User talk:Steve Smith/Archive 3

Glad you're gone
never liked you much, and you always were a bit useless ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC) ps. can I have your password?
 * Yeah, that could be very useful, I'd like it too. Hope you are enjoying whatever.--Abd (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad you´re back. Remember me.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested fix for Template:Infobox Officeholder
I noticed you've edited the protected Infobox Officeholder template in the past. Would you mind having a look at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder? -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 02:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Just read Ed Stelmach off the main page, a fine piece of work. Thank you for writing it. Regards, Skomorokh  13:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and welcome back to the fold (if for only one day?). It's always good to see an Alberta related topic on the main page! Resolute 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
An article you deleted in an earlier version Aramark is being discussed at Deletion. You may be interested in the discussion. DGG (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

USAISAMONSTER deletion
Can we have that article back? Thanks. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

FA/GA
A lot of old FAs are far more dredful than the average modern GA (saw your comment on WR)  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls
The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Deletion review. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi SI

 * Ditto. --Abd (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Right now I'm mostly quiet. Getting History of the Montreal Canadiens on the front page as TFA for the team's 100th anniversary date is my big project right now, but it needs a lot of work, lol. A review will have to wait for references, writing and cleanup. And by the same token, if you need a review of any of your political articles, drop me a line. Cheers, Resolute 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The FAC has already been closed, but I did address as many of your concerns as I could. On the international play - I realize now that I didn't adequately describe the value Iginla's participation in the 02 Olympics had on his NHL career.  It may take a bit, but I will head back to the archives to find some stories on the impact that had and give that statement proper value.  Also, the medal table is just that.  The prose explains that the 06 team didn't accomplish much.  Appreciate the reviews you gave on this article.   Definitely helped me get this bronze star! Resolute 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008 review
Thanks for the very thorough review. I think I have addressed most of your concerns and I left a few replies on others. If I skipped over any of the suggestions, it was not intentional, let me know if I missed anything. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

✅ --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That was a great review. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP Athlete
If you read the discussion, there is wide agreement for the change I made. I could quote from nearly every entry. Please make your case that it is not so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwell  (talk • contribs)  23 June 2009

Harold Pinter
Hello. While you've stopped by the Pinter article, would you kindly take a quick look at the referencing/footnotes and linkfarm at the bottom? I think there is a serious over-referencing problem here - There are two kinds of referencing going on simultaneously, which makes the article hard to read, and the footnotes are so detailed and academic as to make them nearly useless, IMO. There is an ongoing peer review, but Scholar disagrees with the comments there about referencing, and he/she has resisted all efforts to simplify the referencing. Not sure how to proceed. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. The copyright discussion has been raised again at the Harold Pinter talk page.  Would you kindly weigh in again?  I know it's repetitive, but I made a big effort on it today, and I think we may be able to put it to rest.  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. How do we do it? Here is the argument, as I see it: "There is a very serious WP:OWNership problem at Harold Pinter. For many months, and even years, one editor has blocked all attempts of other editors to revise the article.  In its current form, Harold Pinter is so difficult to wade through, and the citation format is so Baroque, that numerous editors have been discouraged from even trying.  