User talk:Sm8900/Archive 3

draft of reply
I think ht we absolutely should. Here is a link to a discussion I had at m talk page, re some problems and issues associated with the Arbcom case: User_talk:Sm8900. Briefly though, my main thought is that if we do not have some psoitive dispute resolution process going on, the ArbCom case will start dissolving into a whol mess of allegations/accusations and counter-allegations, as it has already started to some degree. A MedCab case should have been started a long time ago, for many of these articles. I'm a little shocked that it wasn't already, in some of these cases. I'm also a little shocked to see an ArbCom case being started on such a wholesale, collective basis,. As I said to tiamut, this is not what the Arbcom case is for. It is not how it is designed. It is designed to address specific instances of user misconduct, on specific articles. There are numerous good-faith editors, with legitimate grievances, who are seeking resolution from the ArbCom case, who will find themselves drowned out by the clamor from both sides, as each side seeks to defend its "own" guy(s).

So by starting a mediation case, we can start to impose a little bit of rationality on the process, alittle bir of equity and equanimity, which should have been imposed a long time ago.

I have my own ideas on how to find resolution on most of these cases. Is this a good place to state it? Basically, I have one main approach which I try to apply in a variety odf cases. I feel it is wrong to try to hold everyone to soem mythical view of neutrality which no one reaches in reality. It is better to accept that there are two communities here, with two vastly different viewpoints. Eah has its own legitimate concerns, and its own verifiable sources. It is better to try to give each a fair hearing than to try to seek some mythical "objectivity" or "neutrality". Pople who do seekthat mythical standard often find themselves ensnared by the fact that both sides have equally strong views of their rightness, and in fact often have equal amounts of validity.

whew, alot of typing. Sorry, but this issue has made me a bit reflective. anyway, that's why I think this MedCab case is extremely warranted, and can only play a positive role here, or at the very least, I feel that it definitely cannot hurt to have this Medcab case. thanks.

It's good to be able to discuss this. please feel free to keep posting any general musings, comments, or questions you may have. by the way, I will be off and on the web this evening, so please don't interpret any delays as any kind of ambivalence about a particular issue. thanks.

Speedy deletion of Dogs of the Seas
A tag has been placed on Dogs of the Seas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Israeli views
Hey Steve. The views of Israelis are covered in the next two paragraphs in the intro where the Israeli name for the military operation and the terms Oslo War and Arafat's war are described and used. It may be good to move some of the stuff in those paragraphs up a bit. I'll look into how it might happen. Thanks for your comments.  T i a m u t talk 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * sounds good. it would be good if you could go ahead and do that. let me know what you think. thanks for your help. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Steve, Thank you for your kind note. I find your ability to sympathize with people from different perspectives here very inspiring as well.
 * I have wanted to ask something of you for some time, but am not sure how to do so without hurting your feelings. Here goes anyway: I think it would be more helpful if in discussions on talk pages you do not base your support for this or that proposal on your opinion of me as editor. I find it very flattering of course that you think of me as a good editor and appreciate your respect of my views as a Palestinian woman. However, I would prefer that you critically examine the content being put forward and comment on its merits without regard to the identity or reputation of the person putting forward those comments. Though it's very nice (and quite rare) for someone to draw a positive conclusion, rather than negative, based on my identity as a Palestinian, it's still not in line with the way we should be operating content discussions here. Comments on edits rather than editors when engaging in discussions over content should be the guiding rule, even if our comments on editors are positive and make those editors (me) feel very welcome. :) I thought I would finally bridge this issue with you because I noticed Itzse bringing it up on User:Addhoc's talk page. While Itzse and I do not agree on much, I can understand his perspective on how some of your comments make him feel as though your contributions to discussion are influenced by emotional bias. Please don't misunderstand, I do not think that is in fact the case, and I believe your intentions are good, and primarily directed towards showing respect for editors whose identity and life experience differs from your own. But I recommend that you consider my comments above and those of Itzse's on the matter. I say this only with the aim of helping to reduce tensions on those pages and make all editors feel welcome. Thank you so much for hearing me out.  T i a m u t talk 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tiamut. i greatly appreciate your reply, and the abundant fairness shown by you here. however, my main point was not any social attachments I may have to you or any other editor. rather, my point was that relations and discussion between two camps on any issues at Wikipedia, should be driven in some sense by whatever prior professional relationship have been able to form here.


