Thanks for uploading File:TGIG.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
((bots|deny=DASHBot))
to somewhere on your talk page.Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The article Blake Lemoine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bonewah (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Universalism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Jump has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nephesh. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nephesh. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The article Vegetarianism and veganism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Sinneed 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Vegetarianism and veganism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegetarianism and veganism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Sinneed 16:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Octonianf.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Octonianf.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to International Phonetic Alphabet, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Dominion of man over the beasts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Dominion of man over the beasts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod))
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I admire your brave attempt to find a solution to the very flawed IPA key. Are you aware of all the other lengthy discussions on this topic? I rather fear you are in for a hard time from the major IPA players who have remained totally intransigent, and even uncivil towards any suggestions since they were started in December.--113.53.112.84 (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is nogivet going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Copied to animal rights talk page. Your split discussion here creates an impression of your insincerity. For example I've dealt with your Francione quote accusation. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 09:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-alt.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
((bots|deny=DASHBot))
to your talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.
P.S. I have written nothing negative about you there. You are mentioned once, positively, in regard to a former incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh? -- Kendrick7talk 18:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, State information. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - State. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at State - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Shashwat986 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Template:Related has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your recent change: notice that there are a couple of dozen articles that use 'TTC' expecting it will go uniquely to Toronto Transit Commission. They are in this list. Your action undoes the opposite redirection that was done in December, 2009. I queried that editor as to what he was up to, and he did persuade me that Toronto Transit Commission was the most important use. Could a discussion be needed? EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Inserts.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I have prodded this disambiguation page; there is no need for disambiguation, as all of the articles listed have unique and unambiguous titles. --Amble (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. While looking through the many Wiki.png versions, I couldn't help noticing a summary by you: "(redone wiki logo for all backgrounds)". Could you tell me how you did this? I am looking for how because a few images on another wiki require this, but no one there knows of it. All I know is that it appears as grey squares.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated PBS idents, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (5th nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not fully comfortable with your recent addition to Organism, even less so with the present wording. Where does the POV come from, that "higher" organisms need to have mental complexity? Is not a tree more valuable than algae, even without a state of mind? And, should the "value" part in fact link to Intrinsic value (ethics)? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —David Levy 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "Use of the "minor" checkbox for this purpose indicates that the reverted edit was of no greater merit than a typo is." - Applying this principle to the recent case, my notation of "minor" was accurate: Bkonrad deleted a passage I had reinserted from my initial draft version of that page (2005). Its merits were few. His edit was deletionistic and accompanied only by a terse comment calling my writing "grumbling." The difference between his delete and vandalism is too slight to relegate judgment to a simple binary choice between "minor" and "major" (implied). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you made some edits to the Amen article, and I think there is a need for some furher changes. The line "There is no academic support for either of these views." should change to read "There is little academic support for either of these views." Since the first statement is not technically correct, as there are some (allthough very little) support for the idea that the word Amen came from the Epyptian god Ammon/ Amun/ Amen. So just as you noted that "there are unsubstantiated claims by some Hindu writers that "Amen" and "Amin" (Islam), came from the word "aum."", the entry about Amen vs. Amun should also be modidied. Jove 05:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnoakgrove (talk • contribs)
Hey. I just saw your request for a third opinion. I've removed it because I want to try to help, but also because there are more than 4 editors involved in this, so it doesn't really qualify for a 3O. I'm trying to understand what's going on, but it's just spread out all over the place, so it's hard to follow. Is this editor being particularly tendentious? If there's a consensus for one particular view and he's the only one speaking out against it, then he might be. And if you feel like you're being stalked, well, that's an issue too. You might want to bring this up over at WP:ANI or something, but I would be careful, as it could end up backfiring on you. More specifically: on Punishment, for example, it seems that Modocc was unhappy with your edits, yet you just reverted rather than start a thread on the talk page and discuss your edits. And over on Time in physics, it seems that Steve Quinn didn't like your changes to the lede. My recommendation to you is this: take a step back, cool off, and think about your edits. Is it possible that you're being tendentious, not JimWae? You could choose to escalate these issues, but I would take a good long think about them before you do that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi
What's your rationale for moving the Intelligence article to Active intelligence? It's not a term used in the profession, and the move doesn't appear to have been discussed.
