User talk:Stevage/archive2

Curious about your Lyon pics
Hi Stevage. I do a lot of travelling (business and pleasure), and whenever I can I take my camera along, with Wikipedia (Commons) in mind (hence no relatives/friends in the pictures). Sort of a hobby of mine, and I have also noticed that my pictures get better with experience. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, Why did you add the same bridge picture twice in Lyon? Once is enough, and too large looks not good. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

{-} vs {clear}
Actually, thereason I originally replace them was that I confused - with the wikicode for a &lt;hr&gt;, and &lt;hr&gt; are not normally used in article space. Circeus 14:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured picture promotion
~ Veledan • Talk 09:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and renamed to Chambord_pano.jpg too :) --Yummifruitbat 09:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User new message
I saw that you commented that the colour of the box was confusing. FYI, you can change the colour of the box to any that you want, by using the following code:   -- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested pictures
Glad to see we are thinking alike :-) Do you find the categorization by location scheme useful? Can you think of ways it could be improved? I am trying to make useful "search for free images" templates to help (see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United Kingdom and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States) but am struggling for other countries and sources. It would be good to know what you think about it all - I've had quite a lot of positive responses and a few complaints about "talk page clutter" or even "disruption" (because it messed up people's watchlists, I guess, when adding a photo request to a page...). Also, if you didn't spot this new scheme, should I take it that it wasn't advertised very well and that should be made clearer? TheGrappler 17:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are a couple of ideas:
 * Totally deprecate the old system as much as possible. It's silly having both systems when the superior system (categories) exists.
 * Make the template for requested photo smaller. It doesn't have to be that eye catching, because the idea is to attract people *to* the page, not *from* the page. If you get me - we want bridge photographers in Lyon to go out there and take a photo, not people who happen to be interested in La Passerelle du Collège or whatever.
 * Ignore the people who complain about their watchlists.
 * Formalise a way to add more info about your request. "A photo showing X, Y and Z would be great."
 * Come up with a way to conveniently add photos to several categories at once. Create templates that fuse several categories: reqphoto-bridge-france could add requests both to the fictional "wanted bridge photos" and "wanted France photos" for example.
 * For that matter, create billions of templates. Allowing free text for {reqphotoin} is a little dangerous - misspellings, differences in scale etc could make duplicate categories.
 * Get a *lot* more of these templates in use. Get the message out there that every article should have a photo, and if it doesn't, it needs the template. We should have a page where thousands of requested images in a given location can be seen. Every French commune should have a reqphoto template on it - unless it already has enough photos :)
 * Improve the ways of contacting photographers. There isn't even a userbox for Wikipedia photographers. I created a provisional one (see my user page) but I didn't even put a category on it. We want to ramp up the number of requsets, the number of people fulfilling them, and the ease in which the two halves can meet.

That do you? :) Stevage 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer to use parameterized templates because of the flexibility of the category system - saves creating loads of templates that may only be used once.
 * Is a combination possible - paramaterize them, but create templates for common one? No, probably doesn't make sense.
 * I agree that some people really "don't get" the idea of requested photos templates (I have had requests stripped from one city and one university that had no images at all, because it was "disruptive" to their barely used talk pages :-/) but I'll see what I can do.
 * A link explaning what the template is all about? Yes, a Wikiproject is sounding like a good idea...
 * You are probably right that including details of a request is a good idea. Do you think it is worth setting up a WikiProject to try to tag the entire 'pedia? And there also should be better communication with photographers - a project may be the best way to do that too. Even if it's just a question of personally messaging particularly active or good photographers, that would be a start! It's hard to make the template smaller (I'm still thinking about ways to do this, losing the image is probably a good start) but may be feasible.
 * Something vaguely like the shortcut template? That is, top right hand corner of talk page, with an icon and "Photo needed in New Orleans!" or something?
 * And I am trying to ramp up alternative sources that wikiphotographers (see US image sources). What do you reckon about a wikiproject? Feasible? TheGrappler 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounds good, and creating a userboxes that people could use ("This user can take photos of food") etc would be good. I'm picturing a page that connects all the people who need photos with those that can find/make them. The question is, how to make a good hierarchy. How to have a page that groups all requests in France, but also allows graceful subdivision into cities if and when that's needed? I'll have to have a closer look at the existing categories/templates to see how that works. Stevage 08:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, let's think about otherwise of dividing up the photospace - geographical location is obvious, but there are themes too. Architecture, cars, food, people, natural features - these appeal to different types of photographers.

(Ecclesiastical) history of Lyon
If this contribution happens to double the history, then the problem is the secular history is (still? maybe you care to remediate that) far to stubbish, which is not my doing but apparently results from a lack of volunteers (I thought the French were ever so proud of their history, but apparently not enough to contribute about it in English) - in the Roman era Ludunum Lugdunesis was thé major centre of Gaul, as a mint rivalled only by Rome and Carthage, hence its unusally hight ecclesiastical rank (working trough in feudal days, well reflected in the primacy titulature) ... In these secularised times there's a definite tendency to neglect the major role of the church, at least in the Ancien régime (for good and for bad) even in academical history teaching; though not literally every day, I've already added ecclesiastical history sections to many (arch)episcopal sees (and often other information elsewhere in the process), usually without anyone challenging the idea Fastifex 09:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

TOC compression
BTW, the Contents compression is a brilliant idea - in fact, would it not be normal that all infobox/table/contents/reference texts have a uniform 'smaller' style of their own, making them instantly discernable from 'main body' content? This would greatly ease readability and (text) navigation, and save much space. T HE P ROMENADER 10:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Taking photos of Flinders St Station
Hi Stevage, Yeah that sound like an interesting idea, I might try it, but I'm not sure when - I don't actually live anywhere near Melbourne. It certainly sounds possible, and it will, as you mentioned give an interesting result. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 09:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Arc de Triomphe pic
It's corrected as you asked, but you have yet to comment. Make it or break it, man : )  T HE P ROMENADER  21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL - thanks, adequately : )  T HE P ROMENADER  22:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) Like I said, they're not bad photos by any stretch of the imagination. But FP is a combination of beauty and intelligence. Stevage 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, the former, yes, but... intelligence? True that it takes some of that to discern what people on Wiki will vote for. But should this be the goal?  T HE P ROMENADER  22:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By "intelligence" I mean that the image has to be informative, encyclopaedic etc. The Mona Lisa has no place on Wikipedia outside articles about Italian art. Anyway, don't be discouraged - it's really, really hard to take photos that are good enough for FP. I only have one, and that was no reflection on me - anyone can take a panorama of Chambord and get a nice result. Stevage 08:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. And perhaps next time I should be 'intelligent' enough to give a pic a peer review before tossing it into the FP bin : )  T HE P ROMENADER  09:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Diet & French FA's
Thanks. I've been getting fed by User:Aldux who appears to be hunting down featury Greek History articles, which I rather enjoy. He may know of others. there's also sometimes good stuff to be found on Translation_into_English/French (there's a 'Featured Articles" section, but sometimes the FAs seem to be misplaced. One of my stunts on the NL: wiki has been just to hunt through their FA's, & see if there's no correspondin ... tag. Bridesmill 00:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:ShortJason/Publicity
I posted a new proposal at User talk:ShortJason/Publicity that would allow users to opt-in to RfA alerts, and specify the nominees they would be interested in. Given your previous message on the topic, I wondered if you would like to comment, or even sign up? TheGrappler 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Breastfeeding FARC
So you know, I've now taken Breastfeeding to WP:FARC: Featured article removal candidates/Breastfeeding. violet/riga (t) 09:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Gloves and mitts
Re: Comparison between cricket and baseball. Catchers and first basemen wear mitts, other fielders wear gloves. Gloves have fingers. Since the rules of baseball forbid mitts to any players other than the pitcher and first baseman, this is an important distinction, and I didn't think mentioning it in the article would create any confusion. Obviously it did, though, so maybe I'll try re-inserting it in a clearer form. John FitzGerald 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention that I liked your other changes &#8211; the article is still a bit redundant as a result of being written by multiple contributors. I think I'll propose some changes later on the Talk page. John FitzGerald 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought about it that way before, but how right you are about the tone of the article. When I first came across it it contained a statement about baseball being to cricket as cricket is to chess. I may have contributed a lot to this tone, simply because the article has been constructed as part of a debate. The main point I wanted to introduce is that cricket is a batting game while baseball is a fielding game, and the difference is due in part to the equipment used. A related point is that far from making the game easy, the flat bats and big gloves actually make it more difficult because they permit the development of skill.

Anyway, I'll try some revisions to shape the article up. I like both sports and think their popularity is a credit to the sporting public. But I won't be making any tonight, since at the moment I'm missing the finals of the Stanley Cup. John FitzGerald 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rhône-Alpes flag
In answer to your question, the new flag of Rhône-Alpes was introduced in 2005. If you click here, you can see a picture showing the new flag in front of the regional council of Rhône-Alpes.

I've also noticed that you created some templates about regional and departmental prefectures. Are these really needed? I think they add very little information. In particular in the Paris article, where there are already many templates at the bottom, I think they should be removed. Prefectures in Île-de-France don't mean much really, the Paris Metropolitan Area infobox is more interesting because it gives the names of the most populated communes in the metro area. Hardouin 09:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

French Phonology
Actually, that is what I meant. The line in the article that I modified was ambiguous, and from my own experience, what I added is correct. Someone who's more knowledgeable can fix it, but I know that at least in some places in Québec, that's totally standard (e.g. montagne = /mɔ̄taŋ/ etc.). ̀—Firespeaker 04:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the evidence (including your anecdote) and what was there before, I think /ŋ/ and /ɲ/ have generally merged in Québec French, and I suppose there's variation on which sound people produce for the merged phoneme, but they oughta do it consistently. This seems right given first-hand experience too, but I'd like it verified, ideally by a native-speaker linguist. —Firespeaker 10:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA
Hi Stevage! Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA seems to be getting into a bit of a bog. Could you please specify which version your vote goes for? This will help to reach a consensus on which version to promote. Thanks! --Fir0002 10:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

French prefectures
Well, as you have pointed out yourself, prefectures are not always a good measure of what's an important city. A good example is Châlon-en-Champagne, which you have mentioned. It makes sense to nobody that the government didn't choose Reims as the capital of Champagne. The reason why they chose Châlon has to do with the French Revolution: during the French Revolution Châlon was chosen as the prefecture of the Marne département instead of the natural choice which should have been Reims, because Reims was too associated with the monarchy (French kings were crowned in Reims). In the 1960s when they set up regions they would have had to move the prefecture from Châlon to Reims in order to make Reims the capital of Champagne, but they didn't do it probably because of conservatism and because people in Châlon would have made a big fuss about it. In the 1990s the city of Châlon-sur-Marne changed its name into Châlon-en-Champagne to stress that they are the capital of Champagne, in case people had forgotten. This is not the only silly example. In the Tarn département, the Revolutionaries punished Castres (the largest city) by moving the prefecture to Albi, where it is still today. In Guadeloupe, the prefecture is Basse-Terre, a small town, whereas the biggest city is Pointe-à-Pitre. Anyway, leave the infoboxes in the other articles if you feel like, but at any rate I suggest you remove them from the Paris article which is already infobox-laden, and because in Paris metro area the prefectures don't mean much anyway... (obviously the subprefecture of Saint-Denis is much more important than the prefecture of Bobigny, and so on...). Hardouin 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lower Antelope Canyon 2 FPC vote
Stevage -- I hope you didn't feel obligated to vote for my image after my responses to your questions. I am not going to take it personally if the image is voted down for FP status. My verbose responses are typical; I'm more interested in being understood than anything else, and spend a lot of text making sure I get my point across.

I think with that particular image it's sometimes hard for people to grasp the scale, since it lacks a human being in the frame for reference. Maybe that makes it a tougher sell here. Cheers -- moondigger 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gosh no. I have no idea what Lower Antelope Canyon is, and that image didn't help me understand that much - hence, not encyclopaedic. But if you're telling me that that's sandstone, then the image helps me understand a lot - and it's a lovely image to boot. Encyclopaedic + pretty = FP. Stevage 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha... thanks. Your explanation makes sense. I'll keep that in mind for the next time I nominate a picture. Just because a photo was taken in a certain place doesn't mean that's the best article to attach it to on Wikipedia... -- moondigger 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fête des Lumières images
It's a combination of many factors, really. feel absolutely free to revert my changes. They are, in the end, personal opisions on what looks better in wikipedia. Circeus 03:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree with using images larger than the default thumb size unless the image really calls for it (such as animations, graphics, maps and such that do no scale well). There is a reason thumb size can be set in user preferences.
 * Whenever possible, I think it is to be avoided to start a section with a left-aligned images.
 * Image:Fete des lumieres candles.jpg is rather on the low-quality end of the spectrum, and looks better scaled down more than it was.
 * It looked weird to have just an image on the left,so I switched it to the right.

French featured articles
Hi Stevage. I've just noted you asked Bridesmill about a list of featured articles in the French language, which have no English correspondent article. With absolutely no correspondent there are fr:Calmin, fr:Article 49 de la Constitution de la cinquième République française, Hippias majeur, fr:Temple de Sûrya (Konârak), fr:Phare de la Vieille, fr:Nom de règne des papes, fr:Violences urbaines. With the English article only at meagre stub level there are fr:Naumachie (English Naumachia), fr:Diacritiques de l'alphabet grec (Eng. Diacritics (Greek alphabet)), fr:Sampi (Eng. Sampi), fr:Ivoire Barberini (Eng. Barberini ivory), fr:Missorium de Théodose (Eng. Missorium of Theodosius I). Hope this list is of some help. Bye, Aldux 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy you liked it :-) Regards fr:Violences urbaines, there doesn't seem to be, surprisingly, a similar English article; with the possible exception of Civil disorder, which doesn't really appear to be exactly the same ground.--Aldux 20:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cricket fielding positions diagram
Hi, I've just voted on the FPC page for this. I like the diagram, and is the best I've seen. However there is a problem with it, as I mentioned with my vote. The position of the runner is incorrect. It would be easiest to simply delete it from the diagram, as to correct it will look too messy. You'd have to show the Striker's End umpire in two different positions, and show an Injured striker at Square Leg.

I've just noticed another problem, you shouldn't refer to the Striker's End Umpire as the Square Leg Umpire, and so that should be changed as well.