 * In the case of the discussion you are describing, there was continual contention, as you know, going back for weeks, and involving multiple editors. I will repeat: there is no reason for continual, deadlocked contention, if editors on both sides have past record of credibility and flexibiity. I will absolutely not allow discusion dynamics here at Wikipedia to degenerate into a free-for-all, in which each editor disingenuously declares that they are simply upholding what they believe to be right, and disingenuously declares that they have no idea how to pursue an adequate, reasoned compromise. editors need to acknowledge when a positive atmosphere has alrwady formed, enabling more flexible ways of getting things done. if we do not do that, we really will be helpless when the next new editor comes through here declaring that "they" are "right" and therefore "their" version must absolutely be adopted. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c - third try)I appreciate your explanation, and fully understand that your motivations are to improve the tenor debate, not degrade it. Your point about calling upon and reminding people of the past debates where editors have been able to show flexibility and compromise as a way of breaking an impasse if also a very good one. I'm speaking much more gneerally of course, and not just about the latest debate, but I think you understand where my comments are coming from as well, so I won't push the issue any further.
 * One last thing, I agree that no one should insist that "their" version is the only correct one. We should all be open to compromise over the wording of a given passage. My onnly caveat here is that that wording should be based on what reliable sources say and while there is room for different interpretations as to what the reliable sources say, sometimes it is quite clear that those obstructing progress are simply ignoring those sources. If we all paid much more attention to source-based discussions, rather than the back and forth polemics that invariably appear where people try to score political "points", I think we wouldn't have many of these problems top begin with. Thanks again for your very thoughtful and well-reasoned reply.  T i a m u t talk 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you are missing one major point: as far as some editors are concerned, most of the arguments of Palestinians are devoid of any rational content whatsoever. i feel that way in some ways myself. the only way to pursue any sort of midground compromise is if we consciously accept that the Palestinians, whatever their flaws, are speaking for a genuine community, with its own genuine concerns. any article written along with them must reflect that they have a valid set of concerns which do desrve some reflection.


 * As far as my own political opinion, here it is, in brief. As far as the rational content of any Palestinian version, by what right can the Palestinian Authority request concessions from the State of Israel, when the PA has done absolutely nothing to promote peace? the Paesltinian government which you refer to has done nothing but promote a an extremely negative rejection of Israel in its population. It is fine to ask for peace, but one must also ask whther the right conditions for peace talks have occurred, and who has done what to promote or uindermine peace. in the case of the Mideast, Fatah and Hamas have done nothing for peace, while Israel has done more than could be expected foer almost any national government.


 * I enjoy interacting you, and have found your contributions to be frequently valuable and helpful. thanks for all your help. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I fear that this last response is part of the problem. I don't edit here as a representative of the Palestinian people, and most certainly not as a representative of the PNA. I do contribute a lot of material on Palestinian-related subjects because there is a paucity of well-sourced, reliable information here on the subject and because it's an area whose scholarship I am very familiar with. So I'm not going to respond to your last comment about the PNA, primarily because I don't think it's relevant to the overall discussion we are having, it's not a source-based discussion aimed at improving a given article, and my own opinion of the PNA (which entails deep dissatisfaction deriving from issues greatly differeing from your own) is not really relevant here. In any case, please do think about what I'm trying to convey to you here and thanks for sharing your thoughts.  T i a m u t talk 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you're not here as a representative of the PNA, or any agency or anything. i think you are an extremely well-reasoned editor, with genuine concerns and thoughts of your own. i think most or all of your edits are extremely reasonable, abnd based completely on sources. It would probably not occur to me to suggest half of the edits you suggest, which is why it is important to hear them. When dealing with you and editors like you, it is important to remember that your thoughts are based on genuine concerns and facts, and to try to give them a fair hearing. So i appreciate all of your thoughts and insight. thanks for all your help and inputs. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

William Cooley and whites
You know, this has been discussed; it was European in the beginning, and several editors changed it back to whites. Not sure which ones is the more correct.--Legionarius (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. thanks for your comment. i feel that "american" is definitely better. for one thing, the Spanish had definitely settled that area decades before, as described in East Florida, Spanish missions in Florida, etc. So the real significance is that he was the first American settler, clearly he was not the first white. besides, there is no need to indicate who the first settler was in an individual biography; the only reason it is here is to indicate his notability or claim to fame, which works just as well with the word "American," (and which is probably more accurate anyway).--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (it was my first choice anyway). Let's see if it sticks. Although I am not so sure there were Spaniards in Broward specifically, so maybe that's the "whites" point.--Legionarius (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks! good to hear from you. I';m logging off soon. but feel free to stay in touch. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note
I appreciate your comments too Steve. I'm sorry about not voting for the people compromise. I'm just attached to the reliable sources regarding nation. I will try to think about it some more. Of course I appreciate your efforts in trying to achieve consensus. Hope you are doing well.  T i a m u t  17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * you, too. you're welcome! thanks for writing. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