Thanks
ALR (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
ALR (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stevertigo, can you please explain this edit where you changed the signature of Cymble (talk · contribs) by yours? Are you and Cymble the same person? If yes, please be aware of our policy concerning wp:sockpuppetry, stating in short: "The general rule is one editor, one account". Otherwise, please undo that edit per wp:TALKO. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains the edit, but I wonder which of the listed reasons (in WP:SOCKS#Legitimate uses) you have for using two usernames, as I don't see any of the entries that could be applicable here. Also, have you complied with WP:SOCK#NOTIFY? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add tags pointing to your essay WP:NONCE into articles as you did here. Doing so amounts to inserting a personal opinion about the article into the article itself instead of on the article's talk page. I have removed it. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I have left a comment at the talk page for this article, asking for consideration to rename the article and the redirect, and now I look at it, the tag as well. I don't know if you are aware, but the word "Nonce" is used in British English as slang (mainly in jails, but also on the street) to refer to a Child Molester or a Pedophile. So having a redirect from WP:NONCE, a tag marked ((nonce)) and a page for Nonce introductions doesn't seem like too hot an idea. What say you? :) BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 00:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
nice work. Decora (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Stevertigo. Thank you for creating Expression (language). You did not cite any source for your definition of "expression," and (as I note at Talk:Sentence (linguistics)) I'm not aware of any technical definition of the term within linguistics. Might you be thinking of Utterance? The relationship between utterances (as acts of language performance) and sentences (as somewhat idealized linguistic forms) is much discussed. Cnilep (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I have requested that Manners of articulation be moved back to Manner of articulation. Your comments are welcome at Talk:Manners of articulation#Requested move. Cnilep (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Gentle nudge. Please be more careful to turn off your "all edits minor" setting, when you're adding or changing significantfuzzy! amounts of content, eg [3] and [4]. Thanks! (Also, edit summaries are still handy for other editors, even when your edits are minor. Just a short "c/e" or "clarify" is often all that's needed! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
a) Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
b) Different and only vaguely related topic:
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated List of popes (graphical), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popes (graphical). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandman888 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss moves like this before doing them. What was so all important that you had to change the name to something a silly as Floor (surface) which is simply wrong. Flooring is surfacing a floor and there is an article about it and it is different from a floor. Floor was perfectly okay as a main article rather than going direct to the disambiguation page but now there's all sorts of fixing and changing to get it back to a reasonable state. Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, you're invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Historical#New_icon. thanks, Ϫ 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Stevertigo:
Regarding the above, I see that you're still routinely labeling your major edits (including controversial ones) "minor," usually without bothering to include an edit summary. This is disruptive and needs to cease. Please do so immediately. Thank you. —David Levy 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:RSWP. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:RSWP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Colin°Talk 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This is rather off-topic for the ANI discussion so I'm replying here instead.
I agree about making several small edits when you're changing several different things, especially when the article is contentious; that way if someone disagrees with one of change but not others, they can undo just that one (or link to just that diff, etc). Editing section-by-section is a good example; I do that plenty myself, intentionally.
My complaints about your editing style is that it looks more like you forgot to use preview and upon reading your submission went back to revise/correct your edits several times (which I admittedly do myself now and again, but you seem to do it excessively). Or sometimes it seems like you had to stop in the middle of working on an edit, and so sent what you had written so far and then completed it later, instead of waiting until you had time to complete it and sending it all together.
Metaphorically put, your 'speech' (edits) here 'sounds' (looks) more like a disjointed "P. Er, that is, I mean, Q. ...ish. Except R." rather than a clean conjunction of several things, ala "P. Also Q. And not R".
No offense intended, it's just a little annoying :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not being biased, I have discussed this in it's talk page. If you see the history of the page, the contraversies were part of the opening para when the page started off, which makes sense as the wiki home's "in the news" section linked to this page mentioning contravery of the visit, also contraveries are the main discussion points in the news and media. So I'm just moving back the contraversies back to where it was. Don't you think it makes sense for contraveries to be in the second or third para of the page? -Abhishikt 07:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)
This article is a content fork WP:FORK. As you stated in the ANI, it was part of the discussion on the "Human" talk page. You stated that the group rejected your edits, regarding "Human being" or "Human". OK fine. Now the page has to be taken back to a redirect, if you don't mind. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Steve - As an uninvolved administrator, reviewing the ANI case and your actions, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would explain what your thinking and reasoning was for turning Human being from a redirect to Human into a standalone article. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually – not that edit counts have any bearing whatsoever on my ability to read complaints, evaluate evidence and make judgments – but if you're really interested, I've been here since 2005, and I have 65,000+ edits (see this for an explanation). And being uninvolved with you is exactly what one would want, is it not, a dispassionate judgment not based on previous prejudice? If you and I had past history, wouldn't you be here saying something like "How can you possibly make an impartial judgment about me when we've conflicted so often in the past", right?
Look, the only thing you need to worry about right now is making an explanation to the community's satisfaction of why people find you "problematic" and "controversial". Don't squander your energy on little attacks like this one, or on tactical maneouvres like filing a pre-emptive ArbCom complaint and so on, take the straight-forward and honorable course and clear things up. That's my advice, anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Response to User:Newyorkbrad and other Arbs.
I appreciate the time you and the other Arbs put into your work. Note that I did not make any complaints about the other editors, not because there wasn't anything to complain about, but because that's not what I do. What I do is I go around improving articles in various ways and, in the few cases where I face opposition, I argue forcefully for certain changes to be made.
In this case, at the punishment article, Steve Quinn and JimWae claim that their poor writing is supported by V, and that my writing is OR. Hence starting at the punishment article would seem to be more sensible than some general referendum in accord with some vague behavioural standard, steered by various disgruntled editors whom Ive soundly defeated in past debates (SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, etc.) -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Care to make a comment in the Oppose or Support section, since you created the current lead as well? We definitely need consensus on the matter. Not sure how long it will take, though. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Nonce has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
You can't seriously link mainspace article leads to the essay Wikipedia:Nonce introductions. I reckon the template has to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Steve, for purposes of understanding your overall edit history, it might be helpful to others if you were to enable the toolserver edit counter as described here. It's apparent that your editing interests have changed a fair amount over the years. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Nonce introductions, 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:Nonce introductions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Nonce introductions 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. →ROUX ₪ 18:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not put any more talkbacks on my talk page directing me to the AN/I discussion about your editing behavior. I will see what's posted there in my own time, and, in any case, you seem intent on focusing the discussion on me and my thought processes, and that's not what it's about. As I've said repeatedly, these tactics of yours are wasting your energy, which should be directed to answering the questions that have been raised about you, and not to ancilliary issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Please look for an email from about your use of undisclosed accounts. Please respond to let me know that you've received it and will follow up with ArbCom. IMO, an user with a history of editing warring and ArbCom sanction should not be using undisclosed accounts without a very good reason, and then the accounts should be disclosed to ArbCom. So, please follow up to answer my concerns. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
AGK is one of the Arbitration Committee clerks. It is explicitly his job to remove extraneous material from case filings.
Please stop reinserting it. It's not appropriate, please drop the issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to mediate this dispute, if all participants find me acceptable, and the dispute is still live. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I came by to give you an anonymous tip. Pleas, go here: Communication. (Of course if view the edit history this will not be so anonymous :>) --- The anonymous tipster -- September 27, 2010
Please stop editing the lede on the Truth article. We have a consensus lede. See the talk page. You appear to be repeating the same pattern. Leave this lede alone, please ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steve,
I've been watching the ANI/ArbCom involving you as it has unfolded, and various related things I've stumbled across while wikiwandering from them. I just noticed User:Beyond My Ken's comment on the MfD for your essay on vague/"nonce" introductions (this one), and I feel like I need to make a similar comment. I do not mean to attack you, merely to state my (IMO impartial) observations of what I've seen happening; both for your benefit, and also for the consideration of your (if I may frame it thus) adversaries and judges, who are undoubtedly watching your talk page here.
When I first encountered you at Rights I was, as you know, not especially happy with the edits you made; but I voiced my objections, and you replied civilly, and things worked out pretty well, in my opinion. I was left with no hard feelings toward you, and the incident felt like a good example of how Wikipedia's consensus process can work out disagreements between editors. When you requested I comment in the debate at Human, I observed that your behavior there seemed to me slightly more antagonistic or aggressive; even as I wrote qualified agreements with you or criticisms of your critics, you seemed to behave as though I was attacking you (or your position at least), until I explained otherwise. But then, the other parties in that dispute were likewise much more aggressive and blunt than I feel I was in our discussion at Rights, and I could easily see how their behavior could put you on the defensive. Nobody is ever at their best when they are on the defensive.
Similarly, as I've watched the ANI/ArbCom/etc unfold, even as I've commented in mild defense of you, your behavior in these various proceedings has seemed, to paraphrase Ken's comment referenced above, less than straightforward. However, also like at the Human debate, I can easily see how this difference in behavior is due to a difference in the type of opposition you are facing. The impression I get, if I may paint a picture with words here (and at the risk of sounding like your psychoanalyst), is of someone facing a serious threat, feeling inside themselves fearful of that threat, and wanting to fight or flee; but knowing that that will only exacerbate the problem, and instead desperately trying to diffuse the threat while presenting the calm, outward appearance of one who does not feel threatened; trying to appear neither vulnerable nor belligerent, even though he might truthfully feel either or both of those.
That is an honorable type of response, remaining calm while under attack, and certainly better than acting on a fight-of-flight response. However, the resulting behavior appears, for lack of better terms, "slippery" or "fidgety", certainly not calm, straightforward, and honest. It puts you in a bad light; even I am beginning to feel suspicious of the faithfulness and quality of your edits (though I am not, yet, granting those intuitive feelings conscious validation; I'm just voicing the emotional impression I am getting), and I can certainly see how others like Ken would get a similar impression. I suppose one of the reasons I am making this comment here is to name the feelings that I think I am observing, in the hope that it might help diffuse them, to help bring you genuine calm, which should not only be more pleasant for you but also, more practically, a useful attitude in navigating the challenges you face. (Of course if what I think I am observing is incorrect, then I hope I have not made any offense in suggesting that you feel thus).
I sincerely hope that the proceedings you are involved in work out for the best, that you are not banned or blocked, but can continue contributing here, in a manner that is satisfactory to all editors. If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to reference or copy these comments of mine anywhere in those proceedings, please feel free to do so; I'm not comfortable enough with the higher-level dispute resolution processes to know whether my comments there would be appropriate, nor am I involved enough to feel the need to interject them despite that uncertainty.
Best of luck, --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I jumped the gun while you were editing the "Truth" article. One admin in particular thinks that your edits improved the lead. I agree that most all of them did. I hope you don't mind me saying that I was surprised. In any case, if you want to continue what you started I won't stand in the way. Also, I am curious to see what the finished product will be. Also, I guess I owe you an apology for jumping the gun in this particular instance. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Stevertigo. This is to inform you that I have closed this Wikipedia proposal as failed, as it has not gained enough consensus on the talkpage to support it. If you have any objections, feel free to contact me on my talkpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This kind of edit[5] are the kind that people are trying to explain to you are problematic. You change a key word to explain the concept of relativity namely "relative" into "inequal" a word that has a specialised meaning within a very specific field, namely math. In doing so you change a statement that was backed by two citations into a statement which is no longer supported by a citation, but appears to have two citations that someone will eventually discover no longer support what they claim to be supporting. When you change key terminology please make sure to use terminology that is both clearly intelligible to lay readers (i.e. not specialised or jargon) and also base your changes with sources. If you alter the wording of a sourced passage, check the original sources and see if they also support your new wording - if they don't make sure to evaluate whether your source or the sources given are more authoritative or represent a more widespread usage. Most important:back up changes, also small changes in terminology with sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(original on ANI sub-page / copy to User talk:Stevertigo + log to edit restrictions page)
This has been hanging open too long. There is community consensus for - at the very least - a community edit restriction of 1RR per week per article on Stevertigo, as noted above and described by Ncmvocalist. This is the least of the restrictions which had significant community support (a 0RR restriction and a moderate length ban also had more support than oppose, but due to poll respondee selection issues and the also-active Arbcom case I am inclined not to impose those).
Pursuant to that - As an uninvolved administrator, I am closing this discussion with a community imposed 1RR/week/article edit restriction on Stevertigo, without stated end date / duration as none was mentioned in the consensus discussions (though, obviously, Steve can request reconsideration at future time(s) reasonably not less than say six months from now).
I additionally and personally would like to add a cautionary note - Steve, you have contributed greatly to Wikipedia over these many years. It is evident that large parts of the community have now lost faith in your positive contributions and lost patience dealing with you, regardless of who is "at fault" in terms of policy and process. I urge you to consider your behavior and work to mitigate that loss of patience and faith. This cannot help but end badly if you continue down the path that brought you to this time and place. Administrators and Arbcom cannot help you if you drive a wedge in between yourself and the community writ large. I have no wish to be back here in another three or six months with a larger angry community who will not be satisfied by anything short of an actual ban. Even if others' behavior is entangled in the current dispute, Steve, you have to admit you've made a lot of enemies. Consider reaching out and trying to make them friends again.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Main2. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Main2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)