User talk:Stev0

All the cool kids have discussion pages, so I'm going to give into peer pressure and have one, too!

Question
This is SportsMasterESPN, I noticed you used to work on Yahoo! Groups. I have a few questions for you. Is there anyway I could talk to you online?
 * Sorry, no (I don't use Messenger or anything like that). You can email me at my user name at mac.com. Stev0 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Early web history
Steve, I know we've gotten onto different sides on some of the recent AfD disputes about websites (and I wish you'd stop calling people meatpuppets), and I'm sorry about that, but some of us are trying to turn that into something constructive with WikiProject Early Web History, and as the former Useless Pages guy you could really contribute. Are you opposed to potentially having an article about the Useless Pages? Would you be willing to contribute some info? And of course, any other knowledge about the pre-1995 web you would be willing to share would be most welcome. Please check in at the project if you're willing. Hope to see you there.  &middot; rodii  &middot;  17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/How to Make a Sprite Comic in Eight Easy Bits
I'm not sure if it matters or whether it will influence your vote, but if you take a look at "eight easy bits" on Google now, it only gives back 45 unique hits and about 300 in total. The reason for the high amount of links beforehand was because Google was indexing roughly 3000 links for a forum user with "eight easy bits" in his signiture. I do disagree with the synopsis that being launched in 2003 makes for a long running webcomic, it has only managed 97 strips and if you look at List of webcomics, you'll find many more webcomics which have lasted much longer. - Hahnchen 22:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the List of webcomics convinced me even more to keep the article. I have not heard of 99.9% of those comics, and I'm not about to go through that whole list to figure out which ones I hadn't heard of are notable or not. Stev0 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've not heard of 99.9% of them either, but just felt that many had lasted for longer. - Hahnchen 22:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Swindells
I've given the article a quick brush up, as requested at the AFD, if you want to give it a look over. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Norwich, Massachusetts
My only concern is that folks can easily identify the town of Norwich and find its history, since there are many genealogical and historical references to Norwich. A true merger might help, yes...but with "Norwich" retained as a redirect to Huntington. Mel 05:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirecting "Norwich, Massachusetts" to "Huntington, Massachusetts" makes sense. Stev0 15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

CfD boilerplate
Why did you delete the daily nominations section? Why didn't you read the instructions?
 * --William Allen Simpson 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did? I didn't mean to, sorry.  It was my first Category CfD; it's like an article CfD like I assumed it would be. Stev0 07:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It has a different page layout. Different instructions. Different rules. AfD is similar to MfD, CfD is almost identical to TfD, and RfD is like they were 3 years ago.... Anyway, please read instructions. Use the subst:templates, instead of making it up as you go. Thanks.
 * --William Allen Simpson 13:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant to say it's NOT like and article CfD. I did read the instructions, but obviously I got something wrong.  Next time I'll get it right. Stev0 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aerial
Thanks for pointing out the picture was cropped as well as flopped in Aerial. I suspect the picture on the inside of the album cover is also from one of Joseph Edward Southall's, but I can't identify it online. WLD 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, thank YOU for pointing out the source of the painting; I never knew that before. Stev0 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

External Linking
Hey, I got your message. My apologies. Of course I'm trying to promote the site that I maintain however, the links I posted (I felt) pretained to the articles that I had linked them to. I've looked further at Wikipedia's NPOV policies and I see now that some of the links were not in line with this site's goals. However, some of the links on the site that I work for are truly relevant to these articles, non-biased and objective, and I will make further efforts to get these linked. Not just for means of self promotion but because they are relevant. Of course I will go through the proper channels from now on as well as work to add new content my own self, and overall to be a more responsible Wikipedia...er. Thanks for the heads up. --DMTayag 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How was this vandalism reversion
Hi Stev0. I'm wondering how this revert was vandalism reversion. Granted, it was unsourced, but vandalistic? I don't think so. Why did you revert it as such? Picaroon9288 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Every other edit that user made was vandalism. I couldn't find any information that confirmed what they said in Google, so it's safe to assume it was vandalism, too.  If you can find information that confirms what they put in, feel free to put it back in.  Stev0 03:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Velupillai Prabhakaran
Hi Steve, [FYI & A] Thanks, Ciao Sudharsansn 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Discography link = Spam?
Hi, I noticed you reverted a lot of musicbrainz links. In case you don't agree with linking to discographies you should perhaps voice your opinions here instead: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject MusicBrainz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalen (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * A couple of days after I deleted the links, I actually looked at MusicBrainz. If someone wants to re-revert the pages, go for it; however, when a single user edits a lot of pages with nothing but adding a link to pages off a web site, I automatically assume it's spam.  99.9% of the time I'm right; arguably this is that 0.1% time where it's not. Stev0 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, true. Well, I noticed the link on several Artist pages but it was also missing on quite a few, so added it to them at the same time...--Dalen 09:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't do anything wrong. However, at the time I didn't do anything wrong, either (fighting spam is one of my highest priorities).  If you want to re-add them, I promise I won't delete them (now that I know what MusicBrainz is - I did look at it before I went on my delete spree, and to be honest I wasn't impressed at all; however, I can see how it has potential); however, you might want to make a note somewhere so the next person that sees you adding nothing but a bunch of links to the same site at the same time doesn't delete them again. Stev0 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wuthering_Heights_Single.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wuthering_Heights_Single.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kate Bush EP Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kate Bush EP Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:King of the mountain single.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:King of the mountain single.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Scathlock 13:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Running up that hill.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Running up that hill.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

comment invited
As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008, your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheLineTheCrossandtheCurve.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TheLineTheCrossandtheCurve.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Babooshka single.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Babooshka single.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Babooshka single.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Babooshka single.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Running up that hill.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Running up that hill.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wuthering Heights Single.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wuthering Heights Single.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Libertarian Party of Massachusetts for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libertarian Party of Massachusetts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party of Massachusetts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)