A peer review was recently opened, but the main suggestions about simplifying the referencing style were not accepted by this editor.  The editor is so prolific, that he buries any objections under a flurry of talk page discussion so voluminous that it is nearly impossible to read (note the talk page's voluminous archives).  A quick look at the footnotes in Harold Pinter will, I think, show the seriousness of the problem." [Please revise.] [Then, how do we request the block?] -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing this article since 2005 in good faith. I have contributed a great deal of time and effort to providing sources to verify its contents (often when others have provided none). This is conspiratorial, in my view. There is no basis in Wikipedia for blocking such work. If you want to work on the article, go ahead and do the work. What I see is a great deal of griping on talk pages and very little actual work being contributed by others. Just do the work and see what happens when other editors review what you contribute. It will either be considered an improvement by a variety of editors who want to work on the article, or it will not be. But engaging in blocking someone who has contributed as much to the article as I have is truly unfair. Just do the work and stop talking about it. Have you actually printed the article out and read it? One can do that, edit it as a print out, and then engage in making the online changes. I've provided the content and sources; one can take it from there. --NYScholar (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For my own previous compilation of material on copyright issues pertaining to Wikipedia, please see User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues, which I posted some time ago. The massive amount of copyright violations and administrators overseeing it and templates re: copyright issues all demonstrate that judgments about copyright issues and fair use are an ongoing problem in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL
Well, keep your stick on the ice. — CharlotteWebb 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And the puck out of my own net? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! No, this was a reference to The Red Green Show (starring one Steve Smith, and with which I assumed all Canadians were familiar), but if the skate fits… — CharlotteWebb 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Steve, I think it is pretty clear that NYScholar is a special needs user. I would much prefer to see this user under tight restrictions controlling their behavior rather than outright banned. For example, forcing them to limit their talk page posts to a 100 words a day would go a long way to helping clear up the discussion pages. Prohibiting them from refactoring their user talk page without the permission of an administrator would also help facilitate communication. Restricting them to one, non-revert edit contribution per day on Harold Pinter would force them to think very carefully about their behavior. I can think of a number of other creative restrictions that would allow them to continue editing here, but I wanted to get your opinion first. These kind of restrictions would have the added benefit of putting the ball in their court and encouraging a change in behavior. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Bottom line, the situation requires two missing elements: a supervising administrator who can and will block if needed, who can declare page bans or other behavioral restrictions as needed, and what we call a mentor, the equivalent in our context of an editor assigned to a writer; ideally, a good editor has rapport with the writer, and will negotiate between the goals of the writer and the policies of the publisher, including the perceived needs of the readership. The last mentor for NYScholar didn't meet the bill, clearly, and lost patience in spite of having a reputation for patience. Experts are often arrogant, they have some reason to believe that they know better than others, it's a problem experts must face, and they have varying degrees of success at it. The most urgent need is a for a supervising administrator so that the immediate disruption can cease. This would normally be the admin who closes the discussion at AN, but it could be someone else as assigned by that closing admin. This admin doesn't need, at all, to be concerned about content issues, but should be able to address behavioral ones, which can include noticing that there is disruption around an editor, regardless of fault, and acting to reduce disruption with whatever temporary measures may be needed, clearing the way for longer-term solutions that, ideally, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.


