User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 17

Yeshua

I am glad that you now understand the reasoning behind the consensus at the Jesus page about keeping speculative reconstructions out of the lead. that said, I do not see any reason to ammend the names guideline. The key thing at Wikipedia is always to give the benefit of the doubt to active editors working on a page when they have discussed an issue and formed a consensus, it does not matter what the topic is, and we do not need to write this in every policy and guideline, everyone knows it. Besides, I read through the guideline and I di dnot see anywhere where it demands that "original" names be conjured up. I went to the section you directed me to and it seems to me to be about contemporary names, where a person place or thing is commonly identified using multiple names. This is quite different from reconstructing some historically "original" name, isn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Files which you uploaded at Meta

Dear Stevertigo,

I want to let you notice you should tag license tags for your files.

Please tag appropriate license tag for your files as soon as possible.

List of files you should tag:

Thank you.--Kwj2772 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic theology of the body

Thanks for your kind comments. It's overwhelming how quickly the wikification backlog builds up. I'm dealing with articles either quickly or not at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:INC

I have nominated Wikipedia:INC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -Zeus-^u_c 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to stress that I didn't even know that you created this page until twinkle said it was notifying you. This is not some kind of personal vendetta I have against you. -Zeus-^u_c 23:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children of God

Say, if you're going to move an article with that many incoming links, it's just not cricket to not fix the links. I see you needed sleep—perhaps you should have waited until you had more seven minutes of your time to dedicate to the project. Additionally, I can't help but think there will be people who take issue with your POV choice of disambiguation for the religious group. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Category:Jewish Christians

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Jewish Christians, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Jewish Christians was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Jewish Christians, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, please see Category talk:Early Hebrew Christians as you may be interested following the above CFD. I'm inclined to follow another editor's recommendation to replace the new category with "1st century Christians of Jewish descent". - Fayenatic (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{War-stub}}/{{Waronterror-stub}}

Hi - two or more stub types which you created have been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub types (templates or categories), which were not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, do not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding these stub types, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links

Re your changes there. They do not have consensus and as it is an official guideline, and heavily used, you should discuss changes on the talk page. You boldly changed, which is fine, but that change was reverted. It is inappropriate of you to then revert again. Per WP:BRD, please discuss it on the guideline's talk page and get consensus for your edits before trying to implement them again. And, re your revert edit summary, I did read the changes the first time (I read fast), and your changes not only changed the meaning of the line, but goes against actual established norms and the overall MoS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Talk page templates

Category:Talk page templates, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi, Swastika References Being Purged from Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content forking

I moved your comment from the project page to the talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham

I assume you mean the name. The basic source is the Bible, Genesis provides an etymology. The Wikipedia entry was indeed very confusingly writtn. I made an edit which is accurate to the main source, the Hebrew Bible. I have no idea what the source is for the alleged Aramaic etymology but I do not know it to be wrong and did not delete it - my guess is it is from Midrash Rabbah or the Talmud but I have no idea where. If you ant to work on this I would recommend three things. First, does the Koran provide an alternate etymology? I have no idea but it is worth checking. If it does, I would not combine it with the Biblical etymology, I would add it. Second, for critical views, the best source is the Anchor Bible volume of Genesis - if critical scholars have alternate etymologies you will find them there. Finally, unless you know someone who can actually search Midrash Rabbah or the Talmud for you, or Mikraot Gedolot which is the authoritative omnibus collection of Rabbinic and medieval Jewish commentaries on the Bible, I would recommend finding the Artscroll edition of genesis. This is an English translation with VERY Orthodox commentary and the commentary on the name may yeild a Rabbinic or Medieval etymology and you would have the proper source. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not follow your point. There is no reconstruction - the etymology of Avraham is in Genesis. Of course, thee is much less evidence for Avraham's existence than for Jesus's. Be that as it may I have only ever suggested providing significant views from notable sources concerning Avraham's anme and concerning Jesus' name; my position is consistent and simply in keeping with our core policies. I am surprised that you are even discussing this as you seem not to know what the notable sources are, either for Avraham or for Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any inconsistency between how we handle Jesus' name and Avraham's name. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions only reveal your dsire to do original research, which is forbidden at Wikipedia. Here all that matters is: significant views from notable sources. Every edit I made to the Jesus and the Abraham article is supported by a verifiable source. Your questions are just wastes of time, they have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Stop wasting my time with your BS. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For making eloquent arguments for a controversy section to the Barack Obama article on the talk page. While I do not agree completely, you made great arguments and kept a level head, which is an achievement many in the discussion, especially those attacking you and others, cannot claim. I take my hat off to you sir. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Barack Obama

