questions and posted comments, at times in an uncivil manner. It is your right to disagree. It is not your right to be rude in the process. I note your topic ban is almost half over, it troubles me that you don't understand why it happened three months since it was implemented. I implore you to think it over, as in my experiences with AGK over the past three and a half years he has been a well thought out and reasonable admin. If after thinking it over you still disagree, please take it up with ArbCom directly. Your discussion with AGK is no longer productive and I think you should cease it. There are correct avenues to take if you disagree, I have listed those on your talk page. Regards, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 12:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He provided his comments, and then I came with counter arguments which he hasn't replied to, he also first told me that we could have the discussion. He may believe that the last part of my counter arguments was problematic but I don't, and I have already told him that since he only had problems with the last part, there is nothing stopping him from replying to the main part which he kept on his talkpage, and this is what I want him to reply to. He hasn't given an explanation for why he cant reply to it. And this does not concern you in any way since you are not AGK and you are not me - the only two people involved in this, so please do not get involved in this anymore. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact he has removed or ignored your comments several times indicates he does not wish to discuss this matter further with you, however you are obviously not getting the hint. While I'm not a rude editor, I think in this case I need to be a bit blunt. You have the right to appeal the topic ban at Arbitration enforcement or at Arbitration directly. These are the avenues that you can take. Repeatedly posting comments onto a users talk page when they have removed them several times is harassment. Explore the proper avenues available to you. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 10:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not up to you to decide since you are not AGK, this is between me and him, not you, do not get involved in something that doesn't concern you, he didn't remove the major part of my comments from his talkpage, so he had no problem with it, and he said that we was going to have a discussion, so all I want is an explanation for why he cant reply to it. Once again: do not get involved in this anymore. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what part of "posting to a users talk page repeatedly when they have ignored your comments, asking the same thing over and over is harassment" but you clearly are not getting the point, so you leave me no choice but to request intervention from an administrator. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thx

[edit]

[3] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gluteal Cleft

[edit]

My edit to the intergluteal cleft article isn't vandalism. "Butt crack" redirects to the article itself, and that's what most people refer to it as (Certainly more often than the names already mentioned). I'm reverting the removal and informing you that it's in no way malicious or disruptive, and that I already reported a false positive to the "bot" that did the same. -76.16.83.2 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. My apologies. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

[edit]

Thanks for this edit. Dude, I was going nuts trying to figure out what you were talking about; I went back and looked for clues as to what you meant, and I just came to the conclusion that I was stupid and you were talking above my head. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, was just a stupid error by my auto correct. :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration timeframe

[edit]

Steven, as I think you know, this is the first time I've been cognizant of, let alone a party to, an arbitration. Is the pace at which this is proceeding, well, is it normal? HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be going at a standard rate. I think the arbs are seeking more evidence. I will be away for a few days so feel free to email me with any questions you have. Best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

[edit]

Wishing you all the best, — Kudu ~I/O~ 20:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy. I need to ponder over this one for a while. Let me get back to you. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have my support, but the decision is entirely up to you. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely ignorant of the process, but I'd certainly support you, Étienne. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudu, at this time, I will have to decline your offer. I have thought it over for a few days, but I feel that three nominators may be seen as overkill by the community, and as I already have two nominators I think I should do the right thing by them. I appreciate your offer and would appreciate your support at my future RFA, whenever that is. Best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Numbers"

[edit]

It is track "Numbers" from album Bass Generation, song not single. We will all songs do redirects? This is not good. Eurohunter (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit confused by your question and what it is, but I will answer as best as I can. The redirect Numbers (Basshunter song) was originally created as an article see link, but was later redirected to the main album article as the song didn't meet our notability requirements for songs. We don't generally create redirects for all songs to point to the album itself, but it does happen often. In this case, as the topic of the article is a Basshunter song from the album Bass Generation, the redirect is valid, and this is why I declined the speedy deletion nomination and restored the redirect. I hope this answers your questions. If not, feel free to ask for any clarification. Best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we do redirct to songs from albums? Eurohunter (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NSONGS, yes, redirects from songs to the album the song is on is appropriate. Hope this helps. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 10:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a simple free song. [4] official account record Hard2Beat. Eurohunter (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri Lanka Air Roundel.svg

[edit]

I have to ask if you understood my deletion nomination explaination. The file is already on Commons. It wasn't moved up to Wiki-EN, it was copied up to here by a user who feared it's loss due to it's incorrectly being nominated for deletion by another user on Commons who doesn't understand that the roundel is ineligible for copyright. We already have two identical copies of this file on Commons, we don't need a 3rd. It should be deleted per unneccesary duplication. Fry1989 eh? 21:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does clarify it for me. Your original rationale and the description of the image led me to believe the image on commons was a different one. I you could provide me a link to the image that exists on Commons I will have it deleted. Cheers, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I could have written it more clear. HERE you go. It is still under delete-nom, but of course will be kept due to it's ineligibility. Fry1989 eh? 23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur as the author, delete it. The commons image should be kept..finger crossed Jetijonez (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball clause

[edit]

While I believe that under normal circumstances this RfA could have been snowballed, the candidate clearly expressed a desire for his RfA to run through the end. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From discussions I have had with Jeske, he indicated only that he would not withdraw the RFA, and was not opposed to it being SNOWed. I have left a message on his talk page, and he is of course free to undo the close at his discretion. I felt that the discussion had degraded and was no more than a pile-on, and in the situation felt it in both his and the community's best interests (collaboration and camaraderie etc) to close it per SNOW. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the comment he made. Thanks for your good work, Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware of all comments on the RFA (otherwise I wouldn't have closed it :)). While I'm not a crat (or an admin for that matter), and while I did initially comment in the neutral dection, but later struck it out, I still considered it a reasonable course of action given the circumstances, and not a major issue for me to close it though i made an initial comment, as I feel it is something any reasonable editor would have done. Of course, I'm always happy to explain my actions, and explain I have. All the best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing RFA

[edit]

Regarding this RFA. I've done the rest of the work for you (which you didn't do). -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I forgot. Not something I do often. :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 10:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature forgotten: quick remark

[edit]

Hi. Just noticed you forgot a signature.[5]. I only mention it because that talkpage is chaos right now and one of the more eccentric editors is likely to blame the wrong person, for example me, who he is already frothing at. Cheers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I've fixed it . Cheers, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a raging discussion...

[edit]

The only prerequisite for filing a case in MEDCAB is that someone is unsatisfied with a talk page discussion. The fact that discussion is not raging on and that we are not tearing each other apart like barbarians is not a good pretext for closing the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs) 10:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your revert, and as such have left an observation on the talk page in an effort to get discussion going. My close was procedural, no activity on the MedCab in a month, the same with the talk page. A lack of discussion to an outside observer looks either like a loss of interest from the parties, or a solution. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 10:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I must say it is both a logical and at the same time illogical one. I still have interest in what I asked in the case but how should I show it and in the mean time be polite? Tug of the war discussion is pointless. I can also play hardball and utilize one of the Wikipedia policies to apply my own edit to the article and then attempt to stifle any opposition using that policy. But that is not civil too, isn't it? All of a sudden being civil has started to become very trying. Fleet Command (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real need to go nuclear over it. Here's how I suggest you proceed. Make the edit, cite a lack of discussion for a month (and the esssy on URLs) and see if discussion picks up again. If not, then you have a silent consensus. If discussion resumes, work on it. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and will get a few more eyes watching the talk page. Remember, stay civil. At work they tell us, if a customer starts yelling over the phone, talk very quietly. That way, they have to lower their voice to hear you. What I mean is, if others start bickering at the talk page, or make rude remarks, don't follow suit. You'll look a lot better that way, and often the other users will realise how silly they're being. Handy trick I learnt. All the best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Menahem Lonzano

[edit]

Hi Steven, I noticed you reopened the DRN thread on Menahem Lonzano when you archived the closed threads today. Not that I necessarily disagree with that, but was it intentional? I thought it was probably a good idea to ask before I posted to the arbitration enforcement page. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, accidental. Feel free to revert :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven_Crossin/Archive_38&oldid=1142490220"