 * Finding the mentor, then, can proceed. If NYScholar can't find a mentor willing to be patient with him or her, that would be a sign to NYS that the situation is untenable. The mentor must be willing to read and attempt to understand what NYS writes as explanations, even if long (it's highly unlikely that it takes as long to read what NYS writes as it takes for NYS to write it; further, I've corresponded with some who are highly voluminous in what they write, and if it's more than I can handle, I tell them so and ask that they summarize it. Most will, and then, if I have time, and I see sufficient possible value, I can go back and read the longer missive. Simple tl;dr is often quite offensive; someone has taken, perhaps, hours to write a thorough explanation of something, and it's dismissed in less than a minute. The real reason for tl;dr is, too often, disagreement and an unwillingness to examine the basis for it, not length.


 * I made a comment about this at User talk:NYScholar.--Abd (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Right Whale
No problem. Content like that will always look dubious at first sight, so I thought I'd check before reverting... and found out it was right :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Adoption
No, I don't expect I will be able to help (no more than I expect to have a job or expect that nothing bad will happen to me or my family), but I am hopeful. This seems more a misunderstanding of copyright law than anything else. I think I can help there. He doesn't have to admit to any "wrong" behavior or "wrong" points, but if his behavior changes or his understanding improves and his actions change, I don't see anything bad with that and we all benefit, so where's the harm? — BQZip01 — talk 05:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's a user worth considering keeping and helping back to the point of being more useful within the community. I agree that there is a point where users are not reachable and a long-term ban/block is apropos. I supported such a ban against user:Axmann8 even though I offered to help him quite a bit. The guy simply went off on too many people and left racist comments (though he was an admitted white supremacist). This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one that everyone can continue to edit even if they become a disruption. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, BQZ. The problem is that Scholar's request for another mentor is, IMO, simply another delaying tactic in his arsenal of tricks that has kept Scholar from being permanently banned, despite a significant number of temporary blocks and the various incident reports, etc.  If you don't have time to read the whole prolific history (and who does!) read SlimVirgin's amazing statement at the AN discussion, and Sarah's; it is vividly clear that Scholar does everything and anything in his power so that he can live another day to force everyone, through sheer persistence and gamesmanship, to use his unintelligible referencing system (See Harold Pinter) and to prevent anyone from making changes other than himself.  When I tried to make a few minor changes, he then made dozens of minor changes, burying his reverts of my changes in other edits, so that it is difficult to find the diffs.  He is still always right, and everyone else is still always wrong; his certainty in this is absolute, unshakeable, unyielding and undying.  He has prevented many articles from being improved by the community, and, I am sorry to say, he has demonstrated that he will not change.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, scholar didn't ask me, I came to him. Like I said, I'm hopeful (not necessarily optimistic). — BQZip01 —  talk 07:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Well, I'd say there's hopeful, and then there's delusional" I am an Aggie and I'm hoping for a national championship in football...not in the near future of course, but some time before I die... — BQZip01 —  talk 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Kindly note Shell Kinney's newest postings on the AN. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:I bet you'd like to know
In reviewing this user's unblock request, I think his claim that his user of an alternate account is endorsed by WP:SOCK is very strong. I reopened the ANI discussion. I'm not going to unblock straight away but I support it. While I agree that if this user was being disruptive with this account, a block is appropriate, I don't see how the two quite level-headed comments constitute disruption or anything close. In the meantime, I changed the block to disable autoblocking; at the least, the user's main account should not be affected, there's no reason to believe he's involved in the same discussion under another name. Mango juice talk 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good news and bad news
Steve, I´m glad for your second coming. I trust you received the e-mail with all the references supporting the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier If you devote a fraction the care and attention you put into the BLP of Premier Stelmech, it will be a great work.

I will be writing another CNN iReport on my activities in Kansas City during the Spirit of ´76. My visit to the city was chronicled by the Kansas City Times on September 13, 1976 and November 2, 1976 not currently referenced in the BLP. Some of those activities are online here in a personal iReport on CNN. I expect this material to be considered self-published online information. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-65703

With the media tsunami of information on Michael Jackson, I just learned now on Larry King he started his Victory Tour in Kansas City in 1984, the year I ran for Parliament for the 1st time as an Independent with the Themes: God, Country, Peace, Love, Freedom and the legalization of Marijuana. The current version of the BLP says in the Bids for office Section, it was a hash conviction that motivated me to run. Obviously by the themes it was a consideration, but the light came on with the thought of George Orwell´s book 1984. It was Time.

