User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 12

DPT moderation

I see that you offered mediation over Democratic peace theory. I am certainly interested. Ultramarine has also expressed willingness to accept mediation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine. How do you propose to mediate? Septentrionalis 21:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this count? WP:RFM#Democratic_Peace_Theory How many requests are necessary? Septentrionalis 22:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it lightly. I'm afraid that Ultramarine is a good proportion of my Wikistress. Septentrionalis 01:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fetal personhood

I agree that this is a good topic for an article. I'm surprised we don't have one already! Anyway, let me know how/when I can help. Best, Meelar (talk) 23:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

GNAA

Ya, I would have blocked, but only for being disruptive. The whole we don't know if there are any gay or black people in the GNAA was added because I thought it might be useful... probably not. I guess I saw faulty logic with Chocolateboy's response so I got my back up. I'm not particularly sensitive to these issues, to be honest. As for it being a huge time waster: yep, sure is! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Manning was going to take me to RFAr? Eh? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Charles Spurgeon

Thanks for adding the second image! I only wish there was some kind of word wrap instead of gaps in the text. Jim Ellis 22:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Test 4

I'd like your views on Template:test4, the final warning message for someone prior to vandalism. I had some feedback in emails from people I blocked to wanted to know why I had not warned them in advance. I pointed out that I had. It turned out that people often missed the final warning, or did not recognise it in a page of messages. Some people I suspect with poor English may not grasp the fact that it is a final warning. To make it more visual, and also to enable those with poor English to grasp its meaning I added a visual component. One user is unhappy however, preferring just the text version. What is your opinion. The version I created is: [moved down]

(If there is no hand, it may mean that someone has taken it out of the template. In which case the image is the one below. It appeared on the left hand (lol) side of the message. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Mediation update

I'm having my holidays and am therefore subject to limited access. You can add Houston Chronicle to the template as a slow mediation. I'll give it all a look when I have more time. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Morning-after pill

(A) I think you have edited the english of the opening paragraph well - much better. I wondered though if the section on the different types (ie combined or progesterone only) and the the 'Use as a birth control method' sections should come ahead of the 'Issues' section to :(1) explain what is being talked about and how they are used before examining, in your execllent section, the issues that this all raises (2) whether the different types is relevant to the 'issues' - i.e. is there thought to be any differences in the mode of action of combined vs protesterone post-coital pills?

(B) Finally there is a little duplication at the bottom of the article with the short section of 'Controversy in relation to abortion'.

David Ruben 19:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The new form is pure progesterone only, ie lacks any oestrogenic effect. This increased the tolerablity (less nausea) and reduces risks (eg on DVT). Given that normal combined oral contracptive pills cocp possibly work slightly different from Progesterone only pill, the question arises whether the issues of ECP as contraception/abortifants apply differently to the 2 methods or not. I genuinely do not know whether there are any differences in mode of action or not.

The whole of contraception on Wikipedia has coverage on the fertilisation/contraception/implantation/abortion points, and modes of action gets mixed with terminology of contraception/abortin (personally I believe anti-implantation is not abortifant, but I happily accept the NPOV that these articles have).

David Ruben 19:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I had a go at reorganising the paragraph structure of the article (comment had been made on duplication in the intro and later on). The 'issues' & 'specific issues' seemed mostly against & for EHC respectively re abortion controversy. As they were marked up at a lower level ('===') than the 'Controversy' section ('=='), they seemed to make good sub-sections which I renamed.

Your hidden pieces of information risked being lost in the re-ordering and would only be viewable to those actually editing the article. I moved them to the discussion where more people can see and consider. I feel these are valid issues/concerns although I think there are counter-arguments to some of them, which I hope you will feel are constructive, I hope you do not mind. Some of these points are applicable to non-prescription items and to people going to more that one healthcare professional to get duplicate treatment - I wonder if wikipedia already has such discussion articles or if they need to be written and referred-to by articles such as this ?

Overall I think your additional information gave a depth and breadth to this article David Ruben 17:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

In UK levonelle is currently licensed for use within 72hours after coitus. Effectiveness decreases the longer te interval. A good BMJ article (2003) reviews this limit following WHO tests for upto 120hr (5days) which found little drop off in effectiveness - thank you for prompting me to research on this. Whilst medicine regulation clearly does not change quickly, as a UK doctor I am restricted by this limit (I always assumed use after 3days might risk accusatiuon of attempting for a medical abortion and so not acting within the UK Abortion Act and also that reducing effectiveness means that IUD insertion perferable upto 5days) Wikipedia article should probably state the 3day licenced limit (as that is what patient's can expect from their doctor), but reasonable to make note of the longer intervals - I'll update the artice accordingly. 62.6.139.11 11:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the continued correspondence:

• UK medically & UK legally, abortion is considered the ending of an implanted egg/fetus, anything that prevents fertilisation/implantaion counts as contraception (not withstanding 'pro-life' view point). Abortion Act requires 2 doctors to sign a legal form BEFORE an abortion can be performed. Hence ECPs which do not dislodge an implanted egg, and merely prevent fertilisation &/or implantation counts as contraception (and so not under the remit of the Abortion Act).
• I strongly would oppose any direct suggestion that ECPs are abortifants as a 'biased' POV. I appreciate definitions are all important for 'pro-life' re prevention of implantation, and for NPOV the article should therefore mention the debate, as currently the case.
  • The only link should be at the start where currently there is a missing link to 'early abortion' (which I have corrected) and again in the latter controversy section - again very reasonable to add (and I will so do).
• 'late contraception' is not a term I have heard used in the UK at all.
  • 'Emergency' sounds better as it convays a sense of something going wrong (condom split or forgotton pill yes, or unfortunately nothing used until later thought about). 'Late' suggests just a bit slow to getting round to doing something, although perhaps more literally correct.
  • As you correctly edited: 'morning after' is a misnomer and the current term being pushed is 'EC' or 'ECP'.
    • Also used is 'PCP' - 'Post Coital Pill' which is the most accurate (but are people squeemish about the word 'Coital' ?).
    • The only other term used briefly in the UK was 'Progesterone Only Emergency Contraception' (POEC), but that seems to have been dropped when the alternative combined Yuzpe tablet was withdrawn from market.
• I agree would be better to move to the current disambiguation/soft-direct Emergency Contraception page. Do we need seek support for this move, or shall we just go ahead ?
  • re ?move to 'EC', 'ECP' or 'EHC' - there already are both 'EC' and 'ECP' disambiguation pages with lots of entries and 'EHC' for Emergency Hormonal Contraception currently links to Eastern Harbour Tunnel.
• re Anon edit - sorry, yes only spotted this as saved edit, then could not see anyway to notifiy edit was mine. Wikipedia seems to forget my login if I'm too slow about an edit (are the Wikipedia cookies time limited ??), I normally spot this and log back on, but forgot to check that time

David Ruben 19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation: Democratic Peace Theory

Yes, I can have a go at Democratic peace theory mediation starting on Monday. — Catherine\^talk 22:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Media Project

Steve, using your excellent model, I think I've started to understand working with templates and the template namespace. To help me understand the Journalism Project and Wikiprojects in general, I opened up Wikipedia:WikiProject Media which seems to also be a needed project related to Journalism. Maurreen's signed up but more as an observer/consultant. I'd like your input as well there, if time permits. I'll change the colors of the template used for Wikipedia:WikiProject Media in time, for now the one in use is just for interal project development. Hope all's well with you. Cheers, Calicocat 23:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for redesign

Hey, I meant to say thanks for the design of test4. It looks great. I actually typed up a message on your page, then left it unsaved on my desktop and later closed the browser before saving it. I loved the Genuine IRA, BTW. Though I think it might be more Light IRA or Diet IRA — smaller than before, that may emerge.

Slán FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Important VFD

Please see the VFD for commons:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. This is of vital importance. This list and others like it are being pushed off of the entire Wikimedia project. It started at Wikipedia, where they were VFDd in favor of moving to Wikisource/Commons. Now they are being VFDd off Wikisource (they don't really belong there, since they are not original source texts), with people there saying they should be on WP/Commons, and it is also being VFDd on Commons, where people don't realize that Commons accepts texts (says so right on the Main Page). This will set a precedent for any user-created lists. -- BRIAN0918  22:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Someone has proposed Category:Journalism and a few related categories for deletion or merging. Maurreen (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least that's one thing we agree on.

By the way, you forgot to sign your note about pregnancy photos. No biggie. But when I thought it was from a stranger, it seemed pretty weird.

Here's what I found on Google:

• http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=pregnancy+site%3Agov
• http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=pregnant+site%3Agov

Maurreen (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

Could you please take a look again at Talk:Commonwealth Realm? We're close to an agreeement, the sticking point is the use of the term "British Crown" which I argue is both 1) a correct term and b) needed at least initially for NPOV purposes. Homey 15:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Miscarriage

Two people in a fast sequence of edits left me struggling to edit & insert my own contributions - I waited for the two of you to pause :-) Internally inconsistancy in the miscarriage article on some of statistics (eg 'most threatened do well', yet under relevant sub-section the correct value of 50% proceeding to loss). I've edited some of the statistics and provided UK BMJ & RCOG references. I also moved the types around for more logical progression (ie 'threatened' may lead to 'complete', 'incomplete' may lead to 'septic' and then of course may be 'missed').

In all quite a lot of changes, so any improvement to my English always appreciated :-) -David Ruben 22:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR

I reported you for violating WP:3RR on Vietnam War. CJK 5 August 2005

Editing protected page

Steverigo, I am very disapointed in your actions at Vietnam War in terms of repeated reverts and particularly continuing to revert after the page was protected - in clear violation of the spirit of the Wikipedia:Protection policy. I am therefore blocking you for 48 hours, see also WP:AN. I am not going to be online tonight and only have intermitent access to my email at the moment so please make any comments on this page, I have asked others to look here also. Thryduulf 17:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf, while I appreciate your candor and your concern for th rules by which Wikipedia keeps order, I cannot agree that any rule is absolute. Nor can I reasonably aggree (with respect to protection) that the revert of an anon with 10 edits be allowed to stand during the state of protection. Nor, do I like the one-sided view that the one who reports at WP:AN/3RR is inherently innocent, while the one he reports is not. Clearly it would be impossible for you to read all of the discussion, but the real issue is CJK's and TJive's concerted destruction of my changes, calling them POV —not my restoration of them. Clearly 3RR policy is flawed, as others have noted. I have sent a note to wikien as well. -St|eve 17:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not investigated the 3RR and so cannot comment on the report given. If you wanted a different version protect to the one that had been you should have requested another admin do it as you are clearly involved with the article. I agree that not all rules are absolute (some can be), but imho I was acting clearly within the spirit of this rule. I do not subscribe to the mailing list, so I wont be following matters there, I do hope that they back me up on this one though. Thryduulf 17:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"You should have..." Let's see: WP:RFP#Request to protect: Vietnam War might have something on the subject. I did that last night, and nobody got to it until now. Perhaps WP:PP policy is flawed as well, and I should have just protected it myself before things got out of hand. I dont think you did anything wrong by blocking me, though applying a compound sentence to one and none to the other, without (by your admission) any intelligent review, appears to be rather outside of the spirit which the rule was created. In any case Ive unblocked myself to file for WP:RFAR. -St|eve 17:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I see that CJK commented on WP:AR/3RR, claiming that I didnt respond to any of his comments "yet." Anyone who takes two minutes to look at the history of Talk:Vietnam War (and its parent article) wont be confused about how many of CJKs comments I responded to at that time, and what the substance (or lack thereof) of his comments were. -St|eve 17:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Steve, this may be a day late and a dollar short but:

1. I didn't look at the substance of the issue, because my larger concern was admins 'blocking' each other.
2. Whenever I've wanted to stop an edit war such as this, I have (1) protected the page and (2) gone back to a version way before the edit war - picking it out of the history.
3. You really should try out my proposed policy of Wikipedia:Text move - which I contend is nothing new but only a reformulation of original policy.
4. You are starting to piss me off, because I'm trying to help you (and the other admins AND the communit) but you keep ignoring me and making the situation worse.
5. Don't think that what I did with vfd is a model for you to emulate. There are several differences, however subtle, that differentiate the cases significantly.
6. PLEASE talk to me before any reversions, blocks or un-blocks. Uncle Ed 12:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 17:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you unblocked yourself, I have reblocked you for 24 hours. Do NOT, under any circumstances, unblock yourself after being blocked by another admin. If you disagree with the block, email an admin, use your talk page, or use the mailing list of IRC. When admins unblock themselves it sends a very bad message to the community. Thank you for listening. Carbonite | Talk 00:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

And you unblocked yourself again. What the devil do you think you're playing at? Adminship is a public trust, granted by the community and not treated lightly. I have re-blocked for 24 hours. Please do not unblock yourself again. Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• The first block was one-sided, was done by one unfamiliar with the specifics of the case, and favored the complaintant, even though the complaintant himself violated 3RR.
• The second block by Carbonite was well meaning but was likewise unfamiliar with the issue of the block. I unblocked for the purpose of filing a case at WP:RFAR against the accuser, whose only standing ATP was that he complained about 3RR before I did. (I wouldnt have anyway).
• The third block, by Mackensen was likewise done by one unfamiliar with the issue, and with an apparent hard-on for playing the enforcer.
• Finally, the mailing list doesnt work at all, so Ive no other recourse to communicate on talk pages which discuss or recriminate me, other than to unblock myself. -St|eve 00:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

the block was one sided because no one reported the other side. It can take 15 minutes to cheack out a 3RR violation properly so I'm only going to deal with what is reported rather than going looking for them. if you felt that someone else should have been blocked as well you were free to contact me by email.Geni 12:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo

Due to your abuse of admin powers, I have posted an RfC. Please submit your comments there after you are unblocked. Carbonite | Talk 01:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

How long is the block for, and are you aware of the fact that the mailing list isnt working? -St|eve 01:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

WTF

Steve, what on earth are you doing? Just talk to me - please. Uncle Ed 01:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ed. -St|eve 01:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

3rr? How did it come to this? A wheel war going on, during my watch? Why didn't you come to me about this? And anyway how did it start? Let's sort this out, before it turns into another RFC, RFArb rhubard brouhaha. Uncle Ed 01:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Its not complicated. I made some edits to Vietnam War, got reverted by User:CJK, and answer all his points on the talk. He still argued with me, inserting weasel terms into the article. User:TJive and User:Trey Stone (politically related, though I dont want to insult TJive by association) joined the discussion. Ive got a three way pileup on a mildly controversial topic, and request the page be protected. CJK files against me for 3RR. Someone (User:Thryddulf) finally gets to protecting the page the next day. Its on an older revert version, made by an anon with only 10 edits. So I restore the version previous, while the page was protected. I get blocked for "3RR" by Geni, and unblock myself to save a talk comment in progress and file at WP:RFAR. CJK gets nothing. Today, the like-to-block-people-but-dont-know-shit-about-the-context-or- related-process-crew gets involved. See above: Carbonite and Mackensen etc. etc. St|eve 01:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

User:TJive is an editor who frequently makes unproductive, and distinctly POV contributions.--Fergie 10:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is stupid, but if you'll just let yourself stay blocked until it's sorted out it will be better: both for you and for Wikipedia. Please let me handle this. Trust me on this one, my fellow Mediator? Uncle Ed 01:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is stupid, and now I see what you meant about problems with 3RR. You know Ive long argued for more proactive PP policy --protect when things get hot, even if youre involved. Force discussion. Undoing an anon's revert should be nothing, and that the other parties both having +3 reverts on the article at least shows a problem with the equity by which 3RR is applied. Thanks, Ed. TTYL. -St|eve 01:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me aks you this

Steve, let me ask you something. For the sake of argument, let me just assume you were right. Here's the question. Was it worth it? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Was? Save the "was" for when its all done. It's not done. -St|eve 01:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: And do something to fix the mailing list.

Ok. Is it worth it then? I mean, I see your point and everything, but if you'd left a note on your talk page, somebody would have unblocked you in a matter of minutes. Oh, and I don't have any sort of access to the mailing list that would allow me to fix it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont know anything about being unblocked. Im not accustomed to either blocking or being blocked, and the people who restored the block on me did so without giving me any impression that it was anything but an absolute (yet arbitrarily imposed) thing. "Dont struggle in the net," is nice, but it would help if the net is not abused. -St|eve 02:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Steve, please learn from my mistake. Just let it all wash over you, like an ocean wave at the beach. Hold your breath till Monday (or when the block wears off) and lay low. (Like I should have done with Bruning blocked me.) I was an idiot. Don't crown my stupidity by acting like a moron. Let it go.

UninvitedCompany has convinced me of a serious error in the way Admins (particularly me) have been using their sysop rights. I wish you could come on IRC to discuss this. We have to think of the project right now. The way you recover from this incident is more important than the precipitating incident itself. Think about the project, what we're trying to accomplish - together - as a community.

Bear with it, and we'll all come out of it a stronger team. Okay? Uncle Ed 02:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

But... I've been rather a proud fan of Edilateralism. I will consider you words with... consideration. -St|eve 02:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

On behalf of everyone, I want to apologize for the failure to treat both sides equally as required by policy, and I have now blocked CJK for 24 hours for his 3RR violation. Even so, I cannot understand what gave you the idea that it would be appropriate or acceptable in the slightest for you to unblock yourself repeatedly. --Michael Snow 03:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If a claimed disciplinary action is not applied with due process, and enforced by the hasty actions of sysops embued with no more authoritative power than I, and demonstrably unclear on the basis for the disciplinary action, then such action must be considered as outside of due process, until its more appropriately applied. -St|eve 17:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't gone through to see what the presumably political dispute is, however I felt I had to say something after seeing your name up for disciplinary action. You *know* you're a good editor and admin. I haven't looked into the background of the people complaining but I presume they have similar politics. There is certainly a culture amongst some in favour of banning because they can (ooh big boy!). Personally I'd wish we'd filter such creatures out before they get to be admins but I guess we have to deal with these things. I notice that some of the idiots have even banned an entire country's schools. However - never unban yourself - there will always be others around. I know from personal experience that fighting POV is very hard. I felt I got into many US vs the world disputes and the stress I got from this led me to take a 11 month break. I'm now concentrating on domestic articles. Maybe you need a break? Secretlondon 14:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, Secret. Thank you much. Break? Maybe, but only because arguing with three people at once is tiring —only one of them demonstrably reasonable and literate enough to consider, and even they feel compelled to use the usual epithets, when their case is lost. Silly? Certainly --when the issue is a choice of wording. But in that case, its worth a bit of effort to educate people about the nature of their own biases, and how such bias does discredit to the project. -St|eve 17:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

New block?

Mackensen has apparently added blocked me twice - His block made yesterday expired today at 1400 UTC - He used the same comment as well, perhaps to hide his tracks. Can someone get him to explain this? -St|eve 17:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you calculating correctly? From what I can tell, I believe the original block (that is, Mackensen's second block after you removed the first) is supposed to expire at 00:52 UTC on 8 August. The block log does not show any newer blocks. --Michael Snow 17:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

No, here are the relevant blocks by Mackensen (previous was Carbonite, before Thryduulf, then Geni). The first Mackensen block I unblocked. The second I did not, but nevertheless appears to be reinstating when I try to edit a page. The second (unreverted) block expired 16:52, 7 August 2005 UTC. It looks like I forgot my prefs automatically converted the time to my local, and the autoblock added time when I tried to edit a page this am. -St|eve 18:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

1. 09:26, 7 August 2005, Mackensen blocked #30165 (expires 09:26, 8 August 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Stevertigo". The reason given for Stevertigo's block is: "You are not above the law".)
2. 18:08, 6 August 2005, Mackensen blocked #30067 (expires 18:08, 7 August 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Stevertigo". The reason given for Stevertigo's block is: "You are not above the law".)
3. 16:52, 6 August 2005, Mackensen blocked Stevertigo (expires 16:52, 7 August 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (You are not above the law)
4. 16:46, 6 August 2005 Mackensen blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Re-instating block, and I WILL enforce this thing)

I think your time zone prefs might be causing you some confusion. As Michael Snow mentioned above, Mackensen's second block expires at 00:52 UTC on 8 August. It was a 24 hour block placed at 00:52 UTC 7 August 2005. Carbonite | Talk 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As you probably realize by now, yes, Mackensen did block you twice: the first time with comment "Re-instating block, and I WILL enforce this thing" at 00:46 (Aug 7), and then again at 00:52 after you unblocked yourself ("You are not above the law")—see the block log. The other blocks are from the autoblocker catching you when you tried to edit while being blocked; it will use the name of the administrator that blocked you, and will block the IP address for 24 hours (I think). [Incidentally, I recommend against changing time zone preferences. I used my local time briefly but it was too difficult to keep coordinated with other Wikipedia events.] — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But merely clicking on a red link (as one may honestly think the block has expired) should not be the basis for a new block. See below. -St|eve 18:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Policy issues

Well, just as I was somewhat catalytical in getting a formal Arbcom system instituted, it would seem that my disregard for the letter of "the law" (after Mackensen) raises some issues about some basic policy fuckups:

1. Blocks are firstly protective against vandalism. Secondly they are punitive for certain violations, but only if such violations are understood.
2. The enforcers must be stewards of the process and courteous, not vigilantes with a hard-on for "the law."
3. Merely clicking on a red link (as one may honestly think the block has expired) should not be the basis for a new block. (thanks KS)

this is a long standing "feature" that is well know. Contact an admin by email to clear the block.Geni 12:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1. We use templates for the merest uses: Using a standard template message for blocked users is necessary. This should contain information about the nature of the block, the remedies applicable, and the channels for communication.

   1. I created this shortcut: Stevertigo (talk · contribs · block log) Uncle Ed 22:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

it exists. When I infomred you on this page about your block I used a template (ok so mostly becuase I can never remeber where the mailing list is).Geni 12:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1. The mailing list being out, this makes it necessary to provide other channels,
2. Never enforce a one-sided remedy in the name of correctional policy. 3RR applied just as equally to the other party, and they were basically ignored.

I deal with what is reported. I don't have time to do anything more.Geni 12:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Form a blocking committee, responsible for dealing with each applied block. Allowed blocked users to edit a central blocked page, in addition to their talk page.
2. The fact that sysops can unblock themselves presents the need to be explicit about the process, and for blocking sysops to give more than just a reactonary justification for repeating the act.

most sysops stay blocked (well ok they don't but they get other people to unblock them). this ius only the second block war I'm aware of and with the exception of myself no one was involved in both.Geni 12:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Give deference to trusted sysops if we choose to circumvent the block, under unusual circumstances, for the purpose of communication. There is no comparison between the legitimacy of civil and rational explanation and the uncivil and uncommunicative use of the blocking tool.

you are always free to email me. I also watch the talk pages of those I block.Geni 12:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Unblocking oneself is not a crime, if one blocks oneself. Likewise, if due process is not followed, its fair to claim that such a block was improperly applied.

-St|eve 18:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

blocking yourself is not allowed under current policy.Geni 12:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This should be moved to a policy discussion page, but here goes: I don't agree with never unblock yourself but I also think sysops shouldn't block other sysops. It looks stupid, and it IS stupid: like slamming a door and locking it, when the fellow on the other side has a spare key.

There already is a page for controversial blocks: Wikipedia:policy enforcement log, and it's the top item on my watchlist. If whoever blocked Stevertigo had bothered to note their action there, I would have seen it much sooner. I think I found out about this from IRC - which I only started using 2 days ago.

That said, I can't think of any rules about blocking problems like this one. We should be communicating with each other. We should all be on the same team. It should be unthinkable that any admin would 'block' another. That's why I de-opped the whole bunch last time a wheel war like this erupted (yes, Angela and Anthere took away my master key afterwards, but now I'm thinking of asking for it back).

I'm going to join the Req for Comment or Arbitration on this one. I think blocking another admin should not be done lightly - and certainly not before really trying to work it out with the admin involved. Where was the RFC certified by 2 different users who "tried and failed" to resolve this before taking action? Was there really a warning given like one more revert and I'll block you (leaving aside how silly this would be)? Uncle Ed 22:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well Ed, I damn well appreciate youre help, and I know youv'e been there. I was glad to see people take your trashing of VFD last week in good spirits, and not get all up in a wad about it. (like other times).

I've been thinking about it a bit too, and though I do admit that unblocking myself was an improper thing, AISB, the process and the execution of policy was on shaky enough ground to render it as much an issue of sysop miscommunication as it was about proper policy enforcement. So what's needed is a standard box template for all blocked users (with specific info for sysops, etc), a central place for communication. IRC is nice, but for various reasons is not as frequented, and hence its status as a third leg should be reconsidered in favor of something on-site. Something like Craigslist.org forums would fit rather well.-St|eve 01:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Template test

• Template:Userblock
• Template:blockuser
• Template:block
• Template:blocked
• Template:BlockedUser
• Template:UserBlocked

New template: template:block

Now, banned users need to be able to edit a particular page other than their user pages. -St|eve 01:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam War

I notice you reverted while the page was protected. This is bad form and I have rolled you back. Please wait till the page is unprotected before reverting. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Desysop'ing request

Due to your behaviour, I have asked User:Angela and User:Jimbo Wales to desysop you. I have also noted this request on WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I am uncertain why you are being so disruptive, but it's not a good or desired quality in an administrator. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I blocked you for two hours for violating WP:PP policy: "Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice." Contrast this with your reaction, by seeking to bypass due process (Arbcom), and going to the board... over a two hour block. -St|eve 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I undid your revert because it was inappropriate. I have never touched that article except for this rollback, which I did to made your revert as if it never happened. I have nothing personal against you, but feel that you are a rogue admin who cannot be trusted with extra privileges. If you are desysoped you will have noone to blame but yourself. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I went straight to the board because you are abusing your admin powers. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No. I should never have been blocked in the first place. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I, too, notice that User:Stevertigo edited the article while it was under protection. [[User:Ta bu shi da yu's edit was apparently a reversion of that edit. For one editor to block the other in this situation seems highly inappropriate. -Willmcw 03:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

What were you thinking?!

Steve, I don't understand why you are shooting yourself in the foot like this. You edited a protected page, which by now you know is against the rules. Another administrator reverted and dropped you a polite note to let you know, and you block him? I thus far had refrained from participating in your Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo, even after your retaliatory block of Mackensen (which was disturbing itself). But I find this behavior appalling. If you care for some unsolicited advice, voluntarily refrain from using your administrative powers until this cools down: this means don't edit protected pages, and don't block or unblock anyone—especially not yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

How can you be so selective in dishing out approbrium to me for doing the same thing that he just did? The block on me for violating policy was for 24 hours, which incidentally, was enforced improperly (until someone blocked party 2). I blocked Ta bu for only 2 hours, for his act in violation of the same policy. He likewise unprotected himself, which likewise, according to those who re-blocked me, was a violation. Please dont unilaterally assign to me label of "disruption" or "escalation," and knock things out of proportion. Everyone seems to have only a piece of the elephant here and are far too quick to yell "snake". -St|eve 03:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

So you thought that you would block me to make a point? I think that was foolish in the extreme. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please dont unilaterally assign to me label of "disruption" or "escalation," If you'll check the RfC against you, you'll see that "unilateral" absolutely does not apply. Boy, this is like a reckless driver complaining that the cop who caught him broke the speeding laws. Ta bu shi da yu was restoring the status quo from before your multiple violations (12 reversions, multiple unblocking, protecting a page you were involved in a dispute on, reverting a protected page to a favored version), so accusing him of the same is a massive attack of chutzpah.

Like Knowledge Seeker said. when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 04:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, it was not to make a point. It was in the context of enforcing policy which I just happened to have been made aware of --by other enforcers. Had you not reverted the page, you would have not broken policy, hence I would not have had reason to block you.

My interest happens to be related to the particular article, but how is one to definitively separate our academic interest in limiting the article's continued disruption from my trustee responsibility in enforcing policy? I dont have time to be special or abstract about it, related to my context --I blocked you because policy and how to enforce it were fresh on my mind. -St|eve 04:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If you were aware of the policy, then why did you feel it was all right for you to break it but to block someone else whom you felt was breaking it too? You bring up a good point: it is sometimes difficult to separate our roles as editors and administrators. A simple guideline is not to use them on the same article or editors, especially if it is more complex than simple vandalism. In other words, you should not use your position as administrator to gain ground in a content dispute. I can understand that you don't have time to figure it out or that is difficult to clarify when administrative actions are appropriate. However, if this is the case, then you should not be using those powers, and adminship is probably not right for you. You can continue to be a productive editor without having those few extra buttons. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Steve, it is not the same thing and you know it, or should know it. You edited a protected page, which you should not have done, especially since you have been involved in an edit war there. Ta bu shi da yu restored the version that was protected, the one that should not have been touched. He undid your violation of policy and left you a polite note. You were not blocked. In retaliation, you left him the same note and blocked him. If you can't see why this isn't horribly inappropriate, then I don't feel you should be an administrator. Regarding TBSDY unblocking himself, yes, I agree that in general administrators should not unblock themselves. If they feel they have been blocked inappropriately and unblock themselves, they should immediately report it on WP:AN/I so that other administrators may examine the situation. They should definitely not unblock themselves again, especially if another administrator blocks them, but rather rely on the attention from WP:AN/I to scrutinize and sort it out. Your block of TBSDY was highly inappropriate in my opinion and I would have unblocked him myself had I seen it in time. Whether he should have waited to be unblocked is questionable; I'm quite satisfied with his unblocking himself and immediately reporting his actions on WP:AN/I. If he was incorrect in removing his block, another administrator will reblock him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you're alluding to social wisdom and social context, or in laymans terms "dont rock the boat" and "shut up if you know whats good for you." But, sadly we also deal with the mechanical context of policies and rules, and how they are enforced. If these are incorrectly formed, incorrectly applied, or even slighly off, it often requires some degree of civil disruption to get them changed.

Regarding Ta bu, I had "just served my time" and thus come to the issue freshly disciplined for my transgression, regardless of the RFC or the RFAR, etc. As a sysop I was not aware that there was some heirarchy among us --that I would be limited in my capacity to enforce "policy" relative to others. Indeed, without wanting to sound like this is all about making a point, it seems to me rather relativistic that a massive and concerted dumping of opprobrium on me be based simply in a misapplication of policy to begin with. Michael was keen to note the little subsection about equal application of the 3RR policy, but that came a day later. What we had was three or four sysops who were more ready to use the block button than they were to read the policy itself (that section of which I had some part in crafting) on which the block was based.

Ultimately, how much more legitimate is your view that disruptiveness be the issue, rather than others claims that policy and letter of the law is more the issue. I agree that some of my actions seemed to violate the letter and perhaps even the spirit of the rules. But people seem to forget that rules are just rules. Were here to edit an encyclopedia, and I got to find out the hard way that "the rules" can be just as much a hindrance to that goal when one is ganged up on. WADR, this all smacks of tendentious relativism. I was the one to make edits to the article which were afterward "reverted." How did I wind up being guilty of more "reverts" than the other? How are my edits referred to as "reverts" while others (Ta bu for example), earn the distinction of being called "undoings?" With sincere respect, St|eve 04:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! I was forced to take an admin action to resolve your violation of admin powers. This has nothing to do with a hierachy, and if you can't see that you made a mistake and did something highly inappropriate (blocking me for an action that you yourself do not agree with) then I must ask you to reconsider why you think you should be an administrator. As has been pointed out, you don't need to admin to be a great editor. I did fine on this site without admin status for quite some time. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

WADR, youre overreacting. Even if youre completely in the right, you have still been completely overreacting."You were forced?" You broke the rules. Am I the only one who gives a damn about the rules? Im not in the habit of reverting protected page versions, although I do think the policy forbidding sysops from protecting pages before they get out of hand is rather hebetudinous. Adminship isnt terribly important, but I also havent blocked but maybe six people in three years. Should I have been blocking more? The only thing I really use admin powers for is for deleting pages for moves (lots of nonstandard titles), vandal (and POV) rollbacks, and shorening excessively long ITN entries on the Main page. On rare occasions I'll see a horrible featured article intro that I need to attack, but other than that, I dont think its much of a big deal. Sorry you got involved, Ta bu. Please accept my apology for placing a 2 hour ban on you, and please forgive me if I thought (frustrated by misapplied policy and being POV ganged) that your revert was improper and violated policy. -St|eve 05:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is good enough for me. It's what we have all been looking for: an apology! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have tried to be as restrained as possible in my comments of what happened here. I have tried not to look too much into your motives, but have been concerned about the admin actions you have undertaken. Please try to be more restrained in your admin activities. I myself have made controversial blocks: I did one to -Ril-, but immediately reported this to WP:AN and WP:AN/I so that other could review and, if necessary, reverse the block. I suggest doing this in future. Please also refrain from editing locked articles. I did actually like your edit better on Vietnam War, but the article shouldn't have been touched until the protection was stopped. Also, next time you get into a revert war, may I suggest you:

1. revert
2. note why on the talk page, take comments into account
3. revert again, always taking into account comments on the talk page
4. revert again, again taking into account comments on the talk page
5. file an RFC on the article - don't revert again for a while. Message a few editors you respect (this is controversial advise, but I don't have a problem with it)
6. if editor continues to revert senselessly, ask for mediation
7. if mediation fails, file a user conduct RFC
8. if all else fails, take editor to ArbCom.

Take this advise as you will. I might note that I know you are a fine editor, and I think you have done much valuable work here. Everyone makes mistakes. My own Waterloo can be found in the history of Dalek. Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ta bu. Ive read most of the related comments, and aside from the rather reactionary ones, many have had points which require note. First off is the fact that Im not entirely familiar with current nuances of block policy. Ive been around since before some of that policy was around, helped to craft some of it and thus I feel more familiar with it than I am literate of it. Im aware of the flaws in forming it and therefore havent taken as literal. Thus Ive hardly ever used blocking before, and likewise have never blocked a sysop before. What after all is the point? On the one hand, its good to see a sysop ban being enforced, on the other hand, it was crummy to see it used as a POV tool. Ive tried the RFC before - got no response. I answered every single niggle raised by a gangbang gaggle of three different editors of various intellects, and it still came down to a who complained first (at 3RR). Oh well. Thanks for listening, and IIMSS, your capacities do seem rather well-formed —for a youngling. :) I'm going off to mourn Peter Jennings and then to bed. Sinreg, friendly pirate.-St|eve 07:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Are you aware of the following? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What does this have to do with your edit of a protected page? Should I not have been the one to block you? Should I have filed a complaint first? That doesnt seem to be the way things have been working around here. Maybe, having been blocked Im a bit more aware of what the bars look like from the other side, and the need to for some consistency to be introduced.-St|eve 04:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What you should have done was not edit a protected page, and not taken any action against the one who undid your error. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I did not file the RFC, I am merely making you aware of its existence. I have endorsed it, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Get a grip

Steve, you were doing all right for a few months, then you started acting dizzy and spinning out of control. This is disorienting to others and makes them nauseous (if you get the drift of all these metaphors). If you keep "blocking" other Admins, I am not going to be able to defend your actions. What is so urgent that you have to slam the door on people who have spare keys, anyway? Don't you believe in teamwork?

If these wheel wars keep up, it's going to force the community to appoint some more Stewards with the authority to de-op Admins temporarily. And if they give this power to me, I would de-op almost everyone in the last week who 'blocked' fellow Admins.

Because they did not really talk things over properly. And some of them are using 'blocking' as a substitute for trying to change policy, which is dumb because vigilantism is not a good way to drum up consensus.

You have a tendency to become adamant (as I do), but you take it too far (as I sometimes do). Please don't take it so for, so often. And please include others (like me) in the process. We need teamwork here. Uncle Ed 12:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

All that you speak of is true, wiseeye. I have apologized to Ta bu, and explained to him the context. IIUC, he's not to upset about it. -St|eve 18:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I was never really very upset about it, mainly concerned. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to de-admin yourself

Steve, based on the comments made by many members of the community on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo, I am asking that you voluntarily de-admin yourself (a request can be made to Angela). There seems to be consensus that trust has been lost and I don't see the need to drag this through arbitration. There's no reason you couldn't regain adminship again through RfA. Please consider this. Carbonite | Talk 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You could always ask for a temporary "no prejudice" de-op. Just say you want to relinquish your sysop rights for (1) a specific period of time or (2) pending outcome of the discussion. If you choose #1, any bureaucrat (such as me) can legitimately re-op you when the self-imposed period ends. I checked the rulez and this is permitted.

Either that, or just agree not to use any of the disputed powers in any of the disputed areas. This might be just as good (and would, if you were a bit more genial), but it's clearer and would make a better impression if you went to Angela or Anthere. Uncle Ed 14:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that Ed and I (mostly) agree on this. ;) However, in my opinion, since admins serve the community, any re-adminship should probably be through community consensus (ie. RfA) rather than a bureaucratic decision. If you take a look at the RfC, the community is very strongly behind removing admin rights. Still, time heals all wounds and I'm sure in the future, an RfA would be successful. Carbonite | Talk 14:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as temporarily suspending a user account does not expel them from the user community, temporarily turning off one's sysop flag does not make them stop being an Administrator. I am talking purely about changing the database setting. If Steve and any Steward agree, he can have his sysop rights suspended and still be an admin - without needing to go through a 7-day vote to have the sysop rights restored.

Not really like a cop who turns in his badge while being investigated; he stays on the payroll, reports for work, but can't arrest anyone. But more like a driver who hands his keys to has friends because he's had to much to drink. After he sleeps it off, he gets his keys back. Uncle Ed 17:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

"...without needing to go through a 7-day vote to have the sysop rights restored." - Ed, I guess this is the point on which we disagree. I suggested this voluntary de-admining to avoid having Steve's sysop rights stripped forcibly. I don't imagine that's a pleasant experience and one which I think anyone would want to to avoid. Instead, there would be a chance to relinguish admin rights voluntarily and apply through the normal RfA process whenever desired.

The analogy to a person giving their keys to a friend isn't very accurate. The "drunk driving" has already happened in this case. The RfC makes it clear that the community does not want Steve to have admin rights. In a few months, this will likely change and an Request for Adminship would prove it. Carbonite | Talk 18:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to de-sysop until matters related to 1) the dispute 2) reforms in flawed rules 3) reforms in flawed application of such rules, are resolved. The impression seems to be in the community (the gossip community anyway) that I abused my powers to promote a POINT, or to wage POV (if people even understand or care to make the distinction). This wasnt the case. Frustration at my perception of being abused by "overlooked" missapplication of process? Certainly. In all I think the Arbcom will find my offenses minor by comparison to the IRC-spread inuendo, which makes up the bulk of the RFC. (Its nice to see the RFC work for something though). Im not perfect, but in almost three years as an admin Ive been in no habit of abusing my "keys" before. Despite the DUI analogy, this was more like a run on the sidewalk which got some potted plants killed and made some people shit their pants. Nothing a little watery bleach and a scrub-brush cant get out. -St|eve 18:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the procedures are on de-sysoping. As far as I know technically it can be done by any Bureaucrat or Steward. As a Bureaucrat I could do it but in common with sysop powers one only uses them in conjunction with the rules. Would you like me to de-sysop you? (Oh IRC has always been toxic). Secretlondon 19:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Secretlondon is incorrect in saying that bureacrats can de-sysop people. So far as I know, only a steward can do that. →Raul654 19:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'm wrong. I think we used to be able to, before the introductions of stewards. Sorry. Secretlondon 19:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well someone will get around to it I suppose. -St|eve 20:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not clear. Your choices are:

1. Do nothing. Let what happens, happen
2. Request "de-opping" temporarily. You will still be an Administrator; you can re-op at any time.
3. Resign your adminship. You will no longer be an Administrator; you will have to re-apply like anyone else.

Absent a clear statement otherwise, you seem to be making choice #1. Uncle Ed 20:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I was not unclear in my message to the steward. (ess?). -St|eve 20:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

think it might be a good idea to de-sysop until matters related to 1) the dispute 2) reforms in flawed rules 3) reforms in flawed application of such rules, are resolved. The impression seems to be in the community (the gossip community anyway) that I abused my powers to promote a POINT, or to wage POV (if people even understand or care to make the distinction).

I think that view is very mature on your part, and after this is all settled and after a reasonable period of time has elapsed I could definately see you being re-adminned. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I also encourage you to rescind your admin status (m:Requests for permissions#Removal of access). Before this recent conflict, I'd considered also persuing Arbitration after noting some page protections and deletions which seem to have been done out of process. Remember, one of the most important ideas is that admins aren't given any special editing authority, and should never use their abilities to further their editorial goals. You stepping down voluntarily (realizing that nothing lasts forever) would be seen as a positive gesture. -- Netoholic @ 15:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, I dont find your comments either helpful or useful, and find your characterization of those past issues as rather one-sided and negligent of the context —namely your use of VFD process creep to remove my process creep rel. templates. -St|eve 16:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

styles

I know it probably isn't an area of interest of yours but as a credible contributor I'd value your opinion. Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

I have filed a Request for Arbitration with the Arbitration Committee. This is notice to make a statement in your defense at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Stevertigo. Carbonite | Talk 13:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Your block

Why did you block the anon User:67.188.49.1 for an entire month after just one edit? You should have warned first, and not given such a major block for a first offence, especially since it was for "POV," not vandalism. I think long blocks of IPs are considered harmful, especially since this one's a dynamic IP. Dmcdevit·t 07:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

My point wasn't necessarily that the user didn't do anything wrong, but that the month-long block (for such a minor offense) most likely hurt someone else, being a dynamic IP. You should never a dynamic IP block for so long, and usually not even a static one. It was potentially very harmful. Just letting you know so that you can be sure and be more careful in the future. Also, if I may say so, it is certainly not a good idea to block for POV in an article in which you are involved (ie, looks like you are blocking someone because you disagree with them). Dmcdevit·t 07:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

And I appreciate your understanding. I reduced the block btw. :) --Dmcdevit·t 01:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

commons:Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg

I noticed you changed the contrast in the picture I originally uploaded. Unfortunately I didn't saw this before and I reuploaded a higher resolution (the dymaxionmap comes from another source) with some extra information. Thanks for contributing, but I feel I overwrote your work. I apologize and invite you to take a look at the newer version--Alexandre Van de Sande 19:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hyphenating chemical names

The current situation isn't perfect, but inserting spurious hyphens and linebreaks into long chemical names is far worse. Please desist from this activity until a more optimal solution can be reached. Also of note: I don't use 9-point font, and the entire chemical name of ecstasy fits on one line just fine.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind e-mailing me (the e-mail link in the toolbox on my user page should work) a screen shot of the Ecstasy page? I'd like to see how it looks on your computer right now.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

going live

Hiya,

The discussion seems to have gone all quiet on the proposed styles solution, though I have tried to get it going again. There is from what was said a clear consensus on using this solution. I'm going to start putting in the papal box to see if it will work. Is that OK with you?

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Please do not delete disambiguation headers at the top of articles. They are important navigation tools for our readers. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Especially do not remove them again when others have put them back. Thanks. Jonathunder 20:35, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for not responding sooner, but lately other activities have kept my Wikipedia use quite limited. I recall only one article that prompted the concern I expressed above: football (soccer). I know the disambig at the top of that page was a carefully crafted compromise after much wrangling, repeated page moves, and so forth. I saw you had removed it twice, and I was one of the editors who restored it. I just didn't want to see another revert war there, since people can get a bit heated about what they call "football". Anyway, it looks like things are OK now. Happy editing. Jonathunder 23:31, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Placing users in danger

Steve, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo/cleanup

User:Stevertigo/cleanup appears in Category:Wikipedia cleanup. Can it be deleted or redirected to Template:Cleanup? -- Beland 04:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

To finish up the tidying of Category:Wikipedia_cleanup, I turned this into a redirect. Apologies if this was premature; of course feel free to unredirect it if needed, or delete it if unneeded. -- Beland 02:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 01:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, Stevertigo! I recently expressed my interest in becoming a mediator with Uncle Ed, and he encouraged me to apply. Thus, I've done so at WP:MC. Also, he asked me to propose a new mediation format that would make the process go smoother; I have created such a page at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Proposed. Here are my ideas for mediation:

1. Every mediator will have an office (similar to the desks used at the cleanup taskforce), at User:MEDIATOR/Office. This is where s/he will place all the current mediation.
2. Every mediation case will be on a subpage, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/PARTY 1 and PARTY 2. Thus, we can just put {{Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/...}} on the WP:RfM page and in the mediator's office.
3. Each case must first be approved by a mediator. Both parties MUST have agreed to mediation, as I beleive it's fruitless to mediate if one party is unwilling to settle their differences. Only a brief summary, without diffs or links to pages, will be accepted before the case is approved. The case may also be rejected or referred to the arbcom. In addition, both parties MUST agree to the goals of the mediation. (Again, I feel it's fruitless to mediate if both parties don't know what they are negotiating for)
4. Once approved, the next mediator without a case will take the assignment. In other words, the task will automatically move to an open office. If there are several open offices, it will go to the one which has been open the longest. If there are no open offices, it will go to one with the least cases/longest time on a case (if this wording isn't clear, see the "Open Tasks" thing at the right of the proposed page). Thus, there will be no "picking and choosing" of cases, streamlining the process. (An exception will be made if a mediator is an involved party).
5. Then the mediator will work with the parties... this is the actual mediation part.
6. The case can then be closed by the mediator- if both parties have met the goals, then the case is successful. Otherwise, the mediator can dismiss the case or recommend it to the arbcom.

I hope that makes sense; let me know what you think. I look forward to becoming a mediator! Thanks a lot for your help. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hominid move

I've reverted the move. This article is beeter placed as an entry point, and not a "see also" at the top of Hominidae. The term has been a point of confusion since primatologists and anthropologists use them differently - anthropologists in general being unwilling to agree with each other or with primtologists as to many things. If someone is searching for "hominid" in Wikipedia, we want them to get to that explanation first, to decide which of the various meanings they really want. See the discussion at WP:PRIM. Thanks! Adding you to my watch list for a response. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Layout

After an hour of continually moving the pics back so the layout stayed clean I called it Layout Vandalism. It's not on your list == I guess I could include the inappropriate pics posted too. We had a very stable page and then PUFF! the Layout Vandals appeared. Kyle Andrew Brown 04:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're coming from but if you are in attack mode with me just go away. I will ignore it.

But if you're telling me that you are working to make a page appear better on your screen I totally respect that.

What I will share with you is that pictures that editors made alot of effort to construct and build were continually removed. And huge blocks of white space appeared. I dont have any interest in who was doing that. I do have an interest in layouts not being messed up. It is definetly my POV however to describe sex ads, sex pictures and personal attacks on a page as Layout Vandalism. And moving texts and content that has been "stablized" by consensus without going to TALK, especially after the issue has been identified, well I call that discourteous, if not Layout Vandalism.

I also note, reading your TALK, that you have several times been advised by admins to go to TALK rather than engage in war reverting. In this instance you did not follow that advice. In fact, you have a record of dissing the admins you encounter. As an admin you came on to me in my TALK page in a hostile manner. I assume you still are some sort of admin.

In anycase, if you believe my comments were directed at you, they certainly were not.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

NOx merger

I do not agree with the merger of NOx into the nitrogen oxides. I feel that given the importance of this mixture in atmosheric pollution and the widespread use of this term and the fact that NOx does not include all nitrogen oxides we need a seperate page for it. I accept that the article needed some more work and the name of the page might be better as for example NOx_(mixture_of_NO_and_NO2) so as to avoid confusion. I would like your opinion before reverting your changes though. I also freely admit I am partly at fault here for not removing or commenting on the merge request!--NHSavage 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

Although you may be empirically correct, I don't think labelling the divine retribution theories "Less rational speculation" compared to the global warming theories is really NPOV. How about "Faith-based speculation"? -- BD2412 ^talk 23:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina (lists)

Steve,

Yes, I vaguely remember seeing Hurricane Katrina (lists) up for speedy deletion a few days ago. That was one of the more difficult pages for me to process because it had such a long edit history. Before deleting, I checked every single edit history for that page, as well as the pages that linked to it. I also checked the edit history of User talk:24.165.233.150 to make sure that the re-merging was taking place. After taking a look at some pages that this user edited, I was satisfied that this was being done. Granted, the editing was bold, but based on the editing behaviour of the anonymous user, I felt at the time that the user was making a reasoned decision to merge the content with the existing articles. From my perspective, there was no reason for me to doubt his or her actions, and I felt it was not necessary to keep the resulting blank page due to the merging.

Furthermore, on Template talk:Katrina, I saw this written there:

== remove "lists" ==

Hurricane Katrina (lists) should be removed, as it's now listed as a CSD. ~~ N (t/c) 18:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. Gmaxwell 19:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I have not interacted too much with these users, I have seen them around Wikipedia and I had no reason to believe that the decision to CSD by the anonymous user should have been reversed based on these comments. I felt that it was a reasonable assumption to make that these were regular contributors to the template, and that their lack of opposition to the CSD was indicative that it was alright to delete it. I did consider the possibility of reverting the changes and perhaps place the list on AfD due to the existence of the speedy tag, but felt it was unnecessary because I had no reason to think that the merging edits were being made maliciously.

I think what I have written here expresses reasonably clearly the context and rationale behind my decision to delete that list. Your are most welcome to review my records if you find that this is an inadequate for your needs, and should you feel the need to, you are also welcome to monitor all my actions on Wikipedia in the future at any time.

From my perspective, I have wanted to have an experienced administrator audit my contributions on Wikipedia, particularly those related to deletion and blocking. After all, I have not been an administrator for a long time, and I thought it would be a reasonable request to get some feedback. Coincidentally, I was thinking of asking someone to help me out in this respect today, and certainly I was surprised when my sentiment was preempted with your message on my talk page:

Your speedy delete of the article was improper. Expect an administrator review shortly. -St|eve 22:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if you found things in my contribution history that might seem questionable to you. I am only a Wikipedian - a human for that matter, and it happens that I might not do everything to everybody's satisfaction. If you insist on finding disapproving behaviour, I am confident you will find it.

At minimum, I would have expected a fellow contributor to extend the courtesy and respect to let me know who would be performing such an “administrator review”. In addition, I would have thought that your conclusion that my deletion was improper would have been accompanied with an explanation in your message to me.

I was thoroughly disappointed to read your message. Not because I am being scrutinized, but because of the inherent meanness which was conveyed by your statements. The two short sentences you wrote came across as terse and sharp. I felt very bitten. I know in the history of that page you were a significant editor to it, and I know you put a lot of effort into making that page. Would it not have been suffice to say something along the lines of:

HappyCamper, I've restored Hurricane Katrina (lists) which you deleted earlier this week. I felt that the merging was not done properly, and would like to keep the page for a bit longer so I can make sure the content is preserved the way I think it should be. Next time when you delete a page with a long history, could you please notify the major contributors to it if there were any? I spent a lot of time and effort on that page, and I would have really liked to make sure that the content is preserved somewhere on Wikipedia. I noticed that you're a relatively new administrator here, and was wondering if you'd like someone with more experience to audit your deletions and blocks. Would it be okay if I took a look at them? Let me know what you think, and thanks for your understanding!

Wouldn't this have been a more effective, constructive, and positive approach? I am very fortunate that as an editor I occasionally have good natured Wikipedians tell me I've made mistakes somewhere, whether it be about deletions, or miscounting of AfD votes. On my talk page are a few examples of this. I think these examples are exemplary, of the kind of communication that should take place when there are doubts about one's actions.

I took the time to write this, because I want you to be aware that nobody on Wikipedia, or for that matter nobody anywhere, should have to put up with statements like this:

Your speedy delete of the article was improper. Expect an administrator review shortly. -St|eve 22:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, will not put up with it. There are much better alternatives to this, and it is thoroughly unnecessary to convey such a deep sense of insensitivity. Am I less deserving of other contributors for reasonable explanations on Wikipedia? I would think not. I would also be inclined to believe that if you received such a message, you would reasonably expect a certain level of decency and tact. Even something like the following would have been effective and served its purpose:

I think your speedy delete was improper, so I've recovered it. I think you might be deleting articles a bit too quickly. Would it be okay if I took a look at your deletion log?

Any well-meaning administrator would not have refused such a request, and in fact, would have gladly accepted it. The Wiki is open, and I am no exception to its mechanism of accountability. Was it too much of a burden to even express who might be looking at my contributions? Or whether you wanted to present this case in an RfC? Or even an arbitration? Was it too difficult to express why the deletion was improper? That perhaps I might be misusing the administrative functions? Or perhaps I should be “de-admined”? I have taken the time to explain myself here. Wouldn't it have been reasonable to do that initially? I assume you expected a response from me in some form, and I think I have reasonably delivered as best I can.

I've spent the time to review your allegations, explained my actions, and invested in some effort and energy to explain how I think this could have been handled better. I've extended a generous courtesy to you, and I sincerely hope you read all of this and take my feedback into account in your future endeavours on Wikipedia. I have no interest in creating a negative atmosphere between us, or for that matter, any other contributor here. This is another reason why I have taken the extra step of being elaborate with my explanations. I reiterate that you are always welcome to review my contributions at any time. I will also contact a number of Wikipedians who I hope will have the time to look at my contributions. I admit, as this is the first time I have received a message on Wikipedia which conveys such thorough lack of confidence in my abilities, I am unsure of what to do next. Perhaps you can advise what I should do? I am not sure what you would like to obtain from your message on my talk page, so please let me know your thoughts on this matter. In the meantime, I will refrain from editing the Wikipedia in the interests that my contributions remain transparent should the auditing begin. If you would like to conduct this audit, please let me know when you are finished so I can resume my regular activites on Wikipedia, whether as just a regular contributor, or as a contributor with administrative capabilities.

Sincerely yours, HappyCamper 03:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your note on my talk page...you know, for a day or so I did take your comments a bit personally, but that has dissolved away after some thought. I know you were well meaning. Take care, HappyCamper 14:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Histoglyph.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Histoglyph.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

ITN

The reason I reverted initially rather than adding the Ukrainian story immediately was to quickly get Image:Katrina-14616.jpg off the Main Page, as you hadn't yet uploaded a local copy per Template:C-uploaded to protect against vandalism. You will excuse my brevity in this instance; I don't think any of us like to have autofellatio on the Main Page. Thanks.--Pharos 05:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to Aisha

Dear Stevertigo,

I reverted your edits at Aisha, because I felt that they endangered a precarious balance achieved after months of Sunni/Shi'a, anti-Muslim/Muslim warfare. My rationale is explained on the Aisha talk page. Please have a look. Zora 07:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

ITN photo

Please see Image talk:2UK soldiers.jpg about the copyright status (I'm not sure if you would have watchlisted the image page).--Pharos 23:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Improve this article about Wikipedia

No problem about the reversion. I'm currently looking for sections of the article to reduce because some people feel it's too long, and that seemed like a good candidate. Mindmatrix 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the size limit is clearly stated in the Editing Notes:

Don't grow the article too long - wiki isn't paper, but this article will be printed on paper

The original word count is 709 words; the current word count is near 1200. It's already been mentioned on the talk page that the article should be reduced somewhat, and I don't think there's any reason to fork it. That just creates more work later. Mindmatrix 19:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've replied on the article talk page - we can continue the discussion there. Mindmatrix 19:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW: sorry for not having a link to my talk page in my sig. I'll remedy the situation soon. Mindmatrix 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Vietnam War

Hate to correct you but it's 3 votes. Gotta count the nomination since people can nominate when they want the article merged, redirected, etc, etc. --Woohookitty 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

MedCom

Hello, I'm sending this message out to all users listed as inactive at WP:MC. Some of you have been on leave for quite some time, and I'm hoping one or two of you may return to active (every active editor has a case assigned). I know some of you are busy with other wikimedia stuff, like Angela Anthere and Danny, and some of you are busy with academic stuff, like MacGyverMagic and ClockworkSoul. However I still want to leave this message in the hope of perhaps getting some more of you on hand. It's by no means mandatory though, so don't worry. -Acting Chair, Redwolf24 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that for you Steve I delisted you from the actives as you said you were on an indefinite break... I guess you've come back then. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested finding of fact re: whether the 3RR blocks in your arb case were proper or improper

In case the Arbitration Committee isn't following the talk page discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision, as per the discussion at that page, I've now left a message at User talk:Fred Bauder#Stevertigo arbitration: one key finding of fact is not resolved asking for a finding of fact to be issued, to resolve whether the 3RR blocks against you were proper or improper. -- Curps 16:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Hi Steve, I saw your note on WP:CP and replied there. But also wanted to leave a personal note, since you seem a little angry about the copyvio tagging of this article.

The page has been listed for quite a while on WP:CP, that's why it eventually ended up on the Others section - no one wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole. I've been trying to clean up that section which led me to this article (I have no interest in the article otherwise). So, I'm not sure what you meant by the comment another RWN attempt to vandalize an anti-war article, or if it was directed at me, but please don't give me a hard time - I'm trying to do the right thing here on a copyvio that has to be dealt with. I assure you that I have no political motivation regarding this article.

As far as tagging the whole article, this is very important - any edit made after the copyvio might be considered a derivative work. That's why Wikipedia's policy is to revert to the pre-copyvio version of the article, and all edits made after the copyvio (and before reverting) get discarded. The article gets tagged until the copyvio is resolved to keep people from working on edits that will end up being discarded. This is true even if the copyvio is only a section of the article. (assuming, of course, there actually is a copyvio)--Duk 19:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Winter Soldier Investigation

Hello Stevertigo I have set up a request for arbitration on the Winter Soldier Investigation I noticed the incredibly high number of deletes on the page, and there was a recent nasty revert war over the copyright issue. I also noticed that you restored some of the edits. Can you explain your involvment with Winter Soldier?

Thanks for your time. Travb 00:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A favor

Hi Steve, can you do me a favor and download the image currently on ITN locally and protect it, following Template:C-uploaded. I'm currently on a computer where I cannot do this. Thanks a lot.--Pharos 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

Thanks for making the Intro to "terrorism" NPOV again. I noticed that you had written an NPOV introduction for it a long time ago, but somehow we let it slip away. Here is the Wikipedia NPOV award for your valiant efforts in restoring NPOV and making it a much better article. I will do my best to keep people from destroying it again. Thanks.

I noticed that you were working on other parts of the article as well. A few people have been trying to fix the examples section, or at least put a POV tag on it, but we haven't had much luck going up against Jayjg and SlimVirgin on it. In fact, this duo has blocked fifteen people that I know of who were doing nothing more than expressing their opinion of the POV of the article. Some of them are blocked indefinitely (and they honestly did nothing wrong). SlimVirgin even locked one user's talk page so he couldn't defend himself there (seriously, check it out User_talk:EKBK). Is there any way you could request a source for those examples or at least put a POV tag on that section?

Thanks again for the edit. The article looks a thousand times better. --Zephram Stark 15:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, an award. Ill put it in my collection. :) I appreciate the comments and the praise regarding terrorism, though I disagree somewhat with your characterizations of Jay and SlimV. That said, I hope you've been learning to make the identity adjustments and tone things down. Crossing the line into making personal comments often makes communication difficult. Communicating clearly helps big time. Thanks again. SinReg, St|eve 17:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything. I'm just more socially accepted now that I've reached the thousand mark. It's quite a little social clique Jimbo's got going here. Editors can't do anything about blatantly corrupt administrators, fellow administrators are too afraid of social stigma to get involved, and bureaucrats are far too overworked to research the problems. No wonder SlimVirgin thinks she can perma-block people that have done nothing wrong and even lock them out of their user talk pages.

See? I'm still standing up to corruption. The only difference now is that Jayjg and his pals know I can't be intimidated. Do you think the terrorism examples should be cited? --Zephram Stark 18:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no issue of social acceptability. Do edits, use the processes in place, be precise and not inflammatory in your language, and make your case. Yes its a Good Thing to stand up to apparent problems such editor cabalism and POV statism. Its also a Good Thing not to make a troll of oneself and be overly gratuitous with one's attempts at changing the world. Yes, I agree completely that there are ego problems (always have been) with admins taking upon themselves vigilante roles, keeping a low threshold for intolerance, and relying on status rather than merit in basing punitive measures. Thats always been the case, and its only now someway different because its wrapped up in the ceremonials of established roles, process, and "society."

No, Im not ready to deal much with that article at this point, except to say that the "and prescriptive" qualifier should be reinstated, and that heavily relying on the "conventional warfare" term (you even linked to it twice) is improper. Be as general as possible - basing the tone of an article on a subjective term is just as problematic as using the DoD definition. -St|eve 18:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. by the way, had you made any personal apology for that one comment you made a while back? You know which one. -SV

It is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia to say that terrorism is not a type of warfare. The articles on conventional warfare and unconventional warfare will back me up on that. They are quite specific about it and fully cited. Also, please read the definition of "prescription" in the "prescription and description article. Linguistically, prescriptive means exactly the opposite of what the article was describing. There is a large section on it in terrorism discussion. --Zephram Stark 19:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just reading your troll link. "Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45) [1]
LMAO, are you serious? I thought being labeled a troll was an initiation—-those that can survive the process are worthy of editing here. I can't imagine that you would think subservience would make great articles. What could someone add who is only here to kiss your butt?

The first time I heard the word Troll in reference to a message board was from my friend Johnny Frazier in the 70s. He claims he coined the phrase to mean someone who trolls for interesting conversation the way that a fisherman trolls for fish. "There are a lot of interesting views of the world out there," he would tell me, "each with a varying degree of internal consistency. When someone creates their world from a thin wrapping of plastic filled hot air, a troll's job is to provide a little pin prick." Granted, sometimes you see people trying so hard to pop your bubble that they refuse to accept that you might not have one, (see my talk page for example), but these wouldn't be trolls in the original meaning of the term. Trolls are happy little guys who relish other people's realities and feel right at home in any type of internally consistent world. --Zephram Stark 19:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree that "trolling" falls into a spectrum where the most respectable "trolls" are polite radicals who serve the community by testing its boundaries and finding solutions for existing problems. BOTOH, theres also gratuitous trolling for its own sake —done by disrespectful individuals with little demonstrated dedication or value to a community and its goals. That is rightly considered harmful. -St|eve 21:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq's violence

The Iraq War article should be in the past-tense state, as it is a finished war. The point of having an "Iraq War" article is to represent the war and other articles to delineate Iraqi insurgency. The "conflict in Iraq" as it stands now is the insurgency (some say Iraqi civil war).

Define the common term that everybody uses? Iraq insurgency does this (or more particularly Iraqi civil war does). The google results link (god results?) that you gave cover the war on terrorism, the finished iraq war, and the insurgency.

Now, after the occupation ended, a new sovereign took control of Iraq .... it's kinda telling that you bring up the banner thing .... after the 2003 invasion of Iraq there was "mission accomplished" (this, though, is a particularly misapplied event to the overall war (this was to the 'invasion of Iraq' only); it though has been disbelieved by many of the war's critics (aka. a vocal and non-neutral POV) and subsequently disputed by these critics) and the current conflict [or "war" (usually applied with an anti-war POV to "keep the war going")] is a miscategorized in reguards to the the "iraq insurgency" (that is why that article is there ...).

It is stated in the infobox "Occupation end: June 28, 2004". That is when the new Iraqi government took control of the country. This is view of UN ... who considers the occupation over. There may be a problems with the article's framework of the article if it contridicts a particular non-neutral stance. The insurgents are fighting the internationally recognized Iraqi government. The "Iraq War" article is to represent the 2003 war (and some of the "occupation") .... not the conflict concerning the insurgency and the new government (and it's allies). Sincerely, JDR 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that is entirely a United States-based view of the situation, as dictated from POV sources. It is not even remotely the reality. For example the use of "sovereign" in reference to Iraq is often criticized as a mere propagandism. Even on its surface the article cannot take the bias you describe, because that would be deferential to only one view. Probing any deeper, we find a basic contradiction between the concepts of sovereignty and the existing state of a military occupation —which more closely resembles colonialism. As I said before, the extension of complete and total diplomatic immunity to foreign soldiers, as well as the existence and deference to legal codes established under the occupation, stand as facts in disagreement with the claim of "sovereignty." I will copy this discussion in full to the Talk:Iraq War page, and ask for further community input. -St|eve 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshots

Is there any reason to keep the following screenshots?

• Image:Mpscr2.png
• Image:Mpscr3.png
• Image:Mpscr4.png
• Image:Mpscr5.png

If so, could you please tag them? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 07:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What does WADR mean?

I'm fairly up on online acronyms (IIRC, HTH, HAND, FOAD, YMMV) but I've never seen WADR. Just what are you trying to tell me? Zora 21:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Steve, the disputes I had with Idleguy have been resolved for now, I think. As for Terrorism in Pakistan, it has reached a point I think which is as neutral as it can get considering both sides (please see talk page and the edit history of the article). I have compromised fairly, but idleguy reverted repeatedly. It was not always a matter of sourcing, but the quality of his sources, which were biased most of the time. Also, he adjusted sentences and statements to give an anti- Pakistani POV, such as where he took the statement that applies to the Information minister of Pakistan and applied it to the entire government. See talk page of the article for details.

As for State Terrorism, you can look at the edit history on seeing the clear POV that was being added by Idleguy. It was basically a whitewash attempt of the India section and an attempt at POVing the Pakistan section. The initial editor involved was User:Deepak gupta and I had a compromise with him (see [User [2]) and we both agreed even though he shared the same POV as idleguy. Idleguy reverted immediately despite my agreement with gupta, thus indicating that he was only here only to insert POV. I have tried compromises with Idleguy, but he refuses to agree. I have refrained from making changes to the state terrorism article now and hope that Idleguy will too. See the edit history of that article for details.

Idleguy has been acting very disruptively in the past, especially on the Terrorism in Kashmir article where he kept messing with the neutrality tag. There is a background to this story that idleguy hasn't told you.

I can only hope that Idleguy will work productively and neutrally in the future and refrain from his constant personal attacks. For now, in my perspective, the issues have been resolved provided that idleguy does not add anymore objectionable material.

Yours, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

See Template

Hello, I've posted a message on the Template_talk:See. Could you have a look at it ? Regards. Lvr 14:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

About War of Iraq and Iraq War

Steve, you've been extensively involved with Reddi's changes to Iraq War and his opinion that the war is over. I recently filed an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/War_of_Iraq on Reddi's recently created article War of Iraq because it looks to me like a mirror image of the Iraq War article circa October 5th. Due to your involvement, I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. - Mr. Tibbs 19:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Tibbs, running to Steve here doesn't help your case. And has been stated .... in the 'Iraq War Talk' _by others_, the technical exposition of facts (as in the War of Iraq article) is the most NPOV. JDR 21:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Thanks for letting me know about that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo case →Raul654 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

PS - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo →Raul654 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Steve, I just wanted to say that, whatever mistakes you may have made, I think Arbcom listing an RfA on you behalf was unfair. You really did deserve better treatment than that. Doc (?) 23:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that your mistakes were serious, I hope that whatever the final resolution of this, you remain a Wikipedian. -- Pakaran 00:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I indeed made some mistakes and I deeply regret those, but I stand by my stated account of what actually happened as well as my criticism, of 1) the actions of other admins 2) the unresponsive Arbcom process, 3) the decision itself, (which was unfortunately dismissive of the actual history of events). Aside from that, everything went quite well. This is all just electrons on aluminum disks and cathode/LCD screens, so I dont take any personal offense and I wouldnt consider not continuing to be an editor here. But I want people to see where exactly things went wrong —its usually the moment that those in positions of authority stop listening and being responsive. -St|eve 04:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

While I do not endorse the actions you took that resulted in the RfC and RfAr, my initial reviews of ArbCom's response on this issue seems to be inline with your statements regarding their behavior. As time permits, I intend on reviewing ArbCom's actions on this and other points. I have no special authority over them, indeed nobody but Jimbo does. But, it might do to put together a strong case identifying shortcomings of the current ArbCom, the processes thereof, and indeed all of dispute resolution. I recently found your Wikipedia:Dispute resolution reform and found it encouraging. I especially agree with your scalability comments. I also enjoyed seeing the diagram on that page. I've been recently thinking of developing a flowchart for dispute resolution. This is not exactly what I had in mind, but it's helpful. --Durin 14:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Custom colors

Would you happen to know what to put in monobook.css to change the image thumbnail background color, and the background color of the margin that surrounds the thumbnail? I've got everything black except for that. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-26 12:46

Replied at my talk page

User talk:Redwolf24. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Fosfori Verdi &Skinori Bluedi

Hello, I'm the author of Fosfori Verdi: congratulations for your work! Your skin is very readable, clean and clear. I upgraded my skin with some new features, maybe you could be interested in look at them. I also worked on the .js, too. --Kormoran 03:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA/RFAr

The dispute as to whether arbcom sending you back for reconfirmation was beyond the point, I closed it early due to the snowball's chance of in hell general rule of thumb where noms are many times removed early if they have absolutely no chance of succeeding (you would have needed a ridiculous number of supports with no more opposes to get the required 75%-80%). General consensus on Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship was to remove your nom on these grounds. Believe me that if there was a chance of you getting voted I would have commented on the talk page against it's removal but as it was I think I did the right thing. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I had nothing to do with what was written when it was listed on the unsuccessful canidacies page, you'll have to talk to the person who linked it up there about that. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I consulted with many editors including admins and attempted to talk to several arbcom members (they refused to get involved at this point) about this so you cannot for one second claim it was a unilateral decision on my part. I feel confident that I did the right thing and actually you should be thanking me for closing down the RFA since many other editors where using it as an open forum to take potshots at you. Anyway, if you have anything else you'd like to ask or comment on leave me a message on my talk page but I'm going to bed now so I won't get to it until I get back on later in the day. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

One last comment before I go to bed, if I had thought I made a mistake or another trusted editor had communicated to me, Jtkiefer I think you made a mistake and I think you shoudl reverse yourself, or you abused your powers (and there are at least several editors who would do that instantly if I did that) then I would have instantly reverted myself and apologized for the mistake as I do whenever I make a mistake, however I do not believe that was the case and if you look at the general comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship neither does the community despite the fact that they are displeased with you having to go up for reconfirmation. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to step back for the remainder of your RFA-Confirmation, I still think I did the right thing but under the motto that it's better to be safe than sorry I'm somewhat glad that it was put back up and I hope that you get a fair vote from the community for the duration of the request. Even if you don't get it I have heard from quite a few editors that they would be more than willing to support you in the future if you ran again. Please understand that at no time was this personal and I hope that there are no hard feelings. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA

Hi, I was just wondering what you meant by the comment you made on my vote here. It had nothing to do with the arbcom, but rather my own conscience and the opinion that it seemed unlikely that most users would be able to treat you fairly one way or another with the atmosphere in there. I'm still in doubt though. Karmafist 01:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. Just one thing though, it seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot with these comments. I don't know you that well, so it's no consequence to me if you shoot yourself in the foot, but I figured I'd offer the outside opinion. Karmafist 02:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

lol, the best of us shoot ourselves in the foot every now and then. Besides, after trying to beat some civility into This Guy for the past few days, your comments are a breath of fresh WP:CIVIL air in comparison. Karmafist 03:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA

You're welcome. I'm sorry if it doesn't work out. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, all the best. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA (again)

Hey , what was the request on meta which failed to get confirmation, as mentioned by Anthere in your RfA? Got a link? Cheers Moriori 22:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV

You're welcome. I don't know enough about the situation to pass judgement on the ArbCom's conduct, but I do know that one, or even several, 3RR violations should not lead to de-adminship. Andre (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Voluntary Wikipedia Questionnaire

My name is Oliver Metz. I am a student at Brent International School, Manila, an International school located in the Philippines. I am doing my last year of school (12th Grade) and I am writing a research paper (about 4000 words) on Wikipedia in ITGS (Information Technology in a Global Society). Of 10 randomly picked people you have been chosen as one. If you are willing and have the time to answer a few questions I would be grateful if you could fill out a short questionnaire of 6 questions.

Some Information about my essay:

My essay topic is about the freedom to collaborate and the usage of the Internet as a tool to do so. I will analyze topics such as Altruism versus Egoism as well as the Product Wikipedia itself.

My Thesis Statement: The Internet is not only a medium for communication, information and marketing but also a place for altruism, collaboration and cooperation. Wikipedia is the product of a voluntary collaborative effort that defies commonly held beliefs about human nature.

If you have any further questions or requests you would like to pose before filling out the questionnaire I'd gladly answer them.

you can write to: taklung@gmx.net (I check this e-mail address regularly)

Questionnaire:

Please answer the following questions by either inserting the answers or sending them to me via e-mail. (*are not necessarily required). Name*: Age*: Nationality*:

1. How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia?

2. Have you or are you planning to donate money to the Wikipedia cause?

3. When you first heard of Wikipedia and the concepts it is based on, what did you think about it and did you believe it could work? What do you think now?

4. Why do you think people contribute to Wikipedia? With it being voluntary what interests do/did you follow when contributing to Wikipedia?

5. Do you think that Wikipedia appeals to Altruism? If yes, do you think such a thing can exist in our society in which greed and consumption apparently drive the world?

6. What do you think makes Wikipedia most beneficial to society?

Further comments*:

With kind regards,

Oliver Metz --TakLung 10:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for defending the article CIA leak investigation. I started the article about two weeks ago because the Plame Affair was getting too long to include anymore new topics. The Plame Affair did not include research on the process and people from the DOJ. Over the past 2 weeks I spent over 20 hours researching the laws, the lawyers, and the court system. I even emailed law firm to verify information. I reseached and started a half dozen new articles from this page, mostly about the attorneys involved. So, I was shocked and disappointed that someone could erase all this work. I am calming down some, but I'm still upset.--FloNight 00:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Steve.. yes, it's fine that you added the bold "keep" to the start of my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA leak grand jury investigation. I started writing that comment not entirely sure whether I felt it should be kept in a separate article or merged into Plame affair, and by the time I'd concluded that it should indeed remain separate as a detail/"main article" type thing, I forgot to go back to the start and fill in "Keep". :-) --Stormie 03:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Peterotoole.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peterotoole.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Arniep 12:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

humanism

Because humanism doesn't even appear in the box. Plus, it's a less than useful box. Humanism for some people is a philosophy, for others, the word philosophy has no meaning when thinking about humanism. I'm happy to followup with this on the humanism talk page. I will not read a reply here. Tedernst 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: "Should we split this category to a Category:Living American World War II veterans?" - I'm not against it, and if this were 20 years ago, I'd be all for it. Legally, (if they didn't lie about their age to get in), they are all a minimum of 81 years old now. As such, I think now it would probably be of limited value and redundant before too long as at the rate they are dying there won't be any within a very few years. As the category reads now, it adequately describes them either way. My big thing is to make sure those who served are honored accordingly in their article. - Ted Wilkes 00:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It would also be a lot of work changing the category as each one dies but then just that statistic would be interesting by itself. The "honor" thing is important to me, even if the War is good/bad/ etc. and no matter what side they were on. I see the category as the honor (recognition). - Ted Wilkes 00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

edit tag

Hi Stevertigo, I really don't like this new edit tag thing you're adding to articles. I think it's important for readers (non-editors) to see if and article is highly POV, or factually inaccurate, so they don't read the article and get false information. The way you're having it, non-editors won't really know what the abbreviations mean, and they'll just go ahead and read the article. Would you mind stopping what you're currently doing and try bringing this up on some talk page or something? Thanks. --Hottentot

MedCom

Glad to have you back! I already got a case for you, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Joan of Arc. Cheers :) Redwolf24 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

POV fork

Hi. I noticed you edited the Wikipedia:POV fork article before. Could you take a look at it? I'm involved with a dispute with a user who is accusing me of a "POV fork." He hasn't referenced that page, but I just happend upon it. It is (apparently) a Wikipedia:Guideline. A user who I do not know (but it seems is active in the articles surrounding the dispute and with some of the users involved in my dispute) has turned it into a guideline a few days ago by just adding the {{guideline}} template to the article. The discussion page is blank. I don't know for certain if this is appropriate but I am pretty sure it is not. I noticed before you made an edit on that page after the same user added the {{semipolicy}} tag and said "something written yesterday cant quite be semi-policy yet" which is common sense to me. Now that user has turned it into a guideline (after having removed the {{proposed}} tag before and placing it in the Wikipedia:Essays category, which seems quite strange to me). I'm pretty sure things don't become guidelines simply by a user adding the template to the page. Could you review it and make any changes as necessary? I do not want to touch it for fear that it will escalate my dispute should any changes I make be referenced. Seeing as you made that commonsense edit before, I was hoping you could check it out. Thanks (and I'll understand if you also don't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole, but perhaps you could ask someone on my behalf who would examine it?).--24.57.157.81 12:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It may be unfair to suggest that he changed it based on my dispute. I am on the look out for coincidences like that though because of the nature my dispute. Please simply disregard that part of my suggestion. (sigh. here I am talking to you like they are following my every word, even when I post with my IP address, but truthfully I wouldn't be that surprised if they were).--24.57.157.81 12:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

And another warning, I got the link to POV fork from reading about an entirely different dispute (related by topic somewhat, but entirely unknown to me) which referenced the POV fork article, and also who called it a guideline. So, it's not just my dispute. Funny enough, I just realized that that user accusing someone else of a POV fork is somewhat involved in my dispute too. So at least one dispute has referenced it as a guideline, and another has referenced it in name only. It's completely obvious that something doesn't become a guideline simply by adding the tag to it, but be careful anyway :P.--24.57.157.81 13:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your post. Never mind. --Ben 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your post. I'm pretty sure things don't become guidelines simply by a user adding the template to the page. Could you review it and make any changes as necessary? is what I was asking. It's ok, I just did it myself. --Ben 03:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:RFJesus.jpg

I'm trying to determine the source of the picture Image:RFJesus.jpg. The comment when you uploaded it says "This is Fair Use image-- See Popular Mechanics link-- cited BBC Image Library". I can't figure out what Popular Mechanics link is meant by this. Do you have more complete information on the source? Thanks. --Tabor 05:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can track down any further info on it. --Tabor 16:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on what I have been able to find out about this image, I am tagging it as fair use type {{promotional}}. (The image was produced as a part of a BBC television series, and was used in most news reports promoting the series before it aired.) --Tabor 17:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)