It should be noted that in addition to being a very childish "Barack is a poopyhead, and he's black besides" sort of list, it was created by a sockpuppet account, since blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Of what looks to me like a thinly veiled attack on other editors you currently are in a disagreement with. [1] Bali ultimate (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Criticism of Barack Obama

This is a courtesy notice that I have nominated the above-referenced article for deletion. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:I just don't like it

Wikipedia:I just don't like it, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:I just don't like it and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:I just don't like it during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama probation warning

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Sceptre ^(talk) 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

Please see Talk:Barack_Obama#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama for my rationale. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Fighting the Good Fight over Obama's Criticism Page

Ejnogarb (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching![reply]

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Steve: As you can tell, there's a lot of mishegas over any criticism of Barack Obama, and a number of editors treat like an infidel any editor who doesn't worship at the temple of God Jr. A word of advice: as tempting as it is to be sarcastic to editors who are making profoundly poor POV-pushing arguments, in the long run, you'll be much better off and much more persuasive if you take the highest ground you possibly can, and give them one less thing to complain about. Not only is that good common sense, but it's part of the rules. (Also, I see no one bothered to notify you that Sceptre opened a WP:ANI thread about you. I'd ignore it unless you see a second editor take it seriously and ask for your input.) THF (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User:THF/Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it off-wiki this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than battling at DRV or on the Talk:Obama page or ANI about intermediate stages. If we present a fully-sourced, well-written neutral article, there shouldn't be a problem -- and if there is, it will be pretty damning of Wikipedia. THF (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude: you're not going to get any results on ANI on March 17. Let's get a good article, and if Wikipedia refuses to act neutrally to it, then we have something to complain about. Suffer the small injustices, because only the big ones get addressed when it comes to editors who aren't left-wing. THF (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section

Do you see how nobody jumps onboard with your ideas? That means it's probably best just to let things go and quit dragging things down. We are afterall, here to create an encyclopedia, rather than attempting to get people blocked "for an hour or two." Grsz¹¹ 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Cutting in): This coming from someone who thinks its alright to move/deprecate/delete new discussion threads. -Ste vertigo 13:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have a problem with blocking this account, but you are being reminded that tendentious editing is a blockable offense. Please do not continue to reinsert the Barack Obama FAQ onto ANI, or revert war over closed entries. Let others handle that. seicer | talk | contribs 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in Wikipedia blocking rules, but I have learned essays are not policies. Just an aside. JustGettingItRight (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, as I noted on Seicer's talk, that WP:TE deals with articles, and not discussion threads. I'm actually a bit disappointed with all of the mis-references to essays as policies, and policy clauses which don't exist. Don't quite know what to do about it. -Ste vertigo 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I'm a new editor, and you obviously have been working on the project way longer than I have, so I don't mean to come off as patronizing. However, your tactics, which seem to be out of frustration, are getting much tougher to defend. Your goal to remove systemic bias is an admirable one and I'll also note you are a Barack Obama voter, but you're playing right into these guys' hands. I don't know much about Wikipedia culture, but I can relate to being a veteran in an organization (real organization, not virtual) and losing my cool (rather severely in retrospect) when people did not understand the points I was trying to make. I regret my actions now, but at the time I thought I was handling the situation in the best way. Take a breather ... there are other people who are defending several of your general points that you are trying to make. JustGettingItRight (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this. Thanks. -Ste vertigo 13:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning, Steve. If you disrupt any page one more time, I will make sure you are blocked. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Steve, your disruption has gone way too far now. Many different users, involved and uninvolved, have told you to knock it off but you have still continued. If you can't just drop things and walk away and stop being disruptive, an Arb Com filing isn't too far away. Grsz¹¹ 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woo! Two of the main POV editors who write me up for unsupportable ANI's, try to censor my comments on AFD, DRV, and ANI itself, make varied references to policies they little understand, and can't win any argument on the logic, policy, or merits, are threatening me with "blocking" and the "Arb Com"[sic], (the latter of which I invented).