There have been so many co-incidences or signs in my life, I Googled MJ´s Victory Tour and found this Victory_Tour. Another co-incidence is his previous Triumph tour in 1981 which I just learned about reading the wiki link. Unaware of his tour, that same year I hitchhiked to Whitehorse, Yukon to symbolize the Triumph of the rider of the White Horse in Revelation 19:11 which was chronicled by all Western Canada major dailies, sent on the wire across Canada by The Vancouver Sun and McLean´s Magazine. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted a new iReport on CNN Today, Canada Day. I can only hope it will stimulate intelligent comments by all those who can see in the privacy of their own thoughts, the dire straights the world finds itself in.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-289218 DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to NYScholar
I was reminded today that the incidents which are being discussed on AN had once made it to Arbitration already Requests_for_arbitration/NYScholar. I'm afraid the you'll see the same behaviors described in evidence that we're still concerned with now. I didn't want to edit your well laid-out proposals, so I thought I'd drop you a note :) Shell  babelfish 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Steve for all your hard work and bravery. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The "120-years rule"
Hi Sarcasticidealist Steve (not sure why you changed though; was someone stalking your old profile through Google?). Aside from my answer at Featured article candidates/Bedřich Smetana/archive1, the 120-years allowance is the standard for unpublished works at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ (so I guess it must have some clout within the legal circles). Cheers! Jappalang (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Baird
I have brought your de-archiving against consensus to the attention of the administrators' noticeboard here. Please do not repeat your actions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting the situation. There does not appear to be a consenus.  More importantly, you committed a far worse crime, by removing some of the posts. Nfitz (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I deliberately linked to the discussion, so any administrators wishing to review the situation can draw their own conclusions about what consensus was. But I just reread the discussion, and I'm baffled as to how you don't see a consensus to archive.  Bearcat, Ground Zero, Disembrangler, and I were all unambiguously favour of archiving.  You opposed it.  And you're correct, I did inadvertantly exclude a small comment of yours ("Sorry to restore this ... but someone objected to me adding the comment in the archive, so I've had to restore the discussion. Though archiving a discussion that's still active isn't right. Particularly when discussions that have been here for years are untouched.").  I apologize for that and I'm not sure how I managed it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough ... but I'm still absolutely baffled why we are archiving a discussion that's active. Each time it has been archived, has been shortly after posts were made in the discussion. How can one contribute to a discussion when it is constantly being archived.  Besides, I was simply following the instruction on the Archive page that says "If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.". 4 people have decided a consensus has been reached, and then make attempt after attempt to stifle discussion.  That's not right. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was archived because a consensus of editors felt that there was no longer any need for it to be on the article's talk page, where it was only one step removed from being in the article. And the conversation essentially *was* over; you kept thinking that you had points to make, but no new blood was coming in (despite it having been fairly widely posted) and nobody's opinions were changing. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never seen such a rush to archive a discussion in Wikipedia. If it was slanderous I could see it - but all we are doing is discussing what has been published in major media outlets. As such, the rush to selectively archive this portion of the discussion, while it's still taking place, can only be seen as censorship and bigotry. Wikipedia is not censored. Yet we are trying to censor the talk page. Nfitz (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, your groundless accusations of anti-gay bigotry have grown tiresome. Bearcat is a gay New Democrat.  I'm not gay, but I provide enough information about myself on my user page that some judicious googling would likely lead you to a pretty complete description of my political views, and you'd have a hard time concluding on the basis of those that I'm either biased against gays or for Conservatives.  Please stop ascribing to bigotry what can be explained by a desire to protect a subject's privacy.  Second, on the notion of censorship, WP:NOTCENSORED says "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy...will also be removed".  Now, you don't think that this violated BLP, I get that.  But the rest of us do.  So if by "censorship" you mean "moving information that could be construed as violating a subject's policy to a less visible location", then you're damned right we engage in censorship, and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ?? Your comment makes no sense. I've never made any claims of anti-gay bigotry here on Wikipedia before my one post on your talk page. I'm not sure why you seem to be trying to invent a history that doesn't exist. In addition, I didn't say it was bigotry; I said it could only be seen as bigotry.  i.e. it has the appearance of bigotry.  I suggest you read carefully what you respond to before you respond. Given your lack of credibility on your claims that I have made previous comments about anti-gay bigotry in the project ... how am I supposed to take your word on anything else.  As far as your or Bearcat's sexuality or political leanings ... I see absolutely no relevance in that ... I have no idea why you are raising it. Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I should take your lack of response as an apology for your rudeness then? Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You may take it as an indication that your most recent posts have convinced me that there is little to gain from continuing to interact with you about this. If you stand by your pledge not to de-archive against consensus anymore, I think we're done here, and I'm glad of it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After seeing your calls to have me blocked - without having violated any guidelines; and further considering the rudeness you have displayed in your comments on my talk page that violate WP:NPA, then I think at least an apology is in order. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar
Dear Steve Smith, see. I was not comfortable banning NYScholar, but 75.86% editors supported the community ban proposal. I did what the community wanted. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ouch! That represents a close that misunderstands banning policy and AN/I. However, it might be fine if AdjustShift understands that a closing admin can modify the terms of a ban, since AN/I bans almost never coherently agree on exact terms. I supported a ban, too, but with a supervising admin who could then determine exact conditions. I suggested, for example, that the ban should be voluntary, at least initially, with NYS limited to edits seeking a mentor. Then, if a mentor is found satisfactory to the closing admin, the admin can open up the ban as appropriate. The communication between the mentor might be almost entirely with the mentor, to avoid the problem that NYS can write voluminously. If NYS violates the terms set by the closing admin, then the editor could be blocked.


 * The problem with the idea that the ban was determined by the community, instead of by the closing admin based on evidence, which can then be reversed with new evidence, is that it's very difficult to reverse without another disruptive discussion in a place not really designed to deal with complex decision-making, but only with solicitation of quick administrative response to emergencies. RfC is better; as matters stand, if AdjustShift takes a hands-off, "this was the community's decision, not mine" approach, the only practical recourse left for NYS is ArbComm, which wastes some very high-level time.


