Jump to content

User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 49

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

DRN Current disputes title

[edit]

It broke the TOC. I tried moving it into the header, and that worked but only if I removed the {{toc left|limit=1}} tag. I tried {{toc limit|1}} as well, and it didn't work either, so I just left the TOC depth limitation out (which I actually like better, now I've seen it). I suspect that the "Current disputes" title might work better as a table with a single cell and row at the bottom of the header instead of a "real" title, but what's there now seems to work well enough. Your turn. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Could you jump on Gchat by any chance? Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

[edit]

Stastics

[edit]

I see you continue to mention unpublished statistics in discussions. Do you want to get ANI involved?Curb Chain (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy way to file disputes

[edit]
Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dispute Resolution.
Message added 18:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied there. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject DR

[edit]

Hi! I really like the idea of a place where Wikipedians can go to resolve disputes, as they are almost inevitable here. The only thing is I don't have a clue as to what to do at the DRN to resolve a dispute. Can you please help me out? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Steve! I found a link at the DRN page as to what I should do. I would like to help resolve them, but they seem like content disputes and many are about subjects that I have no knowledge about. What should be done in those cases? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I feel really bad that I haven't got back to you on this. It's late here...poke me in 12 hrs if I havent got back to this. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting response. Also, what do you suggest I work on in the 6 months before my RfA? I've greatly improved my NAC's, and my !votes are based on whether the article meets specific policies regarding notability. I have 7 articles under my belt and am working on 3 more, although I'd rather have somewhere between 25-35 articles created before going for it. I think that my CSD nominations and anti-vandalism work compensates a bit for my lack of content work. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
We're working on a how-to guide at the moment to make it easier. I think RFA should be something you do when you're nominated - it's not really a tickbox thing to be honest - and people at RFA tend to hate that. Just do what makes you happy - adminship is pretty boring to be honest. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 04:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First of all, thanks for making the proposal. I have supported it and I hope to be a regular contributor at the new DRN board. Also, I don't really think that it's such a big deal. I have 2 admin-noms and they both told me what to work on. I've been involved in AfD's, which aren't that exciting, with a few exceptions. However, it has shown me that I can write an article here and I've write 7 so far and I hope to make 3 more on Sunday. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

[edit]

I'm around now

[edit]

Yup. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IJS

[edit]

Buddy ... you couldn't PAY me enough to edit an article related to "teh Beatles" ... link ... lol. Chedzilla (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

[edit]

DRN Volunteer Template

[edit]

Hi Steve! I have recently been actively participating at the DRN and in the section for Comments, both the parties involved and the 3rd party volunteer(s) are allowed to comment there. I think that we should design a template that DRN volunteers can use before their comments (sort of like a (Non-administrator comment)) to identify themselves as a neutral, 3rd party volunteer. What are your thoughts? Best, Electric Catfish 16:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No, I don't really think that's necessary, or appropriate. If a volunteer wants to identify themselves as such, I firmly believe they should say something like "Hello, I am a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard". It's a lot more personal and welcoming than a template. Thanks for all your efforts at DRN! :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 00:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree that we should make it more like the Teahouse. People are coming here in a bad mood and we have to make them feel welcome. Electric Catfish 11:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Dispute Resolution in the Signpost

[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Dispute Resolution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd love to. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misha B

[edit]

Please could you have a look at this page, I have been criticized for being biased and a POV notice has been applied. Naturally I think its all very unfair , as I have tried to remain truthful and neutral. But I am new. I would very much appreciate any comments or recommendations either way....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I commented yesterday about the incident at WP: DRN. Electric Catfish 21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MedCom

[edit]

Hi Steven, I made a proposal over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee and I want to know what you think. Thanks! Keilana|Parlez ici 06:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keilana, thanks for letting me know. I've left some comments over there. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 21:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 00:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Your comment on SarahStierch's talk page

[edit]

Regarding this, I do think you'd pass if you submitted another RfA in the near future (who knows, you may even wind up breaking WP:200 yourself). I, along with many other people have seen you around; you're a very prolific contributor with tons of experience and a good head on your shoulders. However, the decision is yours (and yours alone) to make — I should know, I've been offered nominations before but wasn't entirely sure whether I wanted to subject myself to that process (in fact I'm still undecided on the matter; RfA's a daunting place sometimes). Just offering my $0.02, in case you were under the impression that you didn't have the community's support. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment here. The idea I got at my previous RFA is that I need to do more content work, and in since my RFA while I have done some content work, most of my work has been focused on reforming and improving dispute resolution, both as a volunteer and as a fellow. I have a feeling that would go against me as opposed to in my favour, so I am cautious about the idea. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 00:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, dispute resolution is paramount to being a good administrator. But if and when you feel confident enough to submit another RfA, know that you'll have my support. In any case, Wikipedia strongly values your contributions and we hope to see more of you for some time to come. Good luck! =) Master&Expert (Talk) 00:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. I'll think it over. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 00:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I think that your first RFA failed because of account-sharing issues. You have well-proved to the community that you can be trusted with your work at DRN and MEDCAB. I'd suggest you go for it again. Best, Electric Catfish 18:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