You both of course can do what you want, but I would encourage you to instead be contrite about your errors, apologetic to those people like me that you apparently think you can just run over, and to some degree have, and reasonable enough to actually read the arguments in question rather than try to game the situation with tacky tactics and icky threats like the ones above.

I eagerly await your answers. -Ste vertigo 19:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz wrote in comment: "no. this is my comment and you have no right to change it. if you dont want it there, remove it all together but stop fucking with my comments" - I see that you might understand the concept now? -Ste vertigo 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you are now edit warring across multiple articles and drawing the attention of more admins. Please stop this now, thanks. Grsz¹¹ 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why arbcom? That is a waste of effort. A simple topic ban and if necessary, escalating blocks, will do just fine. Wikidemon (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to WP:IAR talk page

Ah, now maybe I'm seeing it better, having read the above. I take it that this edit was an expression of frustration? If so, I have that handy "Email this user" link where you can vent off-wiki. Sometimes it's better to obscenitize openly than to disguise the cursing on-wiki. Just sayin'! Franamax (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think in a few days I'm going to deal with those people who think wikistalking and deletion of discussion page comments are great things to do here. Frustrating? Hm. -Ste vertigo 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing any kind of talk page material strikes me as silly and pointless. The policy Ignore all rules on the other hand, is alive, well, and excellent. If you think that it is somehow used to "trump" other fundamental policies, then you don't really know What "Ignore all rules" means. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I can ignore it. -Ste vertigo 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess that works. Until it doesn't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Please move your comment to your section, and strike or remove the comment you left to Grsz. He's right; he should not have to ask you, and he definitely should not be subjected to hostile comments such as the one you left. Horologium (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I forgot or else just didn't understand the ~~policy~~ convention on that page. Its not supposed to be a discussion, yet back and forth comments are almost a requirement.. except nesting them inline is not allowed because that would be too discussion-like.. (?) Eh. It's moved now; which no doubt gives Grsz and other kids the idea that comments anywhere can be edited at will. I seem to remember there being a kind of "sanctity" associated with user's comments - often even IPs. Eh. Could just be my imagination... -Ste vertigo 02:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I don't think snide comments like this are in your best interest right now. Grsz¹¹ 04:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I.. understand. -Ste vertigo 04:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:250px-Common blue butterfly underside 800.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:250px-Common blue butterfly underside 800.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the information. This image of yours is on the Lycaenidae stub template. Otherwise we would have to switch over from your image to another. AshLin (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even remember dealing with it. I havent looked at the file or its date of upload, but note that anytime a file has a parameter in it like "250px," it indicates a change from another file, ostensibly File:Common blue butterfly underside 800.jpg. Hence it would have all the same meta information. I can infer that I resized the image from a larger image, and IIRC this must have been because mediawiki at the time didn't handle image resizing, let alone thumbnails and such. In fact it wasnt even called mediawiki back then. IIRC.

Anyway, a quick search for "file:common blue butterfly" doesnt get anything here except above. Searching Commons is the next step, and the WP search provides for that. A Commons search finds no direct file name match, but the field does show a larger version of the above image, named File:Polyommatus icarus.jpg, taken in mid 2004, in the time period stated. Deleting the above and replacing it with the commons file is the next thing to do, but adding a little note indicating the history of the files would be good documentary practice for files. -Ste vertigo 18:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have done that. AshLin (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Steve?

Are you known as "Uncle Steve" in other online forums, and are you close to someone involved in plant life? If so I may know you. Feel free to email me via Wikipedia or drop hints that I might recognize - I won't blow your anonymity. If it turns out we really know each other IRL I'd love to buy you a beer. Wikidemon (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WD. I'm not known as such, but I thought it wasn't too improper seeing as how I'm at that (relative) age.. :). IRL, im almost certain it's otherwise, but a beer is not out of the question. -Ste vertigo 02:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Rule

A tag has been placed on Template:Rule, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing WP shortcuts

Please don't make changes to the targets of existing WP shortcut redirects, like you did here. There are a lot of existing links to the shortcut that expect the existing target. If you feel it needs to be changed, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]