 * The "Community" at AN/I, or practically anywhere below ArbComm, sometimes, can be heavily biased toward people who have been offended by something an editor has done, even if that thing was necessary. I filed an RfAr over the failure of an admin to recuse. Preceding that was an RfC, at which two-thirds of those commenting or endorsing comments called for me to be banned. However, when the matter went to ArbComm, those calls were distinctly muted, only a few showed up, and they were ignored by ArbComm, which only gave me proper advice, and which confirmed my two most important points: the necessity for admins to recuse when involved, and the impropriety of using the spam blacklist to control content, aside from actual massive addition of links without consensus, i.e., "linkspam."


 * Then, when I was banned by an admin recently, who was involved, I knew that there was a large community out there holding on to the idea that I'm disruptive. The admin banning me was one who had previously called for me to be banned, and we were directly in dispute over a current edit. Others involved in the situation had also made that call for me to be banned. I knew what would happen if I went to AN/I. So I didn't go there. It was taken there anyway, when I notified the admin that I had decided to reject his right to ban me without allegations of actual violating conduct. (It went to AN/I, not by the admin, even though I was claiming involvement, but by someone else, improperly, in my view, since the dispute had not matured.) And editors piled in to "endorse" the ban. When there were fifteen of them, and only one supporter of my position had appeared (this all happened within a few hours), I asked for it to stop and for there to be a neutral close, which happened, and, of course, as I expected, the close confirmed the ban. Now, Steve, there was no evidence presented with the ban, nor at the AN/I discussion. Almost all votes seemed to be based on "familiarity." I don't have the numbers in front of me, but something like twelve out of fifteen editors who endorsed the ban explicitly or argued for it had previously called for me to be banned in the RfC mentioned, when, quite clearly, I was acting in support of policy and guidelines, as confirmed by ArbComm and with general community support. This case will be going to ArbComm shortly, it's just a matter of getting the evidence together so that the whole thing is clear, it takes time to do that. I did not oppose the ban result at AN/I because there was no way that a consensus *not* to ban could appear there, given what I knew, it would merely become somewhat more balanced, and my editing of one article and its talk page for a month simply wasn't worth all the disruption from a truly contested ban, which would end up at ArbComm anyway.