Apart from that very good diagram. --Wisd e n17 18:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One other really pedantic thing, the width of the pitch (the brown rectangle) should be wider than the crease markings. The pitch is 10 feet wide, whilst the distance bewteen the return creases is 8' 8''. I'd be surprised if other people notice that! --Wisd e n17 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah I realised that it wasn't your original diagram but saw you'd done a few edits to the original so was just suggesting a few more. The term square-leg umpire is indeed an unofficial term, and will not be found in the Laws of Cricket. The reason why it is not an ideal term is this, to quote Law 3 The umpire at the striker's end may elect to stand on the off side instead of the on side of the pitch meaning that the striker's end umpire need not be at square leg, and indeed with the stuff about the runner above you can see that he needs to be at point with the runner at square leg. Hope that helps. --Wisd e n17 19:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigs etc
cyde has some very strong opinions on sig files and in the never ending debate over whether people should edit other user's sig files, he is firmly in the edit camp. there have been several wikipedians who have questioned this activity in the past and there has been a lot of heated debate that has generated, in my opinion, a lot of bad will and division. you should check out the rfc on tony_sidaway to get an idea of the heaviness that surrounds this issue. in any event, my advice is not to engage cyde on this topic. it will most likelyonly result in a lot of frustration, and your sig will never be safe from edits in any event. -- frymaster 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

FPC Promotion
Stevage, there is a slight problem with the diagram. When I go to its page to add the featured picture tag, the page loads but the Image tab at the top is red, indicating that the file doesn't exist. So I can't edit the page to add the tag. ???? -- moondigger 02:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem fixed. Thanks... -- moondigger 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical history
Please help with an annoying editor. user:Fastifex is adding everywhere stupid, out of date and unrelevant text copied abruplty from Catholic Encyclopedia in articles for Italian communes. When I deleted them, he reverted. When I moved them to separate articles, he also reverted the thing without debating at all. I think he's searching for an edit war to have an excuse to impose his stupid chunk of bad written stuff. Please help me. The article involved are: Camerino, Otranto, Gaeta and Adria (for the moment). I think the separate entry for ecclesiastical histories is fairly reasaonable, but I seem he's sticking to his view without listening any reason. Let me know and good work. --Attilios 08:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's a pleasure to see that I'm not the stupid one in this quarrel... As for you, 1) Thanks for your opinion. 2) Nothin' special. I'd like you could give me some support in the event of Fastifex should start an edit war. I'll let you know, if you want to help me. Ciao and thanks very much again! --Attilios 17:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave a glance. You could see:

It seems that intelligence and good taste are not Fastifex' main qualities. Further, he sticks with stupid info about 1911 data (nr. of parishes, nr. of feminine school, etc.) without nothing provided for today's situation. Cannot really understand how his neurons work. Thanks for help and attention. Bye. (P.S.: something similar happened when a dispute arose about the presence of prayers in saints articles. Of course all the Christian guys here revolted against their suppression...) --Attilios 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ecclesiastical history of Adria
 * Ecclesiastical history of Camerino
 * Ecclesiastical history of Gaeta
 * Ecclesiastical history of Otranto

Re: talk page question
I was short for time on the rv's...otherwise I would have had more time to explain. That particular anon is recurring(albeit with a slightly different IP each time) and has a bit of "English pride". The pride part is fine(like you I have no opinion either way)...but the user tends to rm to semi-accurate "Brit" link and replace it with the disambig English language (as opposed to a England|English) link. The user has been rv'd and been given the corrected link before but doesn't appear to care. If I had the time I would have pasted a corrected link myself. Last evening I was having to "one button it" for awhile. Hope that explains things. Cheers and take care! Anger22 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

your change to WP:DYK
Hi... saw this change ... thanks for tightening that. It was wordy because the change is the subject of some discussion on WPT:DYK. I think it would be great if you'd pop by and give your input... it's the tail end of the discussion page at current, starting with Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know thanks! 18:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Paris Eengleesh
Stevage,

How about coming to the Paris article for a spin? The page has just recieved another language complaint, and as far as I know this sort of problem is in your ballpark. Everything present is quite factual, so no worries about adding or cutting anything - just about cleaning it up!

I'm doing my best to finish a last 'Education' section before it goes to peer review - but I'm overworked these days, and have little time for anything else besides monitoring and dabbling. If you could lend a hand there too that would be cool - it's in my sandbox.

Thanks and take care,

T HE P ROMENADER 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that be  "Shanks, but no shanks?"  ? : )  T HE P ROMENADER  17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Featured picture candidates/Bruno Senna
Hi Stevage, Sorry to bother you, but I've updated the captions on the edits to make it perfectly clear which version you support. Please update your vote and state which version you support. Please use the naming located under the main caption in bold, large text. Thanks, --Fir0002 09:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:--
Template:-- has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ais523 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A favour to ask relating to WP:Beatles
Would you consider helping out with an important task? We need the comments made earlier migrated. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles which discusses the instructions for the task given here: WikiProject The Beatles/Article Classification/Migrating. It would really help the project out a lot. Feedback on the instructions themselves gratefully received as well. Feel free to ask others for help. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country). Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Rivers in France
You've been moving some French river articles lately, referring to consistency and a discussion on the WikiProject French départements. I think this discussion refers to rivers where disambiguation is necessary, because there is a département with the same name. In other cases, where disambiguation is not necessary, because there is nothing else with the same name (or only very insignificant places/objects), I prefer the name without "River". See also WikiProject Rivers, that clearly states that names without "River" are allowed. Markussep 13:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My main objection against "River" is that it implies that "River" is part of the name, which it isn't, for most European (and African, Asian etc.) rivers. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Naming. Of the 130 French river articles, 61 need disambiguation. In other countries, that don't have départements named after rivers, the disambiguation ratio is even lower (e.g. Germany, Belgium, Italy). Markussep 09:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes sense to move all French rivers to "X River". Markussep 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If ever River is to be included in the article's name it is to be placed in front, not behind the river's name, regardless of consistency. French river naming places rivière in front of the name, as it in English.  Captain Scarlet   and the Mysterons  09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinness Storehouse
Hi Stevage. Just to let you know, I've merged the content of the article into the brewery page (St. James's Gate Brewery), where the exhibition was already mentioned, and put a redirect in place. The information you added is fine - and might go back later to being a separate article - but at the moment it is more appropriate to keep related information in the same place. If you like beer (which I suspect you do, if you have visited the Guinness brewery), you might consider joining WikiProject Beer. Cheers! SilkTork 08:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncat tags

 * My practice is to remove the uncat tag when there's even one category (other than birth and death years). Otherwise, it's too hard to know which items on the uncat list need work. NawlinWiki 23:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Fir0002 FPC set
Hi Stevage! Hope you can stop by here and leave your much appreciated thoughts. Thanks! --Fir0002 12:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Régions of France
There are only 22 régions in France, of which the DOMs or TOMs are not part of. ROMS are not régions but Région d'outre-mer which is different. See Région d'outre-mer.  Captain Scarlet   and the Mysterons  09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, put them in a separate line in the template. I think it would be amiss to leave them out altogether, because you'd have the question "well, what région *do* these départements belong to?" Stevage 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed them from the régions template because they aren't régions and do not literally belong to one as they have special status. Not all French territories are part of régions. Secondly, DOMs are included in Template:Préfectures of départements of France along with the other 95 départements and was hoping to remove a double presence. Cheers,  Captain Scarlet   and the Mysterons  09:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Captain scarlet's new template
I agree with you that the new Template:Préfectures of départements of France is way too large, and absolutely unnecessary. I left a note on the talk page there. Have a look. I must warn you that this user, Captain scarlet, has weird ideas about classifying French things (from railway lines, to tallest buildings, etc.). He has already started quite a few edit wars, and he has this tendency to act unilaterally, on a rash, such as he's done today by creating his template and uploading it to the 100 prefecture articles of France without consulting anyone. Two weeks ago his account was blocked for a week because he tried to move unilaterally List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris to "List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France". If you want to revert to your regional template and if Captain scarlet opposes it (which is probable), then we'll have to refer this to some admins. Hardouin 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Third opinion? Yes, you could leave your opinion at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris, if you can bother to read the very many messages there. It has been decided that there is no consensus to move the article, but if you also oppose the move you can express your opinion anyway, it won't hurt. Also, you could express yourself at Talk:Paris, where User:ThePromenader is, as usual, accusing me of all sorts of villainies, like distorting reality, writing theories and POV, being at the center of a conspiracy (whose goal is still quite unclear to me, the guy at the center of it; lol), and so forth. As you can see, nothing has changed much since you left the article last January. Promenader is still tirelessly arguing over each and every edit I make. This time it's an edit I made a few days ago about administration in Paris and the legal history of the municipality. You can find the content of my edit here: Paris. If you want to make a brief comeback to express yourself on this particular point, then allow me to soliciter officiellement ton avis. Lol. Hardouin 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply re CatherineYronwode
But 1) it wasn't done by mistake, she simply changed her mind, and 2) other people worked on it. -999 (Talk) 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And this too
Oh, yesterday I forgot to tell you the article where your "avis" is most "solicité". It's Île-de-France (région). You DO have to leave your word on the talk page there. A few weeks ago, ThePromenader deleted this sentence from the introduction of the article, despite User:Metropolitan and myself being in favor of keeping that sentence: " Its territory corresponds for the most part to the metropolitan area of Paris." I still don't understand what is so monstruously conspirational about that sentence that it had to be removed from the article. In any case, despite two users in favor of keeping the sentence, and only Promenader in favor of deleting it, if I dare to put the sentence back in the article, you know Promenader, he won't hesitate to wage a revert war to delete it again. So a third-opinion is much needed on the talk page. Should you also be in favor of keeping that sentence, then I think we can safely put it back (I don't believe that Promenader would delete it again in the face of three people in favor of keeping it, but who knows...). Hardouin 13:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell me, how long has this battle over "metropolitan area" vs "aire urbaine" vs "région parisienne" vs "ile-de-france" etc being going on? I would like to know so I can list it at Lamest edit wars :) It's just bizarre. Whether the sentence is there or not doesn't seem to make much difference to me. If it's true, I'd tend to put it there, but...????? Stevage 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been going on for as long as Promenader has been on Wikipedia really, which is since last November. Back then he was known as Josefu, but he later changed his sceenname. Before that, I have been on Wikipedia for more than three years, there was never any edit war about Paris-related things. Apparently, Promenader believes that User:Metropolitan, myself, and God knows who else are conspiring to present Paris as something it is not. Apparently we are presenting Paris as a large world city when actually it's a small city that cannot withstand comparison with the likes of NYC or Chicago. We are evil conspirators you know... Thanks God, ThePromenader has assigned himself the mission to restore truth to Wikipedia and foil our evil plot. Hardouin 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory is amusing : ) What it about amounts to is a couple suburban kids doctoring a few low-traffic high-ignorance pages with the goal of making a city seem big enough so they can pretend they live there. The funniest of all this is that French (Paris) administration is so backwards that the Île-de-France as a body has by far outgrown in importance even the city of Paris itself - yet the same actor(s) are hell-bent on having the whole thing called 'Paris' over any other name, even when this goes against every reference, administration and usage in existence - not to mention trying to con the ignorant bystander if it serves the same end.


 * Open a book, look at a map, link to a government website and fact is there for you. Look at the reams of talk pages, and discern who is asking for/providing references and who has only comparitive theories as 'proof'. It is only a matter of time (and traffic) that pages such as these find order thanks to a domination of those interested in sharing information, rather than those with other more personal interests and viewpoints. Sorry that once again you're involved in all this silliness. the promenader  22:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Promenader, for hijacking Stevage's talk page. He'll probably appreciate that. It only shows that you're tracking all my edits, even when I send messages to other Wikipedians. And for your information, I am not a "kid", and I don't live in the suburbs of Paris. As for the other users, I don't know where they live, but calling them "kids" only show your profound disrespect for people who disagree with you. What do you think Stevage, should we file a complaint on the noticeboard? I am sick and tired of Promenader's attitude. Hardouin 23:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Any argument but fact as usual. Stevage and I have conversed many times before, so it is only natural that he is on my watchlist. By all means, please complain. the promenader  23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and for the IDF 'comparison' phrase: Did you know that Mumbai with its official suburban district are about the same size as the Mumbai metropolitan area? What informative value does this phrase have for you if you know the size of neither? That is why it is gone, and for no reason more. Hardouin also neglected to mention that others on the same talk page were quite kind enough to point the truth of the matter out to him. the promenader  23:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Question, for my own sanity, would it be possible to have a one sentence summary of the position you each take wrt this Paris/metropolitan area thing? Perhaps we can format it like this:


 * Hardouin: ThePromenader believes that...
 * Hardouin: I believe that...
 * ThePromenader: I believe that...Only the city of Paris is called only 'Paris', and this is a fact reflected in every map, reference and government documentation in existence, and reflected especially in local usage; only the very ignorant (those having no idea where Paris' borders are) or extremely offhanded could ever place to anything bigger under the same title.
 * ThePromenader: Hardouin believes that...

One sentence, only! Thanks :) Stevage 08:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - It's kind of you to offer to play referee (once again), but your allergy to verifying the fact of allegations would mean another endless circle argument should it persist. But the cause of the conflict in once sentence? Here goes:

 Stevage 10:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whew. the promenader  09:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well that makes things easy. Your position is flawed. It's not a question of being ignorant. It's a question of context and what's useful to the reader. "Paris has a population of 10 million." "The city of Paris has a population of 2 million." "2 million people live in Paris." - these statements don't necessarily conflict.

You don't seem to accept that it's ok to use terms in imprecise ways, or that we can redefine a term for the sake of an article. Every article topic has an imprecise scope. It's up to us to decide what's in and what's out, in terms of what best serves our readers. The scope of a city is necessarily imprecise. Do we stop at the administrative borders? Do we stop at a statistical border? Do we do a bit of both, but include things that are *near* the city, because they are relevant? Do we exclude things that *are* in the city, because for some reason they don't seem to fit the topic? If someone wants to find the height of a building at la Défense, do we serve their needs by refusing to include it in a list of "buildings in Paris"? Of course not. Do we serve anyone's interests by wasting paragraph after paragraph splitting hairs over fine differences in definition? No.

As far as our articles should be concerned, Paris is whatever most people say it is. If we're trying to give a population to the nearest person, then we're going to have to be precise for that figure: The 1999 census of the city of Paris counted xxxxxxx people. But then we can go right back to talking about La Défense, Versailles, Clichy-sous-bois, Orly, and Eurodisney, because all those places have some "relevance" to Paris.

TP: Fighting for "truth" on Wikipedia is a really, really, bad idea. Stevage 10:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For both our sanity, I suggest you stay out of this. When a situation is already black and white, why make things grey? I don't "believe" anything, and there is no "quest for truth" in anything I do: Reality backed by reference says one thing, Wiki says another. That's it!


 * It's okay to use imprecise terms under certain contexts within articles - and that only when it's clear what we're talking about - but in article titles ? Is our role here to introduce ambiguity? Why do this when the references we are obliged to cite do not? What is the big deal in changing "Paris" to "Paris region" if it would make the article concord with fact? It's the resistance and reverting to what should be a minor correction that fills talk pages with unreferencable crap. If you really care about the reader in all this, master your misgivings, get out an encyclopaedia and have a look into the fact of the matter so that he can find the same fact elsewhere, and help put an end to these "only on Wiki" articles. the promenader  11:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reality is that Paris is a city comparable with London and Berlin, and a hell of a lot bigger than Sydney. Claiming that only the "Paris region" is bigger than Sydney, for instance, is just attempting to confuse things.
 * As for article titles - well, look at naming conventions. From one of the first paragraphs:


 * Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.


 * Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:
 * Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.


 * There is not even the briefest mention there of "concording with reality", the word "accuracy" does not rate a mention, and I don't see the word "imprecision". Read it! Really! The key words used are "recognize", "minimum of ambiguity", and "general audience". You could argue that "Paris" is ambiguous, but not many would agree with you. We all agree that it's centered on Ile de la cité, and it spreads out it roughly a circular shape. Attempting to cram information about how big that circle is into the title is *not* helping readers.
 * I really ought to have a look at Paris now compared to a year ago, and see what's changed. Stevage 11:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we're back to interpretation, and this is a zone I always try to avoid. Rather, where is the need to alter fact for comprehensibility when fact as it is is already perfectly comprehensible to all? What is there not to understand in "in the Paris region"? Where are we "cramming information" in all that? Although I'm working elsewhere, I'm going to stop answering you for a while as it seems that you've got some personal feelings in this.


 * As for the Paris article, your language skills there would be a help for sure. Cheers. the promenader  12:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal feelings, heh. Stevage 12:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I'd piss myself off too if I wasn't 100% sure where was coming from. I also take a break from me, not just for you. Cheers. the promenader  14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Paris article
Stevage, about the Paris article, there were lots of fights and edits wars since you left, but thanks God I was seconded by User:Metropolitan (who has now left Wikipedia due to ThePromenader's tiresome attitude, read Metropolitan's good-bye here: ), so anyway, with the help of this guy who is now gone we were able to save as much metro area-related information as we could from the article. For example, at some point, in the demographics section, Promenader wanted to remove all population information concerning the 11 million people metro area, leaving only information concerning the 2 million people administrative city proper, but in the end common sense prevailed and we managed to save it (the word "save" is not too strong, after the pitted edit war it took).

Unfortunately, bits of metro area information have disappeared here and there. It's not possible to monitor everything, and it's very tiresome to fight over every little detail with Promenader. For example, the article mentioned that the highest elevation in the City of Paris proper is Montmartre at 130m above sea-level, but in the whole urban area the highest elevation is in the Forest of Montmorency at 195m above sea-level. A few weeks ago, Promenader deleted the mention of the Forest of Montmorency (see: ), again because for him the article should be limited only to the administrative city proper. Should I put the Forest of Montmorency's altitude back in the article, you can bet he'll start a new edit war (just for this little detail !). Another example is this: about 4 weeks ago, Promenader engaged in a nasty edit war because I had written that there are 17 public universities in the metropolitan area of Paris, but he contended that we should write "there are 17 public universities in the Paris region", and that's what the article states now because I gave up on that edit war. I don't understand why the concept of Paris metropolitan area irks him so much. It's beyond me...

Then, probably the most important change to the article is the infobox at the beginning of the article. Promenader decided that the infobox, which I had designed about 2 years ago, and which I had uploaded to several other large French cities, was crap because it gave too much importance to the metropolitan areas (again!). So he created new infoboxes and deleted all my infoboxes in all the large French cities articles. Check his new infobox at the beginning of the Paris article (or Lyon article if you prefer), it puts the metro area population at the very bottom of the infobox. You really have to look for it! He separated it from the rest of the infobox by creating a category called "urban spread". Metropolitan and I tried to tell him that the metro area population should appear immediately below the city population figure, such as is the case in all other city infoboxes (check NYC or Berlin), but.... NO, out of question, he's persuaded that he's right with his "urban spread" section. Sigh...

If you want to intervene on any of the points I mentioned, in particular the infobox, don't hesitate. We shouldn't let ourselves be detered by Promenader's uncompromising and tiresome attitude. If we are the majority, we can change things even against his will. List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris is a good example where he was checked by a majority of other users who opposed his ideas. Like I told you already last January, I thought, and still think, that it's a bad idea that you left the Paris article just because of his uncompromising and tiring attitude. We're only rewarding his bad attitude by giving in to his relentless behavior and leaving the article. Hardouin 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What can I say when I see the above. Not one mention of those who helped improve the article, not one mention of what actually was improved, no mention either of the efforts to rally contributors to the article, and certainly not any mention of those who did their best to make one Wikepiedian provide references for his quite original affirmations: just a single-person selective accusatory self-supporting diatribe saying "This is how I did it before, so help me put it back!"


 * If the article is so bad, why is there only one complainer? Wait, I answered that above. Yet now that the article has passed a Peer Review, why can it not pass to WP:FA status? Largely because a single Wikipedian refuses to provide sources for his affirmations, at least those that can be sourced - I for one do not have time to verify them all. On the same subject, it is strange to see the same complaining about the removal of his false source: statistics taken in the IDF cannot be labelled as being taken over another 'preferred area'. Finally, just a reminder that consensus was for the complete removal of MA info from the infobox, and it was actually myself who campaigned for its preservation. How 'petite' to skip this little factoid.


 * It is only normal that one peddling fiction cannot hold out forever in a place publishing fact - yet, thanks to the use of every available tactic save fact, User:Hardouin has held out remarkably. Stevage, with all due respect, most likely for your proven reluctance to verify anything, you're being played for a potential lackey. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#ddd7a3;padding:0 3px 0 3px;background:#aba67e;cursor:se-resize;">the promenader  15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FPC Candidate (Siberian tiger)
A comment was recently posted by Samsara on the Siberian tiger FPC. It concerned placing the image in another article (see the subpage for the exact comment). I have now added the image to the stretching article, so you may or may not consider changing your vote (this is just to inform you of the change). Thanks. -- Tewy  00:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne
I'd really like to know how Australia defines its cities, as it is not the first time they have been brought up in our *cough* many discussions.

By looking at the Melbourne article I see that it has a fixed population (3,689,700 inh.) and a fixed land area (7,694 km2), but no clearly defined unifying government or anything ... it's odd that there's no clear map. The populations numbers seem to come from a Melbourne Statistical area: the Australian census bureau does have this map (attn: 6.5m to load) showing this "Melbourne statistical area". Perhaps this is commonly called "Melbourne" there - but in Wiki common usage should only apply to name forms (borough, shire, etc) and not as reference to an offhand areas - this would not be factual. Thus I don't get the Melbourne article designation either. Much is vague around that one, but hey, Paris is already big enough for me (jk).

Yet coming back to your article, if it is indeed common local practice to call greater Melbourne just "Melbourne", the journalist was probably applying the same local standards to Paris for better local understanding. I don't know where he got the figures though - a Google would be enough to find the right ones! It was interesting to look into, anyway. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;"><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#ddd7a3;padding:0 3px 0 3px;background:#aba67e;cursor:se-resize;">the promenader  16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Promenader, check City of Melbourne and you'll understand. I've already proposed the City of Paris/Paris article pair thousands of times. Hardouin 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably not an exact parallel, because the city of Paris has much more salience for both French people and foreigners alike. There's a prestige associated with living in department 75 that even being a few hundred metres away just wouldn't have. In Melbourne, the "city of Melbourne" concept just seems very artificial. They seem to have recently renamed a bunch of these "cities" and did weird things - somehow I ended up in the amusingly named City of Boorondara - a coherent, logical "city" in the same sense that the région of Centre is a coherent, logical grouping of départements.
 * All of which is to say: The concept of "Paris" for the vast majority of people does not stop once one tippy toes down into Kremlin-Bicêtre (if I'm not confused), but many people probably recognise that there is an "official Paris" which has a certain amount of significance. Wikipedia should go with whatever naming is clearest and most easily understood, as long as there is no ambiguity over what the scope of any given article or factoid is.Stevage 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We also have the pair City of Brussels/Brussels, although I believe (to use your language) that the city of Brussels has much more salience for both Belgian people and foreigners. There's also prestige associated with living in the City of Bruxelles (or "Bruxelles-Ville", as the locals call it). It's certainly more prestigious than living, say, in Saint-Josse-ten-Noode. Yet we have the article pair... Hardouin 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into the "obnoxiousness" later - I'm on a mac. I saw the "City of Melbourne", and I also agree that there is little comparison. I'm sure Paris' snobbisme is a major reason why it is so isolated administratively, but well-defined it is. Yet even this is of no consequence, as all that counts is that that anyone on Wiki can get the same meaning of what they read anywhere else in any other reference - this is the whole purpose of verifiability, finding a common factual base. Imagine a conversation or paper between two people with two different concepts of what "X place" is - there's bound to be confusion; our Melbourne exchange is a perfect example. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;"><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#ddd7a3;padding:0 3px 0 3px;background:#aba67e;cursor:se-resize;">the promenader  17:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, your understanding of verifiability is really warped. Verifiability gives absolutely no guidance on naming, article structure, article division etc. It simply defines what content can and can't appear within any article. A statement is either verifible or it's not. So keep WP:V out of this, it didn't do anything to deserve this. Stevage 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Don't mix conventions and fact. Naming conventions are not fact - Wiki says that name form has to be understandable to English people, and that's it. What that name describes is a complete other subject entirely in the domain of fact - オレンジ and orange should follow their respective language naming conventions, but both rely on reference for their definition. The fact that X is X (or is in X) should be verifiable. This shouldn't seem so complicated. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;"> the promenader  12:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Odd. The mac single-se arrow shows up as a double-direction nw-se arrow in PC. Rather pointless - gone now. Thanks for the heads-up. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;"> the promenader  21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Coca-Cola
Please see the proposal to merge in Criticism of Coca-Cola at Talk:Coca-Cola.72.60.227.118 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Fir0002 FPC set
Hi Stevage! Hope you can spare the time to put your thoughts on this set. Thanks! --Fir0002 11:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Athletic fielding
Hi, Stevage &#8211; I just noticed your old comment at Talk:Comparison between cricket and baseball about the description of baseball fielding as athletic. I don't see athletic as a complimentary term, so I wasn't trying to imply anything by descxribing baseball fielding that way. Hockey players skate better than either cricketers or baseball players, but that isn't what makes hockey a superior sport. They just have more scope for skating. I have seen athletic fielding in cricket. Saw an amazing catch in the slips at Lord's once. I also saw, back when Christ was a cowboy, Doug Walters hit two mighty sixes there which have impressed me more than any home run I've ever seen hit, but on the whole there is (unfortunately) more power hitting in baseball because of the composition of the ball. John FitzGerald 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, still not quite following what you mean by "athletic" then. Since the ball is generally hit further/harder, it follows logically that the fielders return the ball more "athletically"? Anyway, it's just a word...:) Stevage 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll check the wording in the article. I think the idea I wanted to convey is that the game offers more opportunity for athletic fielding and provides more instances of it, not that it baseball fielding is inherently more athletic. John FitzGerald


 * I made a couple of changes which I hope clarify the issue. I believe the article already notes that in some aspects (fielding in the slips or at mid-on or mid-off, for example) cricket offers more scope for athletic fielding. Maybe the real differences between the games are the big flat bats and baserunning, then. John FitzGerald 13:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures - "Paris area"
A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to improve this sentence
Hi there. ThePromenader is yet again moving Heaven and Earth to change one of my edits in the Paris article. Business as usual as you see. Anyway, he's basically proposing to delete a sentence I wrote some time ago, and replace it with his new "proposition". If I may try a joke, Promenader's "propositions" are a bit like Louis XIV's propositions, you can't really refuse them. Lol.

Anyway, his "proposition" is a bit awkwardly written, so I thought you could have a look and improve it. In the past when you have improved Promenader's long-winded prose, he was quite happy about it, so have a try. If I try myself, he will get all huffy-puffy and accuse me of evil actions and whatnot. With you it seems it's ok.

Your mission, should you accept it, consists in improving the "proposition" found at Talk:Paris and import it in this section: Paris, in replacement of this awefully wrong and inadequate sentence of mine: "The provost of the merchants was shot by the crowd on July 14, 1789 (Storming of the Bastille) and the next day a municipal council was elected with a mayor of Paris at its head." Hardouin 11:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Childhood obesity image
Good bold move. I'm 100% in favour of demonstrating the results of this condition but wish to remove controversy over the identity of the child. Rest assured you'll be in for an assault by the "hippie" brigade, but I'm just writing to say good move...! Budgiekiller 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit summary in the new (obscured) childhood obesity image... May I please remind you to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL?  Perhaps it seems to you that I didn't use "common sense" in linking the original image.  However, I felt that we needed  link back to that image at least until the discussion was closed.  I'm pleased to see that the 'obscured' image seems to have placated both sides of this issue -- I had halfway expected the obscured image to either be removed outright, or reverted back to the unobscured one almost immediately, due to the level of controversy.  Anyway, I didn't much like your accusation of not using common sense.  I had reasons for doing things the way I did.  I'm not sure if they were done properly, but they were done in good faith, and I would have happily agreed with your change if the cutting remark would have been ommitted.  --Rehcsif 21:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming good faith, just poor judgment. It's a bit silly to obscure an image to protect someone's identity, then to link back to the unobscured image, don't you think? So yeah - good faith, but not too sensible. Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh, I'm just amazed that this issue needs as much discussion as it does. Stevage 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The point was to obscure the identity in the article, not make it so that nobody would ever see the child's picture again. You can easilly do that by going back through the history...  Frankly I don't care whether her identity is obscured or not, so perhaps your view on this issue is what's making my judgement seem so "poor"? --Rehcsif 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at Notability (numbers)
Hi, I've responded to your comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers), and I'd appreciate comment (on the section below it as well). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Interrobang-big.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Interrobang-big.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Y'en a qu'on du temps à perdre
You haven't read Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris yet. You've missed something. By all means, do list this controversy at Lamest edit wars as you suggested earlier. It must have now become the "trivialest" argument ever on Wikipedia (or should I say the most serious argument about the trivialest point ever on Wikipedia?). Hardouin 20:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that your French is improving by the day. It's unfortunate that there are so many people on Wikipedia whose only contributions seem to consist in moving commas, changing American English into British English, and arguing over words or names, when there are actually so many articles that need either to be created from scratch or "de-stubbed". But then that needs researching information and painfully crafting decent prose, which is of course a much harder work than moving commas or arguing over words. Personally, I find it more interesting to research information and create new articles or expand stubs, and I rarely engage in comma moving, which I find both boring and petty. The only reason why I'm still taking part in this mediation process is because of the level of insults and offensive insinuations from some people, as well as the narrow-mindedness of some comments. Je me fais l'avocat du pauvre, comme tu vois. Let's see if your French has really improved. Lol. Hardouin 11:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. J'y jeterai un coup d'oeil des mon retour en australie. Mais franchement....bon, ce que j'aimerais faire, c'est traduire quelques-uns des featured articles du wikipedia francais qui n'existent pas dans la version anglaise. C'est dommage que tout ce qui est Paris reste dans cet etat assez bizzare, mais comme tu l'as dit, il y a d'autre travail a faire. Coucou de Vienne, pour savoir...Stevage 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You're leaving France for good? It's weird but you're the editor that I felt the most confident working with. In the few instances when we disagreed, we always reached compromise. You're the most reasonable editor I've seen in the Paris articles I must say, and you don't make big fuss like some people. Anyway, I feel embarassed making compliments. It's not in my culture. Plus ThePromenader, who reads all my messages (and often adds comments to them, as you've seen in the past), is gonna say that I'm being a sycophant or something.

Do you know there has been a major edit war at the La Défense article? In the end, all the lead of the article was changed and re-written by ThePromenader. Here is the lead before, and the lead now. Forget it's Promenader, forget it's me asking, just look at it impartially. Honestly, which one do you prefer, and do you see language problems or awkwardness somewhere? Are there points that you prefer more in one version or the other? Are there points that are more precise in one version than in the other? I'm just curious.

Lead before (PS: I didn't write it):
 * La Défense is one of Paris' major business districts, located west of the city proper in the heart of the département of the Hauts-de-Seine. The district marks the endpoint of the Historical Axis, which commences at the Louvre and crosses the Champs-Élysées and the Arc de Triomphe. The district is spread across three municipalities: Nanterre, Courbevoie and Puteaux. La Défense consists mainly of business highrises built along a central esplanade (le Parvis). With 3.5 million m² of offices, it is today the largest district in Europe specifically developped for business. Moreover, La Défense is one of the major financial centers in the world and it wields a considerable clout in the world economy.

Lead now:
 * La Défense is a major business district of Paris, located in the suburbs just to the west of the city. It is centred on an ovular loop of roadway straddling the Hauts-de-Seine département municipalities of Nanterre, Courbevoie and Puteaux, at the westernmost extremity of Paris' historical axis that, in passing the Champs Élysées and the Arc de Triomphe, originates at the Louvre in the Paris city centre.


 * Centred around a Grande Arche and central esplanade ("le Parvis"), this district holds many of the Paris urban area's tallest high-rises: with its 3.5 million m² of office space, La Défense is the largest purpose-built business districts in Europe, and one of the world's major centres of international finance.

Hardouin 20:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes I'leaving France "for good", but will be spending 3 days in Paris around the 19th to 22nd of Oct. I'd love to meet up for a drink or something if you like.

There's no question here, the first version is much better. The second one focuses so much on "objective fact" it fails to inform the reader. You barely have the impression its even connnected to Paris, rather than being the focal endpoint of Paris' most famous street! Overall the new English is very clunky - though honestly the old version was only slightly better. "Ovular loop of roadway straddling..." sounds totally bizarre to me. I would simply say "Oval-shaped road passing though...". As for "this district holds many of the Paris urban area's tallest high-rises" I would have said "almost all of Paris's skyscrapers are found here, with the notable exception of the Tour Montparnasse".

If I didn't know better I would be convinced that TP was deliberately trying to use obfuscated language. I think in fact he simply can't express himself clearly. Pity in that case that he takes it upon himself to rewrite so much! --Stevage 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been rewritten since, but by all means have a go at it. I was not in that edit war as the language insinuates - actually I rewrote that at as an end compromise between two edit-warring contributors: one wanted "overly-pointed" fact and the other wanted things to remain vague. If Hardouin were honest he would have told you that and presented you with the third version too. I didn't instigate the rewriting, and as long as the phrase doesn't say anything that's untrue, I really don't care one way or the other. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Fir0002 FPC set
Hi Stevage, I was wondering if you could spare the time to have a look at these. Thanks! --Fir0002 10:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to ask again so soon, but I've got another small set, with really minor differences, but differences I can't choose b/w! Thanks. --Fir0002 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Added two edits from people's comments. I'd appreciate if you could make a final choice between them. Thanks! --Fir0002 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

About Charaxes kahruba
Hi Stevage, Sorry, they were placeholders at a very early stage of my wikipedia life. I'll get down to tracking and removing them. Some more of them are around. We got diverted from stub writing to getting the taxonomy right first. I'm on Lycaenids now. Will get to Nymphalids next. Thanks for the reminder. Regards, AshLin 12:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sparrow on FPC
Hi Stevage! I've put up version 2 of the sparrow set I asked you about before (on User:Fir0002/FPCandidates) and it's currently got the majority by one vote. Now I want to make clear that you are of course under no obligation to go vote (and I certainly don't want it to seem like "hey come and support this pic") but just for the sake of determining consensus (and since you liked it when I put it up on my FPC subpage), I was wondering if you could vote here: Featured picture candidates/House Sparrow2? Thanks, --Fir0002 06:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Espionnage"
I answered your query on the talk:Sabotage page. 138.217.219.88 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert M. Pagan
Dear Stevage, Before you refer to an article as a "hoax", you should get your information straight. The article as written is in fact true. It was written by my daughter, who in her zeal and youth, combined my side of the story with the wording on the citation, to make a factual article. She is a child, trying to impress her father. As far as you not being able to find anything to substantiate the article, as she said, many things at that time were, and still are classified. Do you have a security clearance high enough to access government information? I can show you the medal, the citation, and even a photograph of the presentation ceremony, if you like. The fact is, she put me on the list of notable recipients because she thought I should be on it. There was no malice or hoax intended. I saw the list of notable recipients, and I agree that I should not be on it. Feel free to remove my name and the article from Wikipedia if you like. But keep in mind, that just because you couldn't find something, doesn't mean it's not true. There are thousands of veterans who are not given the slightest bit of recognition for their sacrifices. She just thought she could give me a little bit of praise. But to be honest, I don't care for or require any slap on the back. Like everyone else over there, I just did my job.

Robert M. Pagan

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject France
A proposal has been made for the above WikiProject at WikiProject_Council/Proposals. Would you be interested in contributing to it? STTW (talk)  20:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Fir FPC set
Hi Stevage! I was wondering if you could vote here? Thanks! --Fir0002 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fractals
Hi Stevage. Following your comment on the Mandelbrot FPC, I would like to ask if you had something more specific in mind, concerning a kind of rendering or color choice that would be better? I am sure that it is possible to make many more attractive renderings, but I am afraid it would hurt "enc". I would like to see more quality image fractals on Wikipedia, and am thinking of uploading a few of mines. Apart from flooding Fractal art, perhaps an article like Fractal rendering methods could be a good place to add examples of more elaborate renderings. What do you think? --Bernard 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cocktail Stubs
Hello. I reverted the change from cocktail-stub to drink-stub on Amaro (drink). I agree with you that Amaro is an alcoholic drink, not a cocktail (not that it can't be used in a cocktail), and it really should be flagged with a drink-stub instead of a cocktail one. However, since the WikiProject Cocktail is actively seeking and improving stubs and poor articles (tagged with cocktail-expand), it seems to me that it would be best to leave it with the Cocktail tag for now. After March 1st when our Cleanup Project is finished, we can switch it back along with other spririts that have been Cocktail-tagged. Either way, they show up in the main stubs page, so people can and will find them. It just helps the Project memembers locate ones now while we are actively engaged in cleanup. If you feel it must be reverted back to drink-stub immediatel, I will not get into an edit war. I am just trying to give the article as much help as possible to avoid having it deleted just for being a stub. If you are interested, it would be great having your help in the WikiProject Cocktail. Have a good day! --Willscrlt 02:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Claudio Gonzalez
Hi Stevage. I've tagged Claudio Gonzalez, which you created back in August 2006, with db-bio, because there's no assertion of notability. Oh, and for the record, his country is Chile with an e, not Chili! Picaroon 06:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote on a Fir0002 FPC set
Hi Stevage! Hope you can drop by here and leave your comments! Thanks, --Fir0002 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to ask again so soon, but could you please add your comments here? Thanks a lot --Fir0002 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cocktails
Hello. As a person interested in cocktails and/or the WikiProject Cocktails, you may be interested to know that a name change is being considered for the WikiProject from Cocktails to Mixed Drinks. Please add your opinions to the discussion and vote. Also, check out the recent changes to the WikiProject area. Consider becoming an active Participant. Thanks! --Willscrlt 09:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote on peacock Fir0002 FPC set
Hi Steve, Hope you don't mind me asking, but could you please take a look at these? Thanks a lot --Fir0002 05:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have nominated the template you created,, for deletion since it is superseded by Reflist. --Frodet 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I Heart Huckabees
There is a new debate on the name change at Talk:I ♥ Huckabees. Bssc81 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

English vs. French spelling
Because of your past work on the Wikiprojects for French "régions", "départements" or "communes", I thought you might be interested in contributing to the current discussion over French vs. English spelling of those very words taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France. Cheers. --NYArtsnWords 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Stevage - there's been an RfC opened on the above - could we have a word there from you too? Thanks if you can. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  17:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Category deletion in nordic skiing
I noticed that you have been deleting Category:Nordic skiing from the individual championships of the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships. May I ask why? I think this category should be in the ones that are already in there (1925-95) and the ones that you have removed (1980, 1997-2011) should be returned. Can you please respond on this. I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 02:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your category, but I do need to remind you that Nordic skiing consists of cross country skiing, ski jumping, and nordic combined. The FIS Nordic World Ski Championships consists of events for all three disciplines. Unless you want to put the championships on equal footings as the disciplines. It is just a thought. Chris 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I agree with your suggestion. I look forward to working with on future endeavours. Chris 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Idigenous Australians
Hi Stevage. With regard to your edit: While the percentile is significant, it is not one the few facts that will inform the reader about this topic. The populations are to the right of the lead article and this leads the reader to census data. What do you think? Fred 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that infoboxes should not substitute for text in the article. I didn't read the infobox, and I suspect many people don't. By all means have it - but in addition to the text. And as for a key fact, well, when I've travelled overseas, it's one of the first questions people ask me about Australia - how many aboriginal people are there (strangely enough). I know it doesn't necessarily have a simple straightforward answer, but it's definitely important enough to address in the first paragraph. Stevage 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We definitely have to find a consensus. I don't know how many people you talked to, but it is probably not a reference we can use. I will put this all on the talk page, if ok with you? Regards, Fred 14:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Don't get me wrong, I don't know anything about the issue: I'm just saying that the first paragraph should answer the question "How many Australians are of indigenous descent?" I don't know if the answer is 2.4% or not. Stevage 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK
-- Yomangani talk 10:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Victoria
I intended to revert this - I'm going to a) blame my tool b) not use it that way in the future Josh Parris 05:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

f-number
In F-number&oldid=55724782 you write
 * sharpness is best at medium f-numbers is that the sharpness at high f-number is constrained by diffraction, whereas at low f-numbers limitations of the lens design known as aberrations will dominate

Do you have a reference for the diffraction part? As I understand it, diffraction effects are only significant when the pupil size approaches the wavelength. TomViza 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms
I have initiated a Requests for arbitration. Please leave your comments. -- NYArtsnWords 23:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ned Kelly
That a criminal who maintained a 2 year spree of murder and robbery can be one of the most important figures is certainly POV. To give but one example, Redmond Barry, the judge who sentenced him to hang, is far more important, as the founder of institutions such as Melbourne University and the State Library. What about John Batman, John Fawkner, Charles LaTrobe, Peter Lawler, Alfred Deakin, to just give a handful of examples. To say that Ned Kelly is as "important" as any of these beggers belief.

He is certainly a well-known folk hero, and the article states that. And of course crime and criminals are interesting to a lot of people, so they are important to people who like to read crime histories. But that does not make them "important" in the broad sense of the word.

But of course the above is my POV. More importantly you did not source your statement. If you think it should be included please find a relevent, reputable source that supports the statement, and reference it in the article.