CHOGM items
Thanks. I have no big concerns with the redirects being placed in that category. Obviously, when they cease being redirects, they unambiguously belong there anyway (except perhaps 1949, which wasn't a CHOGM per se, but that's an issue to decide later). There are a few that you missed that I'm now filling in with more redirects. Bastin 16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * sounds great! thanks. feel free to write anytime. the more we can document past events, even minor ones, of historical import, the better. that's what Wikipedia is for. and it's one of several areas where eventually, we may eventually outpace more established encyclopedias, since very few of them have the manpower or resources to documents events of minor historical significance as systematically as we can! thanks! keep it up. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, CHOPM page, which covers the 1949 meeting redirects to the CHOGM page. so that's why these things interrelated, just to answer your brief question. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To show my appreciation
Hi Eleland. Wow, thanks so much! this barnstar looks really nice btw. no prob on the UN logo! I've always thought it looks nice. It's really nice to be aprpeciated. i was starting to wonder whether anyone was going to notice that I was trying to be fair to both sides. I was a little surprised to get some flak initially, but I guess that's just the nature of this topic. anyway, it 's really great to hear that my efforts are not going unnoticed. thanks so much. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, along the same lines, here's something you've helped inspire. After all, you've started both the medcab idea and mentioned the old Oasis. I've even mentioned you in this (hopefully not in vain), so you might want to look at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which is inspired by some of the ArbCom discussion of the Sri Lanka effort. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, your not joining is so funny, you're practically a member emeritus! Don't be self-effacing, cuz if you don't sign up, who the heck would?! Don't forget, I'm not committing to work on this either, if it doesn't become a going concern.... Anyway, thanks for helping out already! HG | Talk 17:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that sounds good. guess i can join. thanks for being so willing to give me a role. didn't realize i had talked my self into a role in this! :-) didn't know i was already an emeritus...do i get a gold watch? :-) actually, guess my concern was a slo that i can't guarantee that my edits will also be so constructive, but i guess that's the idea; this is for all those who might enter controversial areas, but are at least willing to discuss this sometimes. so this all might all be interesting. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I see that you not only joined, you're already contributing with your indomitable good cheer. Sure, I'll lounge with you, though I hope you'll still check out the issues being discussed on the wikiproject Talk page. (Is the idea that the lounge is more free flowing that the Talk page? So far, we have so few folks involved that we might not need to split up the conversation, but I admire you for planning for a busier day ahead.) Thanks! HG | Talk 03:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks. truthfully, I don't actually have any comments which i wish to make now. I just felt that people were often having useful conversations in many scattered places. i wanted to provide an open-ended place, where absolutely any conversation occur, so that we no longer have to scavenege for snippets of real conversations in obscure edit controversies. So over time, this might be a useful place to have ( or even to gather from other pages) the conversations which might have occurred in remote places before. I look forward to futher ideas. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: ArbCom Ideas
Steve, First, Congratulations on the Barnstar, you deserve it!

I appreciate your suggestion to move it to my own section, I had considered it, but both frankly and in jest, I cant. There are now no more templates and it would take me too long to figure how to format it properly. It is approaching bedtime on my side of the world, have been out on the town, so to speak, and am currently operating with one eye closed to see the screen better. It is too late to change now since the rest of the will have woken up, seen it and maybe commented. I am also somewhat handicapped in that I am computer-phobic and only a six-fingered, one-thumbed typist at the best of times. Seriously, tho, I decided to put it in the 'working group' because it is, well, not by any means normal and figured it needed more thought, which the proposed working group could well provide. If the balloon pops, I wont have wasted too much time. But I was thunk out when I posted it and went out the door. When I first got home, I was on Nishidani's page and noted this, which I hadn't chased before. I was quite suprised, because it was just hours after I had posted the article-on-a-fork proposal. Anyway, I'll leave it where it is, lets just say it was bad timing. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! By the way, establishing your own section only requires cut-and-paste; there are no templates involved. however feel free to implement this at your own pace. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a concept for all of you
what the hell does this have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. if this is just a suggestion about an ethnological concept? why the hell is it being raised here? just make the edits at the article. don't discuss the Jewish people. oh, and here's a suggestion for the rest of you; don;'t discuss the Jewish people. If you do want to discuss the Jewish people, here's what you should do: don't discuss the Jewish people. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Durova, you need to understand, we're not against using many sources. however, there needs to be some way to adddress the biased, hateful soruces used by the pro-Israeli side. This is in contrast to the many beacons of truth and impartiality on the pro-Palestinian side, like Yassser Arafat. israeli sources do need to be held to some sort of standard. Please don't get hung up on these details. remember that the creation of Israel was based on the theft of Paletinian land. We need to proscribe sources who claim there can be any reconciliation with the colonialist Zionists. We need oto show clearly that the Zionists have no right to accuse us of being against peace; and also, that we are fully justified in opposing them through war. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like what I wrote sometimes when I am extremely angry.
 * And that is quite often here.
 * You are convinced I am pro-Palestinian biased, aren't you ? And many others are convinced I am pro-Israeli biased, don't they ?
 * I am not neutral.
 * It is not acceptable that the legitimity of Israel is discussed or debated. And the events of '48, whatever they were do not put this into question. It took 100 years of work to build the Israel's state of today. Zionism is now the past; present and future are Israel's State and citizens. Let's hope Palestinians will find a solution for what they lived and live too.
 * This being said, in most articles, we just give all pov's and give controversies on topic if any. No more, no less. Truth is not our concern. Our concern is NPoV. Ceedjee (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, my comment to Durova above is extremely sarcastic. However, I do aprpeciate your extremely thoughtful and helpful comment. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I had understood it was extremely sarcastic. I am used to be sarcastic too :-)
 * Take care, because some people do not appreciate this.
 * And I remember some useful comments you have with me in the past. So I think you deserve que "je renvoie l'ascenceur" (I send the lift back) as we say in French. Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Star Trek (film)
Remember, per WP:TALK discussion pages are for improving articles. Your query appeared to be general discussion: indeed, that these characters are uncast may be self-explanatory. Alientraveller (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you may be right. hopefully, those characters will show up though. thanks for your reply. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You need archiving help
I can help. Or you can see here. Easiest way is to paste in the following at the top of your page:

You may have to put a carriage return before each of the '|' characters. You should remove the existing archive box or leave that last part out. You can adjust the number of days by changing the figure before the 'd'. It will not archive immediately, wait 24 hours and see if it happens. Hope this helps, and best regards.--Gregalton (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * that sounds good. i'll take a look at that later. not sure if I want to do that yet, but I appreciate it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My rule of thumb is once you get over a hundred sub-topics...)) --Gregalton (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * makes sense. I appreciate the idea. thanks for the input. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Template:Cfd-notify
Hi there! I just discovered that you ran into a slight problem with Template:Cfd-notify a while back, due to not "substituting" the template -- which causes the newly created section to link to Template:Cfd-notify! (yikes) Anyhow, I've clarified the instructions for using the template, so hopefully future users won't run into that problem -- you weren't the first! :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Doctor Who Wiki
Dr. Who Wiki was tagged for speedy deletion since it doesn't explain why the Wiki is notable. Articles can be created for Wikis other than Wikipedia, but they must meet the same criteria that any other article on a website must meet (WP:WEB). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Do) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

page status
No problem. Good luck with the discussion to get the edit warring resolved. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia has a neutrality policy
hey i shouldnt have to tell you this as you have a .jpg that says experienced editor.. but wikipedia has a neutrality policy

you completely butchered any semblance of neutrality in the Keith L. Y. Wright article

"Mr. Wright brings to the Assembly an extensive record of community service and a commitment to providing the residents of the 70th Assembly District with an unwavering, effective voice in the state legislature."

unwavering effective voice for instance?

come on man.. do you work on the campaign or something? im not from there.. i dont prefer either party.. but i certainly dont like seeing sycophantic worshipful wiki articles for either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.13.127 (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I appreciate the feedback. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

HMS Serpents and others
There have been about 15,000 commissioned ships of the Royal Navy over its (roughly) 500 year history, and at last count there are about half a dozen editors working on and off (me included) to write their articles. Major warships, especially the recent ones have some form of article, but the further back you go the scantier the coverage is. That could be why I think. Benea (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok...makes sense. with you and your efforts, it shouldn't be long before we have a whole lot more of them! :-) excellent work; I was looking at some your articles. thanks for your work and your reply. hope to speak again. thanks. see you,. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Fingers crossed.  Benea (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you have specific queries on individual RN vessels, please contact me at sailing.navy@btinternet.com and I'll try and help, particularly on early vessels. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
Hey Steve. I appreciate your note. I personally find all killing to be really sad. I do understand how desperation, anger, frustration can drive people to do terrible things, but taking life is to me, under all circumstances, just terrible - I mean it's so precious, such a gift and I mourn the loss of every life. Even American soldiers in Iraq (12 of whom were killed in the last three days), who are technically fair game being occupiers and all, when they are killed by the resistance, I don't feel any joy or satisfaction. It's all just such a waste. Their lives, millions of Iraqi lives, tens of thousands of Palestinian lives, thousands of Israeli lives, why do all these people have to die? Why can't reason prevail? Why can't occupations end and there be peace with justice and respect for all? I just don't get it. Anyway, I hope you are doing okay. And I hope you can understand where I am coming from and that my words are not intended to excuse anything or offend anyone. My sympathies lie with all people really. I view all of humanity as my family. It's the systems that are killing us all that are my only enemy - and not the people who make the mistake of propping them up. I try to remember that every person is a potential ally against the systems that bind us all in a neverending cycle of domination and resistance. Anyway, thanks again for checking in.  T i a m u t talk 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. i appreciate your reply. As you seem to have guessed, i don't entirely share your opinion on the US in iraq, but I agree with you that there are legitimate grievances on both sides. i share many of your sentiments. thanks for writing. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Favor Regarding Second Intifada Article
Hi, Sm8900. Sorry to ask this of you, but... A number of editors of the Second Intifada article are attempting to push the Palestinian POV by asserting that the Second Intifada was an "uprising" not only by name but also by nature. The discussion has been going here, here, and here. I appear to be the last hold-out against making this POV edit, and I could really use some help. Thanks. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi I understand. I aprpeciate your efforts. i think you're totally right. however, if the odds are that lopsided, there are probably only two options; either try to revise the phrase to say "what some consider an upriosing," or simply allow the edit to go through, and that way more Israel-affiliated editors will see it, and call for a change. sorry i can't be more helpful, but I find protracted discussions on terminology can be extremely hard to alter. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. Thanks for the advice. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, can you respond to this RfC for me, please? Thanks. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

tools
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tim/cgi-bin/contribution-counter

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate

http://stats.grok.se/en/

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec

/Elysarian Kingdoms

/Klingon Empire SFU

/editcounter /links

/United Federation of Planets SFU

User:Sm8900/Subpages

Username
True, but considering the Earth has been destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass there's not much point worrying about causing any offense there... Vl'hurg talk 22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well-said fellow spacer! however, since you routinley plumb the full-spanned breadth of infitnity in all multi-dimensional infinitude, you can always find other Earth, presumably, the General Mish-Mash. Perhaps we will open a new Wikipedia entry on that! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada
Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

SFC 1/2 differences
This is gonna sound lame, but I've only just figured out how to use this talk function. If you still want some information on the games, feel free to gimme a holler and I'll be happy to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbo9000 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know
But thanks for letting me know. :) Good work to you too. Happy editing!  T i a m u t talk 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) you're welcome. glad to. thanks for writing. see you! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

new mmiogs
new mmogs: Dark Orbit, infantry, subspace. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging
Thanks for acknowledging my new article. I'm a perfectionist and if I'll wait to write perfect articles then I'll never get anywhere. Therefore I hope to start similar skeleton articles and later fill in the details if someone else hadn't done it by then. I'll be away for Yom Tov, so Ah Kosheren Pesach. Itzse (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Same to you. hope you have a great Yom Tov. thanks for writing. i agree with the approach which you stated, namely to go ahead with the ideas, and to start the process going. thanks for writing. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

fyi
I put up the following link at the wikilobby page which speaks to your point re secrecy: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiforpalestine/?v=1&t=search&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajudem (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear User: IMPORTANT WIKI ARCADE GAMES PROJECT NOTICE
As you should be aware the wiki arcade games project has been marked inactive and with good reason. I am trying to increase the activity of this project but first I need to know who is still actually interested. So to find out I have put inactive next to the name of every person who has put them selves down as a participant of the project. If for whatever reason you do not intend to participate in the project anymore please remove your name from the participant list altogether. If you do but not in the near future leaving inactive next to your username will be helpful. Not taking any action at all will of course lead to inactive remaining against your name on the participant list. If however you have every intention on continuing in participating in the project please come change the "inactive" next to your username to "ACTIVE" so that it is clear who does and who does not still have interest in participating in the project. Thankyou for your time. --Hybrid360 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wallenberg article material
In December 1993, investigator Marvin Makinen of the University of Chicago performed interviews with an eyewitness who asserted that she had seen Wallenberg in the 1960s in a Soviet prison. Makinen used prison records to find additional evidence which could corroborate this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you drop me an e-mail?
Hi Steve, can you drop me an e-mail please? If you could that would be great. The address is the letter a followed by my username (no dots or spaces) at gmail.com

Thank Oboler (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. actually, I think it's better if you email me, if you wish. generally the person who wants the email exchange is usually the one who initiates it. the reason is that people here do not always wish to disclose their email address. so this gives them the option of replying via email, or by other means. basically, the reason is that whoever sends an email instantly reveals their address, but the one receiving doesn't then have to reveal it unless they wish to. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fire departments in the United States
How come you have categorized a dozen articles under this category when they are not in fact fire departments? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a valid question. the reason I did that is that they are national fire agencies, coordinating agencies, or other important agencies. this should all be grouped. we have no category for Category: Firefighting in the United States, or Category:United States firefighting agencies, or I would have placed them there. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing preventing one of those proposed categories from being created. I think they would be better grouped under those cats. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right. i will try to think about this, and to go over some various options first. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

High-Level Conference on World Food Security
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of High-Level Conference on World Food Security, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fao.org/foodclimate/conference/en. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact or opinion?
I see. so you feel that your categorical opposition to all military acts of certain Western cultures is not a political opinion, but is a factual position? Sorry, but i feel that any viewpoint like this falls somewhat within the realm of political opinion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I was stating a little recognised fact (apparently commented on by another, though I'm not sure where now) that impacts hugely on our editing. We live in a heavily militarised culture, and even in the UK, this is a big change from the days of the British Empire 100 years ago. This, the work of one of the (the?) foremost poet/authors of the British Empire is how it used to be. If you need a handle on my personal opinions (why?), I have no pacifist inclinations. PRtalk 10:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Ok. thanks for your reply. sounds reasonable. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

articles
, ,

articles to do
atiomcreations, chosen space, etc etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes
Hi - I thought Allen's stuff was just a website, but I see where I went wrong there. Yair Davidiy is obviously a suitable source for Brit-Am, no problem there. But I don't see how Capt can qualify as a reliable source for this. I'm sure you know his ideas about the pyramids, for instance. And his claim " Phonetically "Khumri", "Omri", and "Gimiri" are similar." is not only put as though it is fact, he is not qualified to make that statement, as it requires knowing not how we pronounce the words, but how they were originally pronounces. If this is a significant view that needs to be represented, surely there must be a more reliable source, and if it is just Capt, it doesn't appear to be a significant view. Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I really appreciate your reply, and your open approach to this. thanks so much. No problem, re the first item you mentioned. thanks. what you say is helpful. re Capt, i will have to try to take another look at this, and try to give it some thought. i hope it's ok if i get back to you a little later? thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

new category.
Your new category is essentially a duplicate of the category Golden Age superheroes. Please consider reverting and MfD'ing the category. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If that is your goal, then you may want to rename the category. Saying, "superheroes published before 1950" lumps all superheroes together, regardless of whether or not they are in publication. Maybe, "comic characters in publication since 1950" or something to that effect.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, good point. i'm cuyrrently changing the category name. what do you think of this: "...in publication since 1940s"? let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's more accurate of what you were explaining on ThuranX's page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. feel free to write anytime. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ECx4!!!)It's a bit better, but do you distinguish between continuous publication, or repeated? The difference being Detective Comics or Aquaman. And what about Captain America? He had his own book, then got mixed into other books, then back out into his own book, with a brief publication stop at the end of the 1950's, before being brought back in The Avengers. Does it count if a character is in publication in multiple books, and you have to jump back and forth to make it count as continuous, like characters appearing sometimes in Action Comics and sometimes in Adventure Comics? How big an intentional publication hiatus will you permit? ThuranX (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. good comment. i would suggest that really I meant: those now in publication, starting in 1940s. However, that would've been a bit long. So I appreciate your excellent point. i would suggest that any hiatus is not of major significance, if the comics character has some degree of cultural prominence; since what people will notice most of all is that a given character has been around quite a long time, and is very familiar to the average person. so that was the main thing which i was trying to capture here; those superheroes of lasting cultural significance, or achieving iconic status.


 * By the way, that's one main reason for creating this category; social researchers might be interested in superheroes who have an iconic pop status, or literary significance. they might not be able to wade through the dozens of superhero characters in the more generalized categories. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But establishing a list of "iconic pop status, or literary significance" would be OR or SYNTH, because it'd be your personal baseline of what counts and doesn't. And for things in publication, you'd be noting the comic, not the character, so the category would apply to Batman, Detective, Action... and that's about it, I'd think. ThuranX (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I'm not establishing based on pop status, only those which began in the 1940s and which are now in print. As you note, better to go with clear objective criteria. re what's in publication, my point is the category itself specifies characters in publication. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for standard infobox for History of [country] templates
Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of [country] templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion or Exclusion at Battle of Jenin?
Hi Steve - I remember your early contributions and your preference for including most everything. I warned you then that there are some really atrocious sources out there, and it would be dangerous to give credibility to everything. You now seem to have swung to the opposite point of view, saying "I disagree with all of this, as massive WP:SOAP and WP:OR". I'm pretty sure that what I've assembled is very good information from highly respected sources. Your comment reads exactly like an IDONTLIKEIT. Wouldn't it be better to couch your objections in WP:POLICY terms?

Here are the other factual references I'd like to put forwards for mediation:


 * 1) Sharon was widely reported to have told the world's media on 5th March that "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims a month before the incursions (and before the surge of suicide bombings that is already mentioned in the article). Sharon's statement was criticised by Colin Powell and Time Magazine linked it directly to the military action that followed with "He went on to do just that, unleashing a broader military offensive than anything seen so far in the past 17 months of fighting."
 * 2) Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong".
 * 3) The BBC reported that Israel was putting three refrigerated trailers into the camp, and everyone agrees they were there. An Israeli newspaper told us that Israel would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetery in the Jordan valley" (ie a closed military zone) - only an application to the Israeli Supreme Court stopped it.
 * 4) Clips from the interview given by the bulldozer driver to an Israeli newspaper - he boasts of not caring for the civilian deaths he believe he caused.
 * 5) Account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies 3 months later. (Needless to say, we should not practice OR on what effect this might have on the death toll).
 * 6) A single (small but) actual "up-against-the-wall-massacre" reported in careful detail, with the two perpetrators identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper.
 * 7) Allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left.
 * 8) Mention that this particular action in Jenin refugee camp was only part of a series of armed incursions. Israel was still applying curfews and killing people in and and out of curfew for months afterwards. (The UN notes two further incursions). Ian Hook, chief of the reconstruction project, was shot dead, inside the UN compound, on 22nd Nov 2002 and an Irish woman was shot and badly injured in the thigh at almost exactly the same time.
 * 9) A new section on the overpowering smell in the camp once it was re-opened, as reported by almost every one of the international observers - eg the New York Times: The smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble today, and weeks of excavation may be needed before an accurate death toll can be made.
 * 10) Mention of the claim that Israeli actions had, as claimed by the UN "... had the effect of severely weakening the [Palestinian] Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis". PRtalk 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. i replied to you, at article talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am extremely tempted to move your contributions there somewhere else, since you appear to be attempting to deal with the "truth" of a few of the points I'm offering for mediation, rather than, as the section was opened to do, propose what you want included in the mediation (or object to some of my points ever being included in mediation on really extreme, time-wasting, grounds). In their current form, your contributions look a bit like more of the same as you started with, an IDONTLIKEIT campaign.
 * However, if you wished us to jump the gun and plunge straight into real objections to any of the 10 points above on V, OR, BLP, EXTREME or UNDUE grounds, we could have the discussion here or some other place to your satisfaction. PRtalk 16:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I appreciate your reply. At this point, that's pretty much all i want to say in the discussion. thanks for your points though. I guess I do prefer to discuss all this at the article talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - you seem to have ignored my attempt to discuss point #10 above. I don't mind having several discussions going on at once, but you seem to have ignored one fact-based rebuttal of your objections in order to "open" a further 9 simultaneously. I feel as if I'm being ushered to a distinctly non-structured discussion, a gaping maw of chaos. PRtalk 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia discussions do not require a reply to every editor's points; discussions are always open to the community at large; so an editor can leave some things for others to comment on, as that editor may see fit. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm becoming increasingly concerned at what's going on here eg: saying that The BBC reported that Israel was putting three refrigerated trailers into the camp, and everyone agrees they were there. An Israeli newspaper told us that Israel would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetery in the Jordan valley" (ie a closed military zone) - only an application to the Israeli Supreme Court stopped this referenced here and here is "just insinuation and hearsay. etc etc". If I didn't know you better, I would think you had completely abandoned policy on reliable sources. PRtalk 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything you just referred to are not actual events, or even anything historically significant. quite simply, they do not refer to anything which occurred in relation to this event. therefore including them has obvious political motives. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're on your own then, because some of those incidents have been confirmed as genuine by editors much closer to your position than mine. Nor have they forgotten what people say: "Auschwitz teaches us that we cannot remain indifferent, that we cannot look the other way when atrocities take place, that we must always be ready to speak out against evil no matter where it takes place and no matter who the victims are." - Miles Lerman, Chairperson, United States Holocaust Memorial Council (1995) PRtalk 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your constructive approach to this debate between us (seriously). However, refriegerated trailers do not = massacre. A smell does not =a massacre. Even lots of violence does not =massacre. Only a cold-blooded premediated killing of civilians, lined up in open view, with not threatening aspect to anyone =massacre.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Peter Deilmann Cruises
A tag has been placed on Peter Deilmann Cruises requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes
Thanks for letting me know. I'm pressed for time, but I'll try to look at it after the weekend. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you too
Thanks for the quick note, noting my return. Hope you are doing well.  T i a m u t talk 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You, too! thanks for writing back. see you! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Titanic alternative theories
May I enquire as to why you restored the text? After an AfD favouring merger and a discussion where no objections were raised, I went ahead and merged. It would seem proper, then, that you take similar steps when restoring the text, either on my talk page or (preferably) on the article talk page. Thank you. Biruitorul Talk 20:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your note. could you please tell me where you proceeded with the merge? it looked like the text was all simply deleted all the text there, and was not transferred to anywhere else. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't a full merge, as much of the text is (in my view at least) unencyclopedic. What I did was condense it into a small paragraph encapsulating the salient points (and compliant with WP:V and WP:FRINGE); the redirect preserved the article history, as required by the GFDL. Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's been a tiny dispute on this article recently. I would support a redirect, as it is difficult to find anything reliable. Cenarium  Talk  00:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I would suggest that we file a formal request for merge, before taking any such steps. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a request for merge. Merges are discussed on the talk page, or forced through AFD. It's possible to announce the discussion with template:merge though. Cenarium  Talk  14:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. perhaps a WP:AFD then. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle East Textbooks Invitation
Michael Safyan (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of D conf
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Obama Administration cabinet members

MMORPG Categories you created
Hello, you created a subcategory for various types of MMORPGs, and then made a few categories. I have a few questions though. What is a "Fantasy societal MMORPG"? All MMORPGs attempt to create "societies" by definition. Also, having a seperate category for MMORPGs in "space" and one for science fiction seems strange, and why an entire category for sports management MMORPGs? I can't imagine many of them exist. Have you participated in the Video Game Wikiproject? You might want to ask them for advice. Thanks! --  At am a chat 16:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. you ask an excellent question. i replied to you at the category talk page. i aprpeciate your input as we get a sense of various ideas on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, one idea is to eventually get most articles out of the main MMORPG category, and have each grouped by some better more specifc classification. the sports management category is useful just as a way to provide some genuinely informative categorization for those who are interested in such games and products. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * space is for those like Eve Online which simulate space travel and trading. The sci-fi one is for the many, many other futuristic and/or sci-fi settings which may have nothing to do with space travel itself. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Obama Administration personnel
Category:Obama Administration personnel, 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. Cgingold (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Draft Restructuring of Wiki I-P Collaboration pages
Hi User:HG and User:Sm8900!:
 * Per my recent comments on Wiki I-P Collaboration talk...
 * Since you two were most involved in starting these pages, thought I'd get comments from you first before previewed drafts to the group on Monday, Dec 1st, at earliest. Looking at them from the perspective of a busy user who needs to get to the meat of the matter right away, I restructured the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration pages to make them much simpler and easier to use for myself and hopefully other users. Feel free to comment on the talk pages of those draft articles listed below.
 * Sandbox 1: Main page and talk page, with notes on top
 * Sandbox 2: Current Article Issues (formerly Community Lounge) which includes "lists" as main page and "discussion" on talk page
 * Sandbox 3: Material moved over from the main page which has to be integrated into Battleground statistics. Something which I'll let others do
 * (Note that material from current pages would be archived on new pages, as appropriate) Carol Moore 15:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * hi carol. thanks so much for your ideas. however, sorry, I will not be online much this weekend, and also I have not been involved enough recently to be able to really give you an ok for this ( though i understand you were only requesting some feedback before showing this to the group anyway).


 * did you already make these changes? I guess I would suggest discussing these before making any such changes. i really appreciate your message to me though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The links are to my sandboxes. Might ask a few other people who were interested in project to comment first also, just to keep down amount of back and forth on easily made changes on the main talk page. Carol Moore 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

reply to promethean
Hi promethean! thanks for writing. happy holidays to you too! it's nice to be appreciated. thanks for writing. feel free to write anytime! thanks. see you! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Flying Neutrinos
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Flying Neutrinos, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * notability highly doubtful and article has not been expanded to take into account concerns

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Deb (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:BEGIN1.gif
Thanks for uploading File:BEGIN1.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Usaf unif.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Usaf unif.jpg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Omnibus (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Singapore video game companies
I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding to articles/categories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with db-author.

Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:First-person shooter MOGs
I have nominated first-person shooter mogs for renaming to a different name. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. – xeno  ( talk ) 00:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories do not function well as redirects and should typically not be redirected per CAT. There are very few incoming links to the category and the deletion log of the category will direct people to the new category. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

good cites
article in mother jones magazine:

mother Jones magazine

Time Magazine blog

Salon magazine, pcinemabelnd article fmq article, maj blog posting.

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)