 * I got a closing admin who does seem to be neutral, and who seems to understand administrative authority. The original ban was indef, actually, with some sort of vague carrot at lifting it in a month if I behaved. The AN/I discussion wasn't clear. The closing admin was asked about the duration, and set it at one month. The original banning admin still asserts that it's his call, but this will be before ArbComm before it is anything but moot. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, this was a community ban. The WP community decided to impose a ban on NYScholar. 75.86% editors who participated in that discussion supported the ban. As an admin, all I can do is listen to the WP community. Sarah has explained what NYScholar should do. He should appeal against the community ban to the ArbCom. AdjustShift (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've opposed this view of "community bans" in the past, but, to my knowledge, it's never been reviewed by ArbComm. It's certainly not documented at WP:BAN. No, the first step would not be an appeal to ArbComm, the first step would be, if we want to be extremely picky, that NYScholar would ask you, AdjustShift, to reconsider. The next step would be to either appeal to ArbComm, one option, which might include an unblock request through template in order to handle the appeal. Or an independent unblock request based on the poor process, which I don't particularly recommend. AdjustShift, you'll have to decide whether or not to remain responsible, in that case. It may all be moot if NYScholar decides to take her marbles elsewhere; I'd not blame her in the least if she does that. In any case, I don't see any opinion here from Steve. My comments here were for him. 75.86% of editors, eh? What's the criterion? Does prior involvement count? Steve, for sure, put a lot of work into investigating the history. How many did that? I can say this: I didn't. I supported the topic ban, and, while I technically opposed the site ban, I supported a variation that started out the same way, as, effectively, a site ban, and it seemed to me that Steve also indicated possible support for this. So if 75.86% supported option A, and, if presented specifically with option B, 85.32% would have supported it, what was the community decision? What, exactly, did the 75.86% support? Editors who have caused major disruption, from ArbComm, have seen six month topic bans, and with even more disruption, a three-month block, I have a recent example in mind. So is the ban an indef ban, or is it pending the appearance of some option that a supervising admin -- or another admin -- might accept? --Abd (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an indefinite ban, which is not the same thing as an infinite one (though in this case, I think that's what it's likely to amount to). If NYScholar could a. indicate a clear understanding of what was wrong with his/her behaviour, b. present an editing plan that i. stayed out of previous problem areas, ii. gave reason to believe that previous problematic behaviour would not be repeated, and iii. included some clear metrics upon which the ban would be reimposed, and c. find an experienced mentor willing to supervise her/him, I could be persuaded to eventually support an unban.  NYScholar has been so stubborn in refusing to admit fault, though, I think that that scenario is likely to remain a hypothetical. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Abd, please read Banning policy. I banned NYScholar because there was a consensus to ban NYScholar. 73.33% editors supported the ban proposal, and they provided solid reasons why NYScholar should be banned. If NYScholar wants to appeal against the community ban, he/she should do what is mentioned here. You can also read my comment here. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with the policy, AdjustShift. I read all of what you point to previously. Now, Steve, if we had an administrator who had closed based purely on the evidence, without reference to "consensus," and who understood the problem with treating specific positive decisions (such as "ban") as being community decisions based on a narrow discussion, a lack of organized evidence and careful review -- which take time, and who was willing to simply take personal responsibility for it, having been advised by the community, we could then work out possibilities for NewYorkScholar. But from what I've seen, AdjustShift considers that the decision was made by the community, and, if I'm correct, therefore this admin could not reverse it or modify it. It would be necessary to go to ArbComm, or back to AN/I. Which is probably too cumbersome. The wiki works best when all decisions are made by individuals who are responsible for them; that's what it means that we don't "vote." I'm not an administrator, but if I were, I would not close any discussion where there was a supermajority appearing like that unless I were willing to take personal responsibility for it. Which would include reversing it if new evidence came to light. I might close a snow discussion without investigation, but, then, I'd investigate if there was reason shown, I wouldn't just pass off all responsibility on the "community." AdjustShift seems to think that bans are something different from, say, AfD, where it's standard practice that if you disagree with a close, you can and should go first to the closing admin. Some, on seeing better evidence, will simply reverse, avoiding much disruptive process. The wiki works by mostly avoiding massive discussions, preferring individual interactions, and it's only when this breaks down that broader discussions are needed.
 * As to NYScholar, what I saw in the last few days is different from what you saw. I saw some level of admission of fault, though it was more visible as a clear willingness to seek a mentor, to recognize the necessity of that, and to acknowledge that she should have taken the problem of the loss of her prior mentor more seriously. In any case, what I was proposing would either succeed or it would fail, if it succeeded, much benefit would accrue; and if it failed, it would have failed gracefully, without any more big flap. NYScholar would simply have been blocked when the closing admin concluded it was necessary, because whatever restrictions placed on NYScholar's editing had not been observed; and, as I suggested, no editing besides that necessary to find a mentor would have been permitted initially. I strongly suspect that NYScholar would have honored "voluntary" restrictions, i.e., that it wasn't necessary to actually block. And if I was wrong ... practically no harm, we'd have ended up where we are quite quickly and without fuss.
 * I've received advice by email that NYScholar was a Truly Bad Editor. Perhaps. I haven't checked. As you know, I'm interested in efficient process that doesn't toss out the baby with the bathwater, and this doesn't depend on the specific facts of a specific problem editor. --Abd (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since AdjustShift was so firm about "75.86%" of !votes, I did the research. See ban analysis. WP:BAN asserts Topic or site bans may be implemented by a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. AdjustShift neglected to consider prior involvement. It's tricky to determine it exactly, but for some of the editors, prior conflict was blatant. For others, it was not so clear. However, my ad-hoc analysis is that 55% of uninvolved editors opposed the ban. If we discount the pile-on at the beginning, which can be "payback time" for any editor who has had a conflict with an "indicted" editor, or who came to a conclusion previously and is now simply repeating it, I come up with 64% opposed (7/11). In addition, when there is such an initial pile-on of editors with an axe to grind (by the way, I don't believe that this describes you at all, though I did treat you as involved), the accumulated weight of arguments can drag along others who don't take the time to investigate, and with an editor like NYScholar, figuring out what is really going on can be quite tedious. I've now spent maybe five hours researching NYS edits, and I can't say I really know. Would you mind looking at that page?