--Michael Johnson 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys can I assist with the POV. Ned Kelly did appear in an early book, '100 Great Lives' (Australian edition). Also Supt Hare who was one of his police pursuers described him as 'the greatest man in the world' cited in J.J. Kenneally, "The inner history of the Kelly Gang" (1929) p. 4. Tonyob 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Kelly is *more* important than those figures in the sense that he is well known. Your average Autsralian has not heard of all of the above examples. But even primary school kids learn about Ned Kelly. To ignore his place in history (after Captain Cook, who in pre-20th century Australian history is more well known?) in the intro is what "beggars belief". If you prefer "well known", "renowned" or "famous" to "important", then you should go ahead and change the wording. But reverting my entire edit (including the fact that he was hanged at Melbourne Gaol) for being "pov" is blatantly rude, and poor wiki etiquette. Stevage 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Important" means have some effect on the future. Anna Nicole Smith is no doubt better known in many quarters than Condoleezza Rice. No doubt now many thousands of words will be written about Anna Nicole Smith, but thst does not make her in any way important. Rice of course is the third most powerful person in the world, which makes her very important. "Well known" does describe it, but the paragraph already mentions that he is Australia's most famous bushranger, and s folk hero to many, so anything more sounds to me like a peacock term. As for your mention of popular culture and being hanged in the Melbourne Gaol, both are covered in detail later in the article, but if you wish to add them to the introduction, I would have no objection. I'm sorry you feel I was being rude in reverting your edit on POV grounds, I could also have written that it was irrelevent and unsourced, if that assists you. --Michael Johnson 04:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW if you want to reply, please do on my talk page. It is only by accident that I came back here. --Michael Johnson 04:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, heh. Pointing out that Kelly is one of the most famous *people* (not just bushrangers) in Australia's history is "irrelevant". And that his life ended by hanging, irrelevant? What on earth do you mean? Stevage 06:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 08:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

URLs
Hi Stevage, when we only have a URL, it's best just to leave it as an embedded link (in square brackets) in the text, which is allowed by WP:CITE. Otherwise, the reader has to click twice but gets no additional information, whereas clicking on a footnote gives the citation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:Purple;">(talk) 15:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. Good point. Stevage 16:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Enhance history
Im trying to install your js but Im having no luck. Could you explain? Ive also made a comment at User talk:Stevage/EnhanceHistory.user.js. Regards, -Stevertigo 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I installed it, but it doesnt seem to be running. Any manual? -Stevertigo 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Brittany
Sorry about that. I was in a rush. Thanks for pointing it out though.--Ryan ¾ 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Killer whale FPC
Hello. A Featured Picture Candidate you commented on, Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf, is now in the section for "Older nominations requiring additional input from voters." Contributors have tried to improve it after you commented, and your opinion is welcome as to which, if any, of the available versions deserves promotion. I am sending this message to everyone who participated in the FPC. Thanks! Kla'quot 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg
Hello, Stevage. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Stevage/archive1. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Invincible Snowfields
An editor has nominated Invincible Snowfields, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at and 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. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that wikipedia would be served with a complete list of all ski resorts in New Zealand, but you should only have complete articles on the notable ones. The ones that are not notable can be on the Ski Resorts of New Zealand page with a description of that resort and only have links to the notable ones' articles. The article for Invincible Snowfields can easily fit into a table of some kind for the list page.
 * You have a good point with the private ski resorts. Your reasoning makes sense, 'private' doesn't mean much. But I still consider this a non-notable business that should be up for a merge and redirect. C5mjohn 02:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Coca cola blak French can.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Coca cola blak French can.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fixing typos in French
My apologies for that mistake and thanks for letting me know. I've checked my contributions and that 'fix' was the only incorrect one. I accept responsibility for incorrectly 'fixing' foreign-language text, but my point was just that in such cases there's an easy way to make sure it won't be 'fixed' again by the use of foreign-language tags, and this improves the quality of the article formatting too. Ideally all foreign-language text would be tagged, but then ideally there would be no spelling errors for me to correct either! Thanks Rjwilmsi 06:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Porters Ski Area
Heya Stevage

I see its finally been sold - do you have any news about who it was sold to (Mt Hutt was interested I thought) or what the plans are for it? It has an interesting place in the market - family and groups oreintated and close to Christchurch. Is this going to change/ expand? I visited there last year and thought it was laking on terrain a bit (and snow quality) but its interesting to see were it goes. :: maelgwn :: talk 07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Maelgwn. No, I have no idea, I just noticed today when I went to check what the official name was and found it had all changed. You're right, I do remember reading speculation that a rival company would buy it. I've never visited any of these places, but I'm going there in July, and am (after all this extensive research :)) planning to visit Mt Hutt, Porters, Broken River and Craigieburn Valley. Well, subject to personal whim of course...Stevage 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd give Mt Hutt a visit miss - tho ive never been there it seems to be overcommercialised and crowded. Craigieburn is my favorite - best terrain and best atmosphere. The YHA is Springfield is excellent as well - the man who runs it is a bit grumpy at times but is useful but his wife cooks amazing Japanese food. Be interesting to see what Porters is like - when i was there it was closed for 2 days in a row due to massive dumping on the first day and clearing on the second but by the time we got back up there all the snow had blown a way. :: maelgwn :: talk 05:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what you mean. We're all booked now though :) The main reason we're doing Mt Hutt is we're a fairly large group and some of the people have never been to a commercial ski resort before. So we're doing 2 days at Mt Hutt then 5 days of club fields. And it's the only time we'll be seeing real chairlifts :) Stevage 04:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Template:·/doc
Hi Stevage,
 * ''(add small bold middot to reference (the supposed justification for using bullet instead, for small fonts - I can't see a difference))

Hopefully· the· difference· is· apparent· in· this· sentence when· displayed· on • your • screen/s! (The separators within "apparent ... sentence" should look/print very insubstantial/ly.) Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC) PS Thanks for the middot redirect – good idea!

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PDP
Sorry, I messed up. Thanks for pointing that out.-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Study: would you like to participate?
Hi Stevage,

I'm an Australian researcher from the University of Sydney currently writing my thesis on collaborative online communities and Wikipedia is my case study. As such I am looking to interview Wikipedians for my research.

As someone involved extensively in Wikipedia, i was wondering if you'd be interested in being interviewed (via email) for my research? I notice that you've been involved for a while so it certainly sounds like you'd have interesting observations and experiences!

The interview can be done anytime between now and july, via email, and anonymity is ensured by the University's ethics standards.

I would love to know if you're interested, and would love to interview you if you have the time. Jimmy Wales is participating as well, so hopefully the project will be interesting. Please let me know on my talk page if you think you'd like to participate. Best, tamsin 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't re-insert references
The references to the meme were removed (indeed the article deleted) per WP:BLP. That deletion was endorsed by consensus at DRV (check the closing statement) for details.--Docg 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Scenic Railway
Congratulations on your featured picture main page appearance today - well done!--Melburnian 07:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

further
Hey, I've renominated the template for deletion. Let's push this template thru to deletion, and get as many of your like minded friends to vote.199.126.28.20 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sick
The goal of Wiki is to inform; it is not a pasteboard for one's own obsessions. Hardouin is simply continuing a revert-war from one year ago on a subject that was amply discussed on the talk page. You simply don't compare one object to another if the only goal is to show everyone that the (unexplained) other (of your own preference/invention/obsession) exists - this is both pigheaded and uninformative. No bad blood from here, but in the future take a real look at the situation before sending knee-jerk responses to calculated complaints that may or may not be true. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  09:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the talk page? Did you even look at the page history? Did you even try to make sense of the phrase in question? Would you call reverting to a version eight months before a "good-faith edit"? Please save the effort of forwarding your opinions in a matter if you are unwilling to research it beforehand - you're just fanning flames here. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  11:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - Also, I think a good phrase to describe the actions of someone whos first edit in eight months is a revert to a contribution he knows wrong and opposed would be "taking the piss". Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  11:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PPS - Here you can find some reading on the subject - you will see that I was not alone in not seeing the sense/opposing Hardouin's pigheaded phrasing - he is in the minority in this issue and was/is unable to present an honest or even rational case. Hardouin's contributions are often a formulation of his own "backed" by selective references (and repeated reverts) - this is not what Wikipedia is about at all. We formulate conclusions from facts; selecting facts to back opinion is the opposite to this. Where facts are straight and comprehensible there can be no opposition, but this is not the case. Cheers again.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually sorry for all of this that should not be a part of Wikipedia. I'm all for the "free and easy" approach, but unfortunately a few seem to want to take advantage of that "liberal;" (and objective) way of viewing fact) Cheers.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  00:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my exasperation, but it's not I who is "sick" here. Hardouin's exploits to date include blanket-reverting, sock-puppetry, providing false sources for irrelevent information (or no sources for the same at all), lying to other contributors about facts and activities (or others who oppose him) - the same in a covert way if at all possible. Have I done any of this, and am I, in your books, really to take the brunt of all this because I insist discrediting as unverifiable (not fact) every "theory" Hardouin throws our way? I really hope this goes to arbitration - or just goes away. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I am keeping my cool - and perspective - in all this, and won't be editing anything in any article at least till tonight. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  10:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have any proof of your claims of sockpuppetry? But anyway, yes, you are definitely in the wrong by "insisting [on] discredit[ing] as unverifiable" Hardouin's edits. You're convinced you're right. You're willing to do anything to make articles conform to your POV. You're willing to expend extraordinary amounts of effort in editing, reverting, and policing his efforts all by yourself. Now, I can't prove that the changes you're making are factually incorrect. But I can tell you that your behaviour is not typical of our most valuable contributors. Stevage 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced I am right, I am verifiably certain: all you have to do is look at the links to see that the organisation that created the "aire urbaine" statistical area has never used "metropolitan area" as a translation for the same (and the official translation used in internationally-published INSEE documents is right there for you; just look, okay?) - but my being "right" has nothing to do with anything; all that counts is that Wiki articles contain verifiable fact. When you give a proper name another that it has never had, it is far from fact and easily definable as original research - if there was any research done at all.


 * Don't you think it's stupid to see such guff over one misused term, especially when it is so easy to check up on it? What blows all this out of proportion is User:Hardouin's insistance on using his inventive "pet translation" - and it is because there is little to no knowledgable opposition that the same thinks he can "get away" with bully-reverting and other manipulative behaviour as an only defence the same.


 * If you really want to help to put an end to this, help me find some knowlegable people willing to participate, people who know enough to be able to reason in a straightforward "no bullshit" way. You can only make me happy, man. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stevage, did you see this : ? He even tagged several contributor talk pages with a self-created "Hardouin sock-puppet" tag :. This is absolutely despicable. Hardouin 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now for this I am truly only "convinced" - but let's let the admins decide. I'll take the consequences. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what you can about this debate. I think it is only fair for you to know that Hardouin took a fairly long wikibreak at my suggestion in order to try to calm down the debate between the two. However, Hardouin's first edit in 8 months is changed very quickly without any comment on the talk page.

The most frustrating thing about trying to figure this stuff out is the volume of comments ThePromenader makes, and what seems to be his inability to make a point and leave it for a bit and see if other editors agree or disagree and whether there is some kind of consensus that involves editors other than the ones in the revert war. Instead editors who disagree with him are responded to frequently and with I would consider to be condescending tones. Since the issues are often esoteric - the editor just moves on to something more interesting and less controversial.

Finally, it seems like ThePromenader is doing things to provoke Hardouin. For example, on a page ThePromenader created as Paris metropolitan area over a year ago is moved to ThePromenader's "factual" word usage title in the middle of the language disagreement between him and Hardouin.

BTW, Hardouin asked me to comment on the July 8th move he made, and I came across your talk page while skimming through the debate and seeing that once again ThePromenader is replying multiple times before the person he is commenting to can respond with his "fact" based arguments. I must say that the thought of trying to figure this stuff out made me feel tired - anyway - good luck -- Trödel 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Pentax K mount lenses
Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well in the closing rationale. Basically, there was a clear consensus that something had to be done with the article other than keeping it. A lot of people were arguing for a merge to Pentax K mount, so I was going to do this, but then I saw how lengthy the list was, and I couldn't see any way to merge it into the parent article without making that article long and confusing. Re your other question, no, I wouldn't say it was "inherently wrong" to have a list of lenses supporting a mount as a Wikipedia article, nor that the list was "offensively poor". However, there wasn't any evidence of why the list merited inclusion in an encyclopedia. Your argument centred on the fact that the list was useful and informative; that's probably true, but not everything that's useful is necessarily encyclopedic. (See WP:USEFUL.) I hope that explains why I closed the AfD as Delete; however, if you disagree, you can take it to deletion review. Waltontalk 11:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that AfD culture is often confusing. Given that my closure was controversial, I recommend you take the article to deletion review. I will abstain from participating in the DRV; we can let the community decide. Waltontalk 13:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Study/Interview
Hi Steve, Hope you're well. My email is playing up and I sent you an email confirming you received my email.... but then realised you may not have got that (how confusing)!

Are you still ok to participate in the study? Just trying to confirm my numbers for uni deadlines :-) Sorry to interupt if you've been super busy.... if you can shoot a quick email or post on my talk just to let me know I'd appreciate it. tamsin 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * no worries :-) with my crazy connection problems its all been confusing who has actually gotten their questions! look forward to hearing from you. tamsin 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wp:france
The redirect that you created, Wp:france, has been proposed for deletion. You can comment at Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 1 should you feel the need to. -- ChrisDHDR (&#xE503; • contrib's) 08:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

La Tour d'Auvergne
No problem! We French people are sneaky like that, with names that don't sound like names. Fair Alienor (Talk) 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hughes H-4 Hercules
Copyedit from my "talk page": "Mind explaining why you reverted my edit here? What does "non productive edit- that was an improvement?" mean? Do you revert good-faith edits by habit? Do you think that it's better to link to [flying boats] rather than [flying boat]s? Stevage 05:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)."

Hi Steve, thanks for your note. I would be happy to elaborate:
 * You wrote:"The Hughes H-4 Hercules was a once-off aircraft " – the term is "one-off"
 * You wrote: "making its first and only flight took place in 1947." – the sentence fragment should have read "making its first and only flight in 1947."
 * You wrote: "It was nicknamed the "Spruce Goose" in reference to its wooden construction, and as a way of mocking the Hercules project due to Hughes' alleged misuse of government funding to build the aircraft." The original sentences read: "Hughes himself detested the nickname "Spruce Goose". The nickname arose as a way of mocking the Hercules project due to Hughes' alleged misuse of government funding to build the aircraft." The differences that are important is that two short, active voice sentences were changed into one, long sentence in a passive voice, plus removing the reference that Hughes was not in favour of the name. The use of "it" in an introductory paragraph is also non-standard.
 * You wrote: "The laminated wood was glued with a form of composite technology known as Dura Mold..." – The sentence should have read "The Duramold process was used in forming the laminated wood." Duramold is a process as you have surmised but the sentence was ambiguous in stating the wood was glued with a form of technology rather than saying a form of technology was used in gluing the wood.

When there were no substantive improvements to the introduction but instead errors in syntax, content and grammar were made, then I concluded that there was a "non-productive edit" that did not further the meaning or readability of the passage. FWIW Bzuk 06:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC).


 * I find it a bit disconcerting that my contribution to this discussion was deemed "silliness" in the edit summary. User:Bzuk then went on to call the Spruce Goose a "Bf 109" and claim that it was the largest "aircraft" (rather than "flying boat") ever built.  These weird edits were later explained away with some technical excuse that, frankly to me, sounds fictional.  Is there something amiss with User:Bzuk, Stevage? --Dude Manchap 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange behaviour indeed. Here's what he removed from his talkpage. General etiquette discourages removing anything from your own talk page. Yes; See dick. Stevage, I think it probably has to do with ownership of articles and people preferring their own style, regardless of whether it is the most succint. Kamryn · Talk 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Stevage's edit, in my opinion, is the preferred one -- not Bzuk's revert. The only critique of the Stevage edit I have would be:  The Hughes H-4 Hercules was a once-off aircraft designed and built by Howard Hughes' Hughes Aircraft company, making its first and only flight took place in 1947.  I'm going to revert back to Stevage's edit, and if that leads to trouble, I'll bail on the argument.  Only reason I'm an interested party is that I attended a wedding reception at Evergreen museum and sat under the portside wing of this amazing aircraft. --Dude Manchap 12:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Reinis already beat me to the punch, even catching the strikeout. Let's hope it sticks and that Bzuk doesn't take offense. --Dude Manchap 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, judging from other comments there (and who knows if he's deleted others), he seems to have a history of revert wars and being excessively rude to people who make grammar or spelling errors. Is there something amiss? No, unfortunately users like this do exist. Personally, I prefer to avoid them. Stevage 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Digital Negative
You're supposed to start the discussion, explaining your proposal and how to respond, which you place merge tags as on digital negative; otherwise someone can just remove it for not finding the linked discussion. Dicklyon 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Placeholder images
You were involved in the discussion of the "no free image" placeholders. Can you comment here? — Omegatron 08:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 10:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sieve WP:FPC
I noticed that your objection to the FPC was that it was too slow.. well <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 created an edit that plays faster, so could you take a look at it and possibly update your vote? --⁪frotht 18:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px">

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ile-de-France
Hi Stevage. User:ThePromenader is back again leading his revert crusade. The Île-de-France article has been recently unlocked and only a few days later Promenader couldn't resist deleting a sentence about the metropolitan area of Paris, even though the sentence is backed by a source. He's also trying to rally people to support him (see User talk:ThePromenader). It would be good if you could have a look at Talk:Île-de-France (region) and give some input there. Thanks. Hardouin 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, call the waaaaaambulance. The reverting is Hardouin's: I removed a phrase that was akin to comparing "a wibbit is as big as a wobbit" without stating the size of either. Hardouin and I had an agreement over "metropolitan area" - that is not an official or even proper translation of "aire urbaine" - that it be used as a descriptive, but not a proper name - but he has elected to ignore both this and the Cabal judgement it seems. User:Hardouin is also reverting the contributions of another editor in the process, without offering any sort of comment or explanation at all.


 * As for "rallying", at least I'm asking people I know know something about the subject, and the person in question (not persons) actually lived in the Paris region. Seeking the support of those we know ignorant on the subject is not in the interest of fact - as we all know. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stevage is not ignorant on the subject so stop insulting people. Also stop stalking and always leaving messages after me on third party talk pages. You're not making yourself popular by doing that. Hardouin 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stevage has admitted to not knowing the details of the subject. By the way, I edited the article to comply with our compromise, so all this fuss should be over. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  12:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not this again. Ugh. I edit on a wide range of subjects (see: User:Stevage/Stubs), and I've never seen such difficulties over what are apparently simple issues. I'll happily do basic research and express an opinion when someone presents to me a question like "Should we use term X or Y for this concept?" But I'm not going to read back through dozens of revisions or attempt to read between the lines to work out what petty difference of wording is causing all the drama. Honestly, Wikipedia would be a lot better off if you would both devote your talents to separate articles, regardless of which one of you is "right" in this case. Stevage 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px">

Automatically delivered by COBot 03:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regex expressions for redirects
I was reading this mailing list post, and I thought of a problem. When you have people, often their middle initials are used in the page titles, or in redirects to the full name title. The trouble is that many people have the same middle initial and name, so you would end up at a disambiguation page anyway. Your regex expression thingy would have been useful at Talk:Thomas-François Dalibard, but I don't see how it would help with things like J. K. Smith, which could refer to Julie K. Smith, Jean Kennedy Smith, and James K. A. Smith. Carcharoth 13:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Allowing people to find a page just by initials is a nice goal, but a bit more than I was aiming for. I'll I'm really suggesting is allowing you to do whatever you can do by creating 8 manual redirects (eg, Thomas-François Dalibard, Thomas François Dalibard, Thomas-Francois Dalibard, Thomas Francois Dalibard, Thomas Dalibard etc) with one simple statement: #ALIASES Thomas[-[Fran[c|ç]ois]] Dalibard. Now if turned out there was already an article on a different guy called Thomas Dalibard (or maybe that was even a disambiguation page), then I imagine the alias wouldn't work: you would always be taken to the actual page instead. However, if there was no page, but two different "regexes" (they're not really) matched the same string, then you could have the automatic disambiguation. So perhaps there's another article with a line like: #ALIASES T[h]omas Dalibart - then obviously "Thomas Dalibart" would match either alias, so an automatic disambiguation would be used.


 * This is all just pie in the sky for the moment. Would it be helpful for you, do you think? Stevage 13:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be more useful for the hyphen, special character, apostrophe and capitalisation stuff. I hadn't realised you didn't mean initials as well. I was probably misled by the Greater Melbourne examples being used. The initials thing arises because often authors of papers (in article references), and people in lists of awards, and in old documents and newspaper reports. Often it is desirable to record exactly what the source says, rather than changing it to link to the person you think they are referring to. An example is this, where "Mr South" is James South and "M. Stuve" is Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve. I find disambiguation pages and redirects helps a lot when searching for a page to link to, in cases like this, but as you say, not really applicable in your case. Just pointing out (though it seems you already knew) that it wouldn't completely solve the need to laboriously construct disambiguation pages and create redirects. Though someone is writing a bot to try and automatically generate some disambiguation suggestions. See WP:BOTREQ. Carcharoth 14:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Credit
I don't see the point of this template. An image description page provides for all the attribution and credit for images one would ever need. Why pollute the mainspace with meta information?-- Longhair\talk 04:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I expected a negative reaction. I'm taking images from flickr that are licenced under "attribution required" and uploading them to Wikipedia. Personally, I don't think tucking the attribution information behind an unintuitive mouse-click cuts it. Attributing an image means publicly stating where it came from, not begrudingly providing that information on request. Considering we're getting these nice, useful images totally free, complying with the licence conditions seems pretty reasonable. Stevage 04:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I'm wondering if this has been discussed anywhere I can read up on? -- Longhair\talk 04:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, but it's probably time it was. Want to start a discussion somewhere? Stevage 04:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've posted pretty much the same remark to the template talk page. That's a good a place as any I guess to see what comes of it. -- Longhair\talk 04:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

More credit stuff
I saw this mailing list post, and the term "content creator" seems fairly widely used, though "author" is OK for non-photographic images as well. I agree with you that photo credits should be easier to access - not so much for individual photographers (though that would be nice), but the vast amount of, say, Library of Congress, NASA, and other US government/public institution pictures. Astronomical pics, for example, should always say in the caption what instrument took them, and so on. I will subscribe to the mailing list eventually, but haven't got round to it yet. Do you think you could pass these thoughts on? I also think poeple should be more aware of the differences between text and images - one person in that thread seemed puzzled by this: "I've noticed people seem to hold photos and text to very different standards." Well, I've never yet seen anyone taking a photo with a keyboard or pen, or seen anyone writing with a camera. They are plainly different media. Carcharoth 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promenader's new assault
Promenader is on the rampage again. This time he wants to delete the template showing communes in the metropolitan area of Paris. I don't know where this guy will stop to remove any notion of an agglomeration of Paris. He has single-handedly listed the template for deletion, completely disregarding the fact that several editors have contributed to this template and that he is the sole person asking for its deletion. He has written a message on the template's talk page which you can check here: Template talk:Paris Metropolitan Area. Last but not least he has also single-handedly removed the template from the 20 arrondissements of Paris, because according to him these arrondissements have nothing to do with the suburban communes:, , , etc. Complete denial of a Greater Paris, and that just when an administrative "Grand Paris" is going to be created by French authorities next year! This guy really has a problem. Hardouin (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Promenader has also created an entry at Templates for deletion: Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 20. You can vote there to keep or delete the template. Hardouin (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fish Creek photos
Hi Stevage. I am in the process of creating a directory of Images on Victorian towns at Wikimedia Commons and your photos were ideal for use in that directory. The directory can be found at Towns of Victoria. Images at Wikimedia commons are still available for use in Wikipedia (using exactly the same syntax as images on Wikipedia) and the big advantage is that they are available for use in other Wikimedia projects as well, such as Wikipedia in other languages. See Wikimedia Commons for more information.

The gallery with your Fish Creek photos can be found at Fish Creek, Victoria. As the gallery was available at the commons link, I thought it was redundant to have it in the main body of the article. If you are unhappy with that, you can of course revert that change. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a another look at those images it seems you are familiar with commons. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am unsure if you want the gallery returned. I do think where images are useful where they illustrate a particular point made in the article, but galleries seem to be in the main gratuitous.  That said, the Fish Creek gallery had only three pictures, so I have no objections if you wish to return it. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 07:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense of Wi-fi cancer
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wi-fi cancer, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wi-fi cancer provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wi-fi cancer, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wi-fi cancer
Hi. Someone at 88.172.132.94 tagged it for speedy deletion. I've undeleted it, but for my 2¢, working the term into the article might be a less subtle way of directing search results than the redirect. IceKarma&#x0950; 04:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as you seem experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 10:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE


Would you like to say what is disputed? -- Ned Scott 04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Draco.NET
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Draco.NET, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Draco.NET. Technobadger (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Morgane de toi
Mieux vaut tard que jamais: very nice job! Thank you, and congrats. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes
You asked me on what grounds do you say that pictures should be left to the default size? Firstly image sizes can be set by user preferences. It seems rather strange that you would seek to overrride user preferences. A debate on image size defgaults can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 8. This discussion led to the policy at Image use policy - In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" . Thus my grounds for that edit are that it is in accordance with policy. Exceptions are things like maps where the detail might not be able to be seen satisfactorily. Regards Matilda talk 08:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You said Hmm, are you trying to pull a swifty? The policy which you pointed me to makes no comment about image sizes at all. It just says to use the thumbnail tag. It even implies that it's ok to have larger images. No I am not trying to "pull a swifty".. The policy states use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting). - the clarification in brackets refers to size - ie the default size option if you do not put in fixed pixel height or width when using the thumbnail markup.  Thus the policy in fact does refer specifically to size!  Once again I question why you are trying to override user preferences in your mark-up?  If you  personally wish to see pictures as larger, please modify your user preferences.  I take the qualification about image properties to refer to such things as maps or perhaps other images with text in them where the default zsize would make them unintelligible.  The pictures in the edit you are referring to are landscape type images and do not need to be any larger than the default width of 180px (or whatever default width a user has chosen for themselves).  Please note that I resent the lack of good faith assumed in are you trying to pull a swifty? --Matilda talk 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Main Page deletion stuff
Hi again. Hope you don't mind another mailing list post... I was reading this thread, and was wondering if I could possibly ask you to post a link to my on-wiki summary? See Administrators' noticeboard. "Tim's hack basically serves only to prevent accidental or other non-malicious deletion" - I'd say, yes (Angela's workaround was quite clever!), and that this workaround plays down the concern that this is moving against the tradition that admins should be able to use their tools on all pages. I'll ask Risker as well, about posting that link, as I see he has posted there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again
The Île-de-France (région) article was fully protected due to the edit war waged by User:ThePromenader who wants to have the "Paris metropolitan area" removed from the article if you remember, then last month it was unprotected to allow good faith editors to edit the article, and sure enough one month later ThePromenader has renewed his edit war and deleted the "Paris metropolitan area" from the lead of the article, by claiming that it was an "uninformative phrase". We've been through all that already, I know it's really tiring, but as long as the guy is not banned from editing the Paris related articles, all we can do is check these articles and reinstate the information he keeps deleting. Please have a look. Alone I can't do much. Hardouin (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gene Matlock
An article that you have been involved in editing, Gene Matlock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Gene Matlock. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Optical Disc
Because SD was intended to be a completely new optical storage format incompatible with the compact disc -Towel401 (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

French communes
WikiProject French communes:

I would like to welcome you back to the project. With some help from User:AlbertHerring, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, and User:Jj137, I have successfully revived the project. Welcome back, we hope to see you there,  Basketball  110   what famous people say  ♣ 17:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Bonjour, I leave this message beaucause you should be interssed by the news ! (sorry for my too poor english) I have the idea to do an international meetup in Lyon the 8th december 2008. I don't know if you'ld interessed to come again here, but perhaps you could help me for the translation in english of the bill! fr:Wikipédia:Rencontre/Rhône-Alpes. Thanks for the photos, the fr:Projet:Lyon had recategorised all so you could see the result ;) Cordialy Otourly (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC) -Lien corrigé Otourly (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Still me! be carefull this page is in the category Nordic skiing, and I thing it's not wellcome for this wikipédia^^ --Otourly (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oui, tu as bien compris c'est cette page qu'il faut traduire, merci d'avance! Je pense que c'est une bonne idée d'organniser une rencontre wikipédia dans une fête populaire! Je suis à toi pour toutes suggestions ou recommandations! Généralement, beaucoup en gardent des souvenirs! ! tu as bien de la chance d'être là bas en été :p il fait plus chaud^^ Otourly (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible or not? Cordialement, Otourly (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Trail
Re: removing the word "Trail" from the template for [bicycle trails in Melbourne]. I can see that the word appears redundant when all the trails are named in one place. However the word trail is in fact part of their name, eg:

Refer to top right photo here: Merri Creek Trail and top left photo here Dandenong Creek Trail

If the word "trail" stays removed, then an explanation in the heading of the template may help? Currently there are major problems with trail names in Melbourne and I'm trying to foster some consistency re their naming - bit naive of me perhaps. The "Upfield Bike Path" however is not called a trail as you point out - as far as I know it's the only one on the template list.

This may be of interest: Trail Names

A classic case is the Anniversary Trail, which is also called the Outer Circle Trail plus other variants. However the Boroondara City Council has literally a few hundred signs pointing to it that name it the "Anniversary Trail". See photos top of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.112.44 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm really just suggesting removing the word "trail" everywhere in the interests of saving space in the navbox - I would keep it for the article itself. Though I do find it a bit awkward that you end up with links like "Merri Creek", when of course it's a bike path that's being linked to. It might be better to instead group the trails by physical location, and restore the full name - not sure. Also, I don't really like the title of the navbox - "off-road" suggests off-road, like dirt, rocks and rough country, etc. Maybe "Established cycling trails in Melbourne" or something. Stevage 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stevage

In general I agree with what you are saying especially re the off-road bit. How about "Melbourne's network of cycling Trails". I would like to keep the word "network" as the majority are linked to each other and it gives the sense of something bigger than one trail. Not so sure about grouping by physical location.

124.191.112.44 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

POV on Boston Redevelopment Authority Page
You placed a POV in Boston_Redevelopment_Authority but did not place any info in the talk page as to what you were questioning The edits that I made were sourced and I attempted to show both the past negative and current positive aspects of the Redevelopment authority. Please open a conversation in the talk page and I will attempt to right or support my edits. Thanks Markco1 (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Miror of Wikipedia
It's really bad! I was just searching for english sources for Fête des lumières! Otourly (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again
ThePromenader has once again edited the lead of the Paris article. As a native English speakers, can you tell me if his edit makes any sense to you at all? He replaced this sentence:

"The Paris unité urbaine (or urban area) extends well beyond the administrative city limits and has an estimated population of 9.93 million (in 2005)."

with this sentence:

"Paris as a metropole is can be represented by its unité urbaine (or urban area), as it is an area of unbroken demographic growth that extends over an area thirty times larger than Paris itself; its population is estimated at 9.93 million (in 2005)."

That has really become an obsession with him. It must be the 127th time he edits this part of the lead. I mean, contrary to you and me who have either created or edited many articles since we've been active here, this guy has contributed little to Wikipedia in general, except an obsessive rewriting of this paragraph in the lead concerning the Paris urban and metropolitan areas, and the end result is a gramatically incorrect sentence which makes things overly complicated for the reader. This is the lead, it should be kept simple. There are dedicated articles (with links) for those who want to find out more about the definitions of urban and metropolitan areas, so why adding unnecessary details in the lead? Apparently he doesn't understand that. It's really frustrating having to deal with this obsessive guy (and as usual I get reams of angry messages from him on my talk page). Hardouin (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're whining here about who's editing, and not about the content - thank you for making this quite clear to us, Hardouin. Which is clearer: "Much beyond", or "thirty times larger"? What exactly can be your problem with that? Your entire agenda was to present Paris as a unique and thriving metropolis, and my edits were quite in this direction. As usual, your complaints are both misconstrued and blown all out of proportion.
 * As usual, as per every post-revert whining campaign, we're down to discussing obvious details that normally are evident in themselves. Do you think that this repeated pattern of stalk/revert would not make one angry? It is incredibly antisocial to say the least, and even your reasons above are not honest nor based in fact - if you don't like the grammar, correct it, but don't complain about that one word only to revert the entire edit. Your approach is completely dishonest. Grow up. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, Stevage, sorry for filling your talk page with things that don't even concern you, but Hardouin's complaints, as usual, but amount to dishonest slander. Happy editing to you, wherever you are. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The first looks fine to me. The second has a number of problems:
 * "Paris as a metropole" - metropole? Is this specialised vocab? Is it necessary? How is "Paris as a metropole" different from "Paris"?
 * "is can be represented" enough said
 * "can be represented by its unité urbaine" - what does that mean, it "can be represented"? Sentences that say what something *is* are much clearer, less ambiguous, and actually mean something. I can be represented by a fish. So what?
 * "as it is an area of unbroken demographic growth " ugh. Ok, Paris can be represented by a UA, because that UA is an area of unbroken demographic growth? Huh? I'm honestly trying to make sense of this sentence, but it's brain hurty.
 * "thirty times larger than Paris itself" - uh, isn't the whole purpose here to define what you mean by "Paris"? Referring back to "Paris itself" isn't helping.
 * There's nothing particularly complex or hard to grasp about the fact that "Paris" is a somewhat vague notion (like most cities) and can be defined either administratively or demographically. The first sentence does a perfectly adequate job of that. It should probably follow up with a precise definition of the UA, but I don't see any problems stylistically or grammatically with it. Stevage 02:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself at the same time as you show your lack of knowledge in the subject: you say that a more detailed explanation of the UU is needed, yet "is an area of unbroken demographic growth" is exactly that. The article's former state provides no explanation at all of the sort, which is exactly why I changed it. Nor does the introduction say anything about the differences between political Paris and its actual size as an urban tissue, which would remove much of the vagueness you mention; this also I improved, and it is now removed. As for the grammar - one word. Click. My edit was relatively minor, and you're both making really too much of it - for reasons having little to do with the edit itself. Once again, Hardouin did well to run to you. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the lead of the article, it's not the place for definitions. It links to the unité urbaine article and to the urban area article, where there are all the definitions necessary, so no need to repeat the definitions in the lead. Otherwise I agree with Stevage, the points you highlighted are exactly what I found awkward in TP's 127th rewriting of that part of the lead. Hardouin (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This coming from somone who spent years eliminating every reference to the city itself from the Paris article and replacing it with 'information' about a quite fictitious 'Paris metropolitan area'. Stevage doesn't get it, and probably doesn't care; you do, but would rather juggle your pet theories against the ignorance of others, so there's really no point in discussing this any more. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The new text as presented to me is virtually incomprehensible. TP's conspiracy theories aside, the old text was better. If one day TP can present some preferred wording which is actually intelligible, maybe we can have a meaningful discussion. Until then, the dispute will continue to fester on as "Hardouin writes the text, TP gets angry about *something*, can't explain what it is, and mangles the text into something that isn't English, and doesn't do Wikipedia any service whatsoever". Stevage 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The language was something that could be corrected - even though I think you exaggerate your claims of incomprehensibility - and you've got the rest all wrong. The 'old version' is actually of my own writing, so I can have no 'conspiracy' issue there; what makes me angry is that, every time someone edits any Paris-based article, Hardouin is right there to 'footprint' it or revert it to his 'taste', even though he hasn't touched the article since weeks, even months, in spite of his being asked repeatedly to correct/provide citations for claims that are his writ. Is that clear? This is behaviour both antisocial and unproductive, and changes every little edit into an overblown tit-for-tat battle truely incomprehensible to many; the latter only can treat/understand the 'social' in the problem, and you fall into that category, dear Stevage, which is why Hardouin always comes running to you.


 * It has since years taken weeks of post-Hardouin-revert (war) discussion and even admin intervention to implement any change to the article. In its year after being appropriated and 'squatted' our friend, it sat as a much-criticised/largely avoided jumble of unsourced and fantastical claims that could be found only on Wikipedia. After much battle, it has progressed to a B-Class article, and one of the only things keeping it from becoming an A-class - or even FA - article is its lack of citations, a problem that Hardouin categorically refuses to assist. I leave this job to him, as when I have attempted to find sources, or alter phrases for which I could find no source, he was always right there to revert; in doing so he did provide a source, but I frankly don't have the time for his making every edit into a tit-for-tat battle and lengthy discussions.


 * I know that I am known for 'knotting my knickers' over such issues - and it is largely thanks to that that the article could change at all - but this is but a social issue. What should speak volumes to you is the fact that I have never reverted any edit that wasn't a revert, have never made any edit without improvement in mind, have always sought the aid of only those obviously knowledgable, and have never felt the need to resort to any behind-the-scenes slanderous e-mailing campaigns; the campaigns I have conducted were drives to bring other knowledgable editors to the article, campaigns often ruined by a User:Hardouin - seemingly quite keen on my contributions list - leaving slanderous 'warnings' after any invitation I should make. Any claim that my ranting 'scares others away' is complete bullshit - this claim blithely ignores the fact that a) Wikipedia has a constant flow of new editors not even aware of the article history and that b) I have not edited nor commented the article since months. You have only to glance through the page history for proof of this.


 * The Paris article remained unchanged (vandalism aside) for months before I even began editing it, and it has remained again unchanged in the months before today; this lack of knowledgable attention, mixed with the biased protectionism of one, that is the reason for all the noise. I was hoping, through my minor edit the other day, that I would see that this problem had gone away, and that I could once again call attention to the article - but, unfortunately, as we can see by this exchange, things remain still the same. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  07:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you can both go on blaming each other. Or you could find ways to actually contribute productively to Wikipedia. Neither reverting other people's edits (Hardouin), nor replacing carefully worked prose with "something that could be corrected" in order to correct some minor semantic issue (ThePromenader), nor spending a lot of energy bickering and politicking (both of you) is really very beneficial, from the project's point of view. Stevage 06:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki markup spec
Hello, Stevage. I want to improve the makrup, but I think that GFDL is not very suitable for software. The initial author (David Gerard) on his user page has a statement, that all his contributions to MediaWiki is released as public domain. In my opinion, it would be better if you also license your changes under some free software license. Thank you for your attention. Licorn (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Stevage. I am still waiting for your answer. Licorn (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Credit
Template:Credit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Longhair\talk 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Promenader, for the zillionth time
Here we go again:. Don't you like those? LOL. Hardouin (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignore the whining and read the concerned talk page. Btw, aren't you kind of tired of being treated as an attack dog? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER   06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Great work
Thanks, always nice to hear good things about articles I have contributed to - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

afd-merged-from
FYI, I finally wrote. I wrote a little more at Template talk:Afd-mergefrom. Flatscan (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A question
Let's say we've met before. I believe you have something of mine and I would like it - I will pay you - if you've still got it. It's a chessboard. I suppose it might be fun to catch up as well...for old times' sake.

I saw your wikipedia page and knew it was you.

Regards, Kazee —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalKazee (talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Chimango Caracara
Hi Steve: I noticed your entry now says "semi-confirmed" as Chimango Caracara. I've passed the photo links (from Picasa) on to Alvaro Jaramillo (author of the Birds of Chile field guide and a good friend) and asked for his comment, and he agrees it's a Chimango. If you want, I can forward the email... MeegsC | Talk 12:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for you post, Stevage. You've made me think about the example, which would be better if drawn from a larger passage in which the two separate sentence stuck out as stubby. I do tend to use semicolons more than most writers, and yes, some writers don't use it at all. I think they miss opportunities to use the full gradation of signals to the reader about the relationship between sentences. On a practical level, semicolons are often the best tool when splitting a sentence that is too long, and joining stubs. And, of course, they function as stronger boundaries between the items in a list-sentence than mere comma, and are usually necessary when one item or more have an internal comma. Tony  (talk)  16:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sad-sounding instrument, the pedal piano. Nowadays, electronic keyboards/pedalboards have rendered it obsolete as a practice instrument for organists. Perhaps not so for pedal harpshichords—see Peter Watchorn's ?about-to-be-released Volume 2 of JS Bach's The well-tempered clavichord, which apparently uses the pedals as a deep, funky foundation line in a number of the works.

On "may", it does have more uses than to express possibility (a lower likelihood than "might", I've heard it said, but I'm unsure about that). How about no "may" at all? "There are two types of pedal piano: in one type, the pedalboard is an integral part of the instrument, using the same strings and mechanism as the manual keyboard; the other, less common type, consists of two independent pianos, for the hands and feet, respectively."

Tony  (talk)  08:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
--Edward130603 (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me?
I have an argument with others on disambiguation. I want to add some useful information to ACE, NME and PMF, but other people always delete them. The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#need_help_on_ACE_and_NME Could you please have a look? Thanks.--141.89.77.122 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

music template
Hello. I'm just following Manual_of_Style_(music). The music template was created so that the characters would be depicted correctly on all browsers and without requiring the user to install any special fonts. Pasting in the unicode character by hand, the character doesn't render on my PC with IE, it just gets rendered as a black square. I know I can use another browser (and I usually do) but the PC/IE combination is too ubiquitous to ignore. The wikitext renders a bit differently, I was curious as to why and I checked... it looks like the music template fixes the font. I'm not an HTML/Unicode expert, though, so I don't know why that was done in the template. Cheers. 02:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Carnac stones
In 2006 you wrote: In recent centuries, many of the sites have been neglected, with reports of dolmens being used as sheep shelters, chicken sheds or even ovens.[4] Even more commonly, stones have been removed to make way for roads, or as building materials. But I can't see this information on the metioned page (4). Now I am seeking for another source (still without any noticeable result). I've read that Crucuno dolmen was used as a stable and something like this about two more dolmens. But I haven't found reports that some dolmens or menhirs are/were used as ovens or building materials. Please help me to find sources. Thank you in advance. --Dynasha (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt reply and for the help. --Dynasha (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Cyclone Ingrid
Your response for your comments on this FPC are requested. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

NICE interface modification: We need more users!
Hello. I am one of the developers of the NICE tool and the related study's contact person. I hope you have been finding the modification helpful so far. We have been gathering users for a little over a month now, but we haven't gotten as many users as we had hoped. We'd appreciate it if you would share the NICE tool with any editors that might find it useful. --E poch F ail (talk 16:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from the Mountain Biking Task Force!

 * Thank you for your past contributions to one or more of Wikipedia's mountain biking-related articles. Have you considered helping us out at the Mountain Biking task force? It's a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of mountain biking.

If you have any questions, please ask at the TF's talk page, or feel free to ask me on . Andyo2000 (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy page barnstar

 * Aw, shucks. :) Stevage 23:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

2012 Election Need Your Feedback
I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F

David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Full version of NICE to be released
Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --E poch F ail (talk 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Third party FPs
Would you deny me the third party FPs I've nominated? My fungi nominations have a "point" as they allowed me to expand Portal:Fungi, which is now featured. I can hold up my most recent nomination, even though I neither created it nor edited it, as a prize from the often difficult work dealing with the OTRS submission backlog. FPC should not be about feeding the egos of contributors (though, of course, photographers and restorationists have every reason to be proud) it should be about collecting together free images of high quality that contribute massively to our encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These are good questions. I'm not sure exactly where I draw the line: essentially, I think featured pictures should serve to motivate and reward those who make an effort to contribute images to Wikipedia (so yes, I think they should feed the egos of contributors, if that's what it takes). Your case of extracting a high quality image of a BLP is a good example - it does take effort, and is worth rewarding. But merely trawling US military or NASA images for pretty pics to add to our featured collection seems too cheap...and such a waste of all our time to sit around voting on which are the best.


 * The case of the fungus FPs seems right on the borderline. Do you think you would have gone to the effort if none of them could be featured? That is, did it motivate you? Stevage 10:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have included them in my portal (and thus, the portal would have been lacking and would have not been promoted) if they were not featured- and yes, I may have even given up on it. I certainly see where you're coming from, but I think that a blanket ban on third party FPCs would be poor. Remember also that we use FPs for the main page- as such, any high quality picture is surely a plus, especially when they show such amazing things- as the NASA images do. Would it not seem a little strange that we were featuring some comparatively boring (and often extremely difficult to understand) diagrams, when we have images like this one freely available? NASA is a great example, as they offer the kind of images that Wikipedians could never produce. FPs also exist merely to browse- I often browse them simply from the point of view of looking at amazing images, rather than in any editorial role. Surely, the FP project would be damaged by rejecting images from outside sources? Remember how much Wikipedia depends on outside sources anyway- all of our featured articles are based entirely on other sources, naturally. Yes, that's not the same as just finding a picture and uploading it, obviously, but, again, FPC exists more to recognise the images themselves, rather than their authors. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well there I have to disagree with you on two points.
 * "FPs also exist merely to browse- I often browse them simply from the point of view of looking at amazing images" - IMHO, this is really a weak argument for featuring images. There are dozens of pretty picture repositories out there, not least of which is nasa's astronomy pic of the day. That's not really within the scope of Wikipedia's mission.
 * "FPC exists more to recognise the images themselves, rather than their authors" - again, Wikipedia FPC should not be a committee that just votes on the interweb's best images. What's the point? We feature stuff in order to show off Wikipedia's best content, and implicitly to show off its creators. Featured articles are made by Wikipedians. Featured lists, too. Featured portals, yep. Do we even have featured categories now? Now, when we get into featured images that are restorations, we're bending the rules, but that's fine. But once you get to NASA pics - what's the point? It's not our image, and we should have no particular pride in it. Fine, we take it if it adds to our collection, but where does "featuring" NASA's content get us? Stevage 12:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if it isn't "ours" to feature, why is it "ours" to use? Do you mean to say that, for you, the best possible encyclopedia would not use images from outside sources, no matter their license? J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I explicitly said it would: "Fine, we take it if it adds to our collection". And I explained what I see as the purpose of featuring: to motivate people to create more high quality content. Featuring external content seems pointless - we could just import the most highly rated photos from Flickr, and feature them all. But why? Stevage 22:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Nardwuar the Human Serviette
You commented on this FPC, just wanted to let you know an edited version has been uploaded that might just deal with your comments! Staxringold talkcontribs 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Poker run
First of all, nice work on bringing Poker run up to standard. Your effort is appreciated. However, I did want to point out a couple things. First, as a minor point, in the incubator we normally have someone who hadn't previously edited the article evaluate it before moving back to mainspace. Setting the template to "status=eval" triggers that to happen. That said, it isn't a big deal that you skipped that step.

The second problem was a bit more serious. Instead of using the move button, you copied and pasted the text back into mainspace. When you move text like that it brings the attribution chain that is required by our licensing agreements. I have fixed the error, but please keep this in mind for the future. Additionally, when you merge text from one article to another, you must follow the instructions at Help:Merge which mostly means stating where to text is going and coming from in your edit summaries using  hyperlinks, and adding R from merge to the newly redirected page.

Thanks again for your hard work, ThaddeusB (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We decided on the "one person checks" model as a middle ground of sorts, but see Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator where I have reopened the issue for further evaluation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore FPC nom
Hi. There's an alternate version of the picture you supported in this nom. I'd appreciate it if you could state a preference for the original or the edit so that I can determine which one to promote. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Glabrous
Dear Stevage, I've reverted your edit to Nepenthes_tentaculata and wish to explain why; whilst I can see your issue with the terminology used on that page, it is a standard terminology used in botany and across all technical plant descriptions on Wikipedia. Altering one entry among 120 Nepenthes pages makes that page the odd one out since the term glabrous is used frequently in plant science, and not just for this genus.

Those people who are interested in actually reading the detailed species descriptions are more than likely to have become familiar with such terminology. Moreover, the meanings of such terms are highly specific; for example your addition of "or bristles" was immediately redundant after the statement that the species has no indumentum. Substituting glabrous for hairless is also inconsistent in the face of the numerous other words that are even more specialised, such as peristome, cordate, amplexicaul, revolute, pinnate or filiform. Unless these are all changed, there is no point changing just one that has a perfectly valid meaning; the great thing about Wikipedia is that each of these unusual adjectives can be linked to their meanings whilst being specific enough for a technical person to know exactly what is being described, where more general adjectives are too vague and therefore insufficient. Best wishes, Attenboroughii (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Stevage, right, I see what you were trying to achieve with or bristles. In this context, it reads as an alternative rather than an explanation because indumentum refers collectively to various types of hair (whereas operculum has one specific meaning); would (bristles) in parentheses not read better? My concern then, is that indumentum includes all hair-like coverings including bristles/trichomes/filaments, so explaining it simply as (bristles) restricts the meaning of indumentum to bristles, where (hairs) would be more appropriate; bristles have particular tensile characteristics and are a sub-category of hair, so hairs would be a better explanation of indumentum since it, too, is collective.  Would you agree that (hairs) makes for a better compromise?  Cheers, Attenboroughii (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect the "hairs" compromise above. The alternative ", or" is syntactically poor as it makes the sentence less clear that it originally was. Unlike the botanist user above, I am non-technical, but find the original description perfectly acceptable.

The problems of reducing valid systematic terminology vs. jargon have been discussed ad nauseam on WP and the consensus has been to leave technical descriptions in botany, medicine etc. alone where there are no glaring issues, though of course there is room for discourse.

This is such an example, as the introduction of bristles is misrepresentative. General descriptions are another matter, but this clearly isn't such a description; the casual reader will have little or no experience in telling species of these Nepenthes apart and have little reason to dissect this section - those who care will quickly become au fait with the correct terminology in the way that the web was intended: by clicking through. The article reads more clearly without additional elaboration.

Incidentally, great pictures of Australia! What a beautiful country. How large is the "solder" crab? Jeljen (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pervasive Data Integrator


The article Pervasive Data Integrator has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Promotional article about a non-notable software product. Essentially, this article is just a features list, and as such is a mere sales brochure, and continues to read like unambiguous advertising: can automate the integration of data movement tasks on an event-driven, real-time, or regularly scheduled basis....extracts, aggregates, replicates, transforms and loads data from disparate sources, including between very old legacy and mainframe data and applications and new systems.... has a very wide range of connectivity... Referenced only to a press release announcing an acquisition, no substantive coverage; the other references are to internal sites.

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  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  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. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but don't blame me - I only wrote one sentence, back in 2006. I've removed the Prod though - I think it deserves a proper hearing, rather than being deleted due to apathy. By all means start an AfD, I for one will not be offended. Stevage 06:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pervasive Data Integrator
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pervasive Data Integrator, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Draco.NET
I have nominated Draco.NET, 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 Articles for deletion/Draco.NET. 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. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Brazillian jazz singers
I have nominated brazillian jazz singers for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

List of rivers of Egypt
I was amused by your comments on wikien-l about List of rivers of Egypt. I think if you take a look at the article now you'll be pleasantly surprised. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Chopin Preludes Picture
Your picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chopin_theme_op_28.png shows an E natural in bar 3 beat 4 RH (carried on from previous accidental. This should be an E flat I believe

Ronnie268 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think you're right. I don't have LilyPond and internet in the same place atm, so it will be a while before I can fix this. If you're willing, go ahead -- the lilypond code is on that page. Stevage 01:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
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 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)

Interview request: The newbie experience, revert communication and $10 to the WMF
I'm concluding the study related to the NICE user script (that you installed at some point), and I'd like to ask you some questions about your experiences with and ideas about Wikipedia. The questions will be related to how you interact with new editors and the way you communicate when reverting. The chat should take about 45 minutes to an hour and can happen over phone, voip(skype) or instant messenger(gtalk, ICQ, AIM, etc.). As thanks for your time, I'll donate $10 (US) to the Wikimedia foundation at the completion of the interview. If you are interested or need more information, please let me know. -- EpochFail (talk 16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Stevage! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Alan W. Pollack -

Nomination for deletion of Template:Renewable energy in Australia
Template:Renewable energy in Australia 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. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#aa9944; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Credit
Template:Credit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nsaa (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Steve,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:MTB Trials 3 Stevage.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 16, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-02-16.  howcheng  {chat} 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chopin works
Template:Chopin works has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now moved to User:Stevage/Chopin works. Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  20:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Query on a new temlate
I have created a new template here. I would much appreciate if you could guide me in creating the documentation for it. Thanks Suraj  T  10:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia as work?
Hi, I saw this thread from 2007, http://markmail.org/message/37jhowstmr2b7gll#query:+page:1+mid:37jhowstmr2b7gll+state:results, where you (?) and some other guys discussed wikipedia as work. If you still have ideas on this or if you know of any discussions about this, perhaps a new thread I can read, pls post it on my discussion page (on English or Swedish wp-page). I think there should be wikipedia-centers in Africa where students can work and get paid by hour or something like that. For 1. Participating in a course. 2. Make some articles and participate in other ways. 3. Go out in schools and inform. (it could be paid with donations, aid, and/or their state own money). I also think that there should be a formalisation of wikipedia-information-workers, and that these should be paid when going to schools and university, and that it should be seen as a complement to the teachers, which seldom is wikipedia-experts. What do u say? Regards m. --Mats33 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Exposing to the right
Hi Stevage! I have recently re-written Exposing to the right and would appreciate some feedback, if you have the time. Even a cursory glance to see if I've made any glaring errors would be enough. Thank you in advance.

By the way, this talk page is enormous and takes quite a while to load! Perhaps you should look into archiving some of its contents. Just a thought. ;-) Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really interesting work. I had actually thought in retrospect that the technique was of marginal importance and not really worthy of an article in its own right - perhaps a paragraph or two in an article about digital sensors, or something. Your edit convinces me otherwise - so, well done. :) One thing you might consider adding is clarifying early in the article that it's a temporary overexposure, that will be corrected in postprocessing. Stevage 10:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Stevage. And for the kind words. :-) I had carefully considered the phrase "ETTR images may appear to be overexposed until they are correctly processed", but perhaps I'd focussed too much on the words "may appear" and not clarified the fact that images will require processing. I'll fix that. If you could keep an eye on the article I'd appreciate it. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Stevage, the word's "behavior", not "behaviour"
Dear Stevage,

I have to say, Stevage, that the word's "behavior", not "behaviour". So why do you spell the word "behavior" as "behaviour"? Are you a Canadian? A British Wikipedian? Where  exactly  are you from?

Sincerely, 3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No idea what inspired this comment. Yes, different varieties of English spell such words differently. Stevage 06:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 02:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Needing Wiki contribution assistance!
Greetings Stevage,

I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. I have checked and we meet the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines for a band. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:

http://youtube.com/mrmeeble http://soundcloud.com/meeble

Let me know if you would be willing to help!

Regards, Devin mm @ meeble.com

Devbot (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Chambord pano.jpg
Hi- just to let you know that I have nominated a featured picture for delisting which was originally nominated by you. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wingan Inlet Edit
Thank you Stevage for your recent review of my contributions: your adjustment was a good call. I'm kind of proud as a newbie that you made so little adjustment! Howe ver u r helping me to improve. I just wanted to advise that I have updated the page again, and would prefer if you reviewed it again for me - Timmy2much (Tim Heydon, Melbourne Australia) Timmy2much (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Stevage thx for such a quick response. The 'section" heading thing is cool an a new skill I can include in future articles - I'll review the code to understand it. The edit i just did is just minor, as is for accuracy Timmy2much (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SCODY 3 Peaks Challenge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falls Creek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:TGV duplex.png
Thanks for uploading File:TGV duplex.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you're right. Funny, when I read the "7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006", my first thought was "as if there's any infringing images that old around!" Oops - I did indeed upload that picture in May 2006. Anyway, I'm not going to replace it, so I guess it will just be deleted. Stevage 04:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tour Divide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SPOT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

ANTLR grammar for Mediawiki markup
I'm interested in turning your ANTLR parser for mediawiki markup (from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Markup_spec/ANTLR/draft ) into a JavaScript parser for an offline mediawiki reader. The cited page says to contact you before hacking on it. So I am! Feel free to drop me an email if you've got a later version. (My email address is at the bottom of http://cscott.net) C. Scott Ananian (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Lamington National Park
I really wish you hadn't. Wikipedia is not a collection of photos. That is what Wikicommons is for. The article had more than enough photos down the right-hand side. I notice some of the photos are yours. You seem to placing too much value on them. Galleries are only appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Which images have been carefully selected, the one of some random ferns or random animals? We don't need a photo of a common bush turkey or someone feeding the birds to explain their occurrence.

Your galleries wreck the page. It looks awful with the text broken up like that. I notice that Yellowstone National Park which is a featured article has no image galleries. None of the editors of that page agree with you. How about Yosemite National Park another featured article? Any tacky image galleries there? Please remove them, they don't belong. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lamington National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pencil Cedar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Georgia (country) to Georgia move suggestion
Please comment here. Thanks. georgian JORJADZE 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Does this js still work?
I'm checking if the scripts here still work: Tools/Greasemonkey_user_scripts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevage/EnhanceHistory.user.js

Yours was last updated March 2006, I'm to lazy to test it. If it still works, could you put the date you've lasted tested it on the page?

Thanks! 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're very funny. Why would I test it for you? Stevage 00:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583591963 your edit] to Rokeby to Crossover Rail Trail may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * *Trail description at Rail Trails Australia

Nomination for deletion of Template:Préfectures of départements
Template:Préfectures of départements has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NSH002 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 10:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 hijacking
Thanks for your article from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

re: protein crystallography redirects
Hello &mdash; In 2009, you updated the redirect title Protein crystallography to make the target more specific, that is, to redirect to a particular section within the target article. There exists a second redirect to the same target, Protein Crystallography, which wasn't updated. I'm thinking of making the same update to that second redirect, too, so that once again the two will behave uniformly. Can you think of any reason not to do that? An outside Website which links to the non-specific title will suddenly show different behavior, but will also show more appropriate content. Is there a scenario where such a change would be undesirable? Thanks for any perspective you can offer. { 50.181.30.121 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please go for it :) Stevage 01:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Icelandic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pamela Rickard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Moss. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Heritage Action
Hi again, Stevage. If you have not seen, I responded to your comment at Talk:Heritage Action earlier this week and just a few days ago I went ahead and updated my Heritage Action draft to incorporate a few of your suggestions.

I would like to continue this discussion on the Talk page and work towards a version of my draft that we are all comfortable with so we can update the current page. I hope you'll have the time to take a look at my draft again and let me know if you see any other specific issues. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal page
Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Rezameyqani (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)