dispute resolution noticeboard sikorsky discussion

[edit]
Extended content

Why did you delete the sikorsky s-76 discussion from the dispute resolution noticeboard?TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the closed discussion and concurred with the comments of the other volunteers that the content you were adding constituted synthesis, and therefore shouldn't be added. You can open a requests for comment if you still disagree, but I think it would be wiser to drop the subject and move on to something more productive. If all the contributors to an article, as well as uninvolved users feel that your viewpoint is incorrect, it most likely means that it is - I urge you again to move on to something productive. Edit an article, clean up some vandalism or welcome new users. There's plenty of things to do around here :-) (and there's the Teahouse if you need any help editing). Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 06:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you think is synthesis? That started out as a red herring, and the people that brought it up have now added the facts about the rotor, rotor head, rotor bearing, and transmission designs to the article, but stripped it of any non weasel worded attribution to the S-70. Also, what, or where are the "many reasons for the closure of the thread?" TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there has been no discussion for over 5 days is enough to close a thread - discussions are not open indefinitely. I'd suggest you consider an RFC if you would like this issue to be more extensively discussed, as DRN cannot help if the other editors are not participating in the discussion. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 06:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because no neutral third party participated in the discussion. What mechanism does wikipedia have for breaking deadlocks if not dispute resolution? As soon as subjects get to the top of the pile on the dispute resolution noticeboard you delete them? How does that work?TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GuyMacon and one other user (signature is Dave) participated in the discussion. The purpose of dispute resolution is to determine a consensus and help restore effective communication. The consensus of all participants was to not have the content there, so dispute resolution has served its purpose, but again, you can file an RFC if you disagree. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 06:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Guy Macon nor Dave are neutral third parties. They are both participating in the edit war.
The purpose of the dispute resolution process is not to arrive at a truth made by committee, but for either a fair argument to be made and judged by neutral third parties, or for a compromise to be reached where both arguments are given coverage. So far you're the only neutral third party that's added to the discussion and you parroted the disproven red herring that Dave brought up.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TeeTylerToe blocked for one week for edit warring at WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 11:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Summary: not sure I'd be much help at DRN. I have limited interests and I'm a bastard. Let me think about it. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, OK. No rush :) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put my response to Belchfire.

[edit]

Should I move my response out of my initial comment and place it in the discussion area? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - wait for a volunteer to open up the discussion first - then discussion can commence. Ta. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 21:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMfA

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From the discussion here, it appears that the reliability of a the MMfA source has been confirmed - so the key here is attributing the point of view to MMfA - you cannot exclude a significant viewpoint from an article just because you don't like it. That's not how Wikipedia works, and is a serious conduct matter. I suggest that the discussed material be included as long as it is attributed to MMfA, and everyone here gets on with their lives and does something more productive. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me how you cam to the conclusion that MMfA is a significant viewpoint, or how you came to the conclusion that an organization that is admittedly dedicated to the destruction of conservative figures could ever be reliable. The basis for that particular discussion was that if what Sowell had said was that noteworthy it would have been covered in several other main stream sources. Cartoon Diablo, unable to find reliable sources which would give some weight to this supposed controversy used DR as another step in a long attept to push political POV into this article. This solution does nothing but further WP into partisan sniping, and in addition you have declared all similar sources reliable. Your decision will only further the partisan approach to political figures within WP. I would request you re-think your logic, or at least explain how you came to your decision. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sure, I'm happy to explain my reasons. Wikipedia, as you may know, works on consensus - in a nutshell that means that participants as well as volunteers discuss a particular issue and come to an agreement on the matter - when there is an agreement, consensus is achieved. From previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard (over 25), along with an opinion from a member of the Arbitration Committee and this discussion - came to the consensus that the source is reliable for use. This sets what's called precedent - the consensus for its use is strong. I note that the organisation holds viewpoints that not all agree with, which is why the viewooint of MMfA should be attributed to them - it makes it clear that this is the viewpoint of MMfA, and theirs alone. I hope this clarifies my reasoning - but the action to take was very clear cut. Normally I'd suggest you open a Requests for Comment on the matter, but with such a strong consensus for a long time, I think it would be unwise and may get you into trouble. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 00:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with much of the previous concensus is that within the past year MMfA openly admitted a desire to destroy conservative figures. Additionally, I still am not sure how you justify them as a significant viewpoint, when they are by their very nature a very minor viewpoint used only by the very far left. It is a problem on WP in general that extremely biased and partisan sources are so commonly used to establish weight. Perhaps since you are not from the US you don't have a full understanding of how these organization opperated within our political system. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to touch base with you on this as well - I did significant research on that to show that, no, 25 times never occurred, it was closer to about half that where MMfA was discussed in any real capacity, and no consensus existed for such a position (EDIT: Here's the diff in question: [1]). Where is this consensus you speak of? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25 discussions is a lot. I'm not here to have a politics discussion, nor am I to read all 25 RSN threads - I just don't have the time. I suggest you open another RSN thread, and whack an {{rfc}} template on the top of it - that will help the discussion get more input. Explain the reasons you feel that MMfA is not a reliable source, in a calm and neutral manner, and see what the community thinks. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 22:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the discussion elsewhere, but the unfortunate thing is that your point of view is now being taken as gospel at the talk page as opposed to an opinion expressed as you shut down the discussion. It's ironically caused the problem to flare up again, so you have to understand the predicament. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only one who had the same view at DRN (indeed, I was summarising the discussion) but as I said, RSN is your next port of call if you disagree. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 23:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This habit of shutting down discussions that make you uncomfortable is a little disconcerting. Good luck with that in the future. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not uncomfortable with the discussion here - there's just nothing else to be said. A few of us at DRN came to the same conclusion about this subject - and if if you disagree, thats fine -there are other avenues you can take this to such as RSN or a Requests for Comment. Discussing it here won't accomplish anything productive, hence my archiving of the discussion - its a hint that you should address this at RSN. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only pointing out that this sort of premature archiving doesn't really foster resolutions of disputes - it didn't at DRN, and it didn't here. Just something to consider. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough - I apologise if it seemed a bit rushed. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's my fault - I was unnecessarily harsh on that front, so my apologies. Thanks for listening! Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. I've been so busy reforming dispute resolution that I've done very little dispute resolution itself. Bit rusty :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word limits

[edit]

Hi Steve. Say, I was just looking at the Talk:DRN discussion on Word limits. I think putting the character limit right in the Editnotice was a great idea, but it occurs to me that many users might still be confused, because the notice doesn't specify whether the limit applies to all characters or just the prose. I interpreted the limit to only apply to the prose, but I'm thinking that many (maybe most?) users don't have a good way to determine the size of their prose (since the diff will only display the raw character count).

I've been using this toolbox extension to measure prose size, which I found when I was reviewing DYK submissions. Would it make any sense to suggest it to users about to post at DRN? Belchfire-TALK 00:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I might just change the suggestion to 400 words - makes it simpler. Thanks for cutting your statement down again! :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 00:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:The ed17#Signpost op ed

[edit]

We'll be publishing in six to eight hours... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm unlikely to get anything done by then...I might do it in September after the trial of DRN changes is complete :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 20:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. It would be helpful if in the future you could let me know ahead of time that you won't be making the "upcoming issue"... Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 21:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAB Merger

[edit]

I think that it's a great idea- I'm not a fan of the bureaucracy of MEDCAB with the "official mediators". I like the idea of a simple noticeboard like DRN. I'm really enjoying helping to resolve disputes there. Best, Electric Catfish 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Great, I'm really glad to hear that DRN is working for you! :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ItsZippy told me yesterday to ignore the checklists and do what I'm good at. I feel a lot more comfortable now and I enjoy the satisfaction of resolving disputes. Thanks a lot, Electric Catfish 21:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

MedCom

[edit]

Hey Steven, I've seen some good stuff from you and have decided to nominate you for the Mediation Committee. Check it out here - if you accept, put a note there and answer the questions. :)

(talk page stalker) I'd Support you, but I'm not a mediator. Good luck! Electric Catfish 00:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EC, non-mediators are allowed to make comments in the designated section - just fyi. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've accepted and answered the questions. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: WP Dispute Resolution in the Signpost

[edit]

Wikiproject Dispute Resolution is scheduled for August 13, the first project we'll feature after the summer sports series ends. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at Mabeenot's talk page.
Message added 05:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mabeenot (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premature close of "War on Women" in dispute resolution

[edit]

Hi no offense but no consensus was reached in the War on Women discussion and certainly not the one described by Lionelt (either in the dispute resolution or in the talk page). The closest one that was reached was described by me, Sceptre and Gandydancer.

If you could re-open or weigh in on it it would be appreciated. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll open a thread at DRN about it and see what other volunteers think. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

[edit]

The Great Revival: CVU Vandalism Studies Project

[edit]

Hi! We're dropping you this rather unexpected message on your talk page because you signed up (either quite a while ago or rather recently) to be a member of the Vandalism Studies project. Sadly, the project fell into semi-retirement a few years ago, but as part of a new plan to fix up the Counter-Vandalism Unit, we're bringing back the Vandalism Studies project, with a new study planned for Late 2012! But we need your help. Are you still interested in working with us on this project? Then please sign up today! (even if you signed up previously, you'll still need to sign up again - we're redoing our member list in order to not harass those who are no longer active on the Wiki - sorry!) If you have any questions, please leave them on this page. Thanks, and we can't wait to bring the project back to life! -Theopolisme (talk) & Dan653 (talk), Coordinators

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven_Crossin/Archive_49&oldid=1139337576"