My own opinion is that we should finesse decisions like this. The problem with an indef block is that it's a blunt instrument. Definitely there was a problem with NYScholar, that's not the question. Rather, the issue is how to best deal with it, to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. If we can agree on the best way forward, and if NYScholar hasn't been totally blown away from Wikipedia, we may be able to fix this. (If I had put as much effort in as this editor clearly has, for better or worse, and I were indef blocked in this manner, I'd be reluctant to even touch a log-in under any conditions. I might do it, personally, but only under narrow circumstances where I believe that a broader consensus would vindicate me, and I'm unusual that way.)

My interest, besides some sympathy for how NYScholar must feel right now about this, is blazing a trail, for how we deal with experts and SPAs (who are often quite knowledgeable even if not formally qualified) and COI editors -- the problems can be similar -- is something I consider crucial. And it must be efficient; too often we swing between extremes: it can seem that a block is quite efficient, that deals with the problem! Sometimes! But with a cost. And the other extreme: no block, no ban, and no supervision, so it takes a huge discussion to deal with the problem, and more than once. The original mentoring attempts with NYScholar were naive and inadequate. --Abd (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, if Editor A types "fuck, fuck, fuck" on Editor B's talk page and later if Editor B supports the community ban of Editor A, should I discount Editor B's argument? When I'm determining consensus, I don't simply count votes; I analyze the arguments presented by both sides. Please analyze Steve Smith's rationale, Sarah's rationale, and SlimVirgin’s rationale. I counted their rationales regardless of whether they were involved or not. Their rationales were very strong. If 22 people would have simply said "Just ban the punk", and 8 people would have given solid reasons why NYScholar shouldn't be banned, NYScholar wouldn't have been banned. But, that was not the case. The reasons provided by people who supported the ban proposal were very strong. Abd, what were you doing when the ban discussion was taking place? You opposed the community ban proposal, but you didn't provide strong reasons why NYScholar shouldn't be banned. We ban or block people to prevent disruption; we don't ban or block people to punish them. If NYScholar can convinced the WP community that he can edit peacefully, without causing any disruption; his ban could be lifted. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the arguments by those opposed to the ban seemed exceedingly weak. Most argued merely that bans are an extreme remedy, or, in your case, that bans against experts hurt Wikipedia in general.  Neither of these arguments had anything to do with the case at hand, and, by the way, it is certainly not established that NYScholar was, in fact, a "scholar" or expert of any kind (her former mentor Shell Kinney is convinced that she is not).  In fact, now that I am looking over Harold Pinter closely, I see that she relied very heavily on one source for her most crucial points and often does not give page numbers to other books that she cited.  Did she read them?  The third, and slightly better argument given in opposition (on its face), was that NYScholar was an editor of long standing, who had contributed much to the community.  However, unfortunately, this is a false statement.  In fact, as Steve noted, in almost every case, NYScholar's contributions were disruptive and destructive; she asserted WP:OWNership over every article that I have seen to which she devoted substantial time; and she created a referencing system for most of these articles that is incomprehensible and exhibits a kind of obsession with what she claimed was MLA style, but which, in fact, makes it impossible to actually verify information, principally because of missing page numbers.  Sometimes, one cannot even track which source is being referred to, and you have to click back and forth to her bibliography articles to cross-reference the cites.  Tim Riley and I have done much now to return Harold Pinter to comprehensibility, but we are only about half way through, and then the missing page numbers will all need to be found.  This is all in addition to the techniques that NYScholar used to prevent other editors from editing "her" articles, as described by Sarah, SlimVirgin and others.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The question to me isn't the ban, but how the ban is managed. It seems that your concept of a community ban is that the community makes the decision. My position is that, just as with an AfD, the closer makes the decision, based on advice from the community. Above, you emphasize arguments. Fine. That's exactly what I'd expect from a good close. Instead, AdjustShift, you cited highly questionable percentages, and disregarded the policy's guidance. If WP:BAN were followed, there was no consensus for a ban, and, yes, we'd disregard the !vote of an editor who had been insulted like that. But the uncivil editor would already have been blocked, and if it had been repeated enough, indef blocked. I see arguments like this all the time from admins either charged with or defending other admins charged with action while involved. (There is no such charge here, lest you misunderstand.) It's very weak. However, now you claim that it was the weight of the arguments, and you did originally mention that, and I will assume that you verified that the arguments in question were true. I see no need to worry about that now. There is no dispute yet, AdjustShift, if I or anyone else wants to challenge the ban, you won't have to guess or infer it. You will be asked to reconsider, based on evidence or new developments presented. What I was worried about, here, is what I've seen before: an admin closes based on "consensus," and then, when asked to consider new evidence, declines, claiming that it was the community that made the decision, not him or her. Because editors do hold grudges, and can and will pile in, decisions on banning and unbanning should be made by uninvolved administrators, and, where necessary, based on advice from the community. Going back to AN or AN/I, it can be predicted what would happen, and we see it above, where Ssilvers argues that NYScholar should remain banned because of alleged past misbehavior. I would not propose an unban under conditions that would allow that misbehavior to recur, and to continue a ban based on past misbehavior, under conditions which would prevent that misbehavior, would be punitive. And Wikipedia does not punish. Not legitimately, anyway. --Abd (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Abd, I didn't disregard WP:BAN. Please analyze the arguments of people who supported the ban. Read what BAN says:
 * Topic or site bans may be implemented by a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.
 * WP:BAN doesn't say an admin should always discount the rationales of editors who are involved in the underlying dispute. Sometimes, the editors who are involved may provide solid rationales why the editor should be banned. If Steve Smith, Sarah, and SlimVirgin were to say "I had dispute with NYScholar, he/she is useless ...", I would have discounted such arguments. I didn't discount their rationales because their rationales were solid. They gave solid reasons why NYScholar should be banned. Read what I wrote when I closed the discussion at AN:
 * But, 22 people supported the proposal, and their arguments were strong. The rationale given by Steve Smith was very strong. 73.33% editors supported the community ban proposal.
 * I emphasized the strong arguments of those 22 editors as the reason behind community banning NYScholar. There was a clear consensus to ban NYScholar. If you disagree with me, please contact the ArbCom. Abd, please stop making these disruptive comments, and accusing me of disregarding WP:BAN. I didn't disregard any WP policy; I simply did what the community wanted. AdjustShift (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's up to Steve if this discussion continues, and he can stop this in a flash. Once again, AS, you cite the percentage of total votes as if that meant anything. And you did disregard policy, and, apparently, you are insisting on it, which is troubling, but at this point it's moot, I don't take anyone to ArbComm merely because they disagree with me. That situation might or might not continue. Now stop trying to repress civil discussion; you already deleted my comment from Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, which was pushing it, given your involvement.
 * On the substance, no proposal has been made that the arguments of those who are involved be disregarded. Only the numbers. Considering the arguments of the involved is crucial, in fact, for they are likely to be more informed than anyone else, except possibly someone who puts many hours into researching the situation. "Consensus" refers to numbers, in fact, though our guidelines are a tad unclear on it.
 * AS, you have radically misunderstood my point, and, indeed, the policy. Nobody, not me, and not the policy, says that you should discount the "rationales" of editors who are involved. Considering the arguments of the involved is crucial, in fact, for they are likely to be more informed than anyone else, except possibly someone who puts many hours into researching the situation. You can make a decision in a close, if it's clear enough, that is based on a telling argument by one editor; it would be dicey if it were your own argument, but not impossible. But you wouldn't claim that this was a "consensus." You'd claim it as your decision as the closing admin. What is discounted is the !votes, i.e., the count of involved editors on one side or the other.
 * By narrowly defining the problem and the possible solutions, and by disregarding some of the comments, you turned the affair into a black or white, ban and block or nothing, affair. And then every editor's comment is considered only as a Support or Oppose, and then you can report nonsense like 73.33%. When involvement is considered, as the policy requires and as I did at, there was, in fact, a majority of uninvolved editors who opposed the ban. You may certainly claim weight of arguments, but a review of the situations shows, in fact, that the arguments establish, without doubt, that there is a serious problem that must be addressed, or disruption will continue. Those arguments do not establish that a strict, total, indef ban and block are the best solution. There are other possible solutions; one was proposed and had some important support. It would involve starting out with the practical equivalent of a ban, would allow editors willing to shoulder the burden of supervision to take that on, and would have protected all the editors who had experienced problems with NYScholar. Approaching that ideal is what consensus is about.
 * Once again, AS, this hasn't been formally proposed to you. These are just the underlying principles; many Wikipedia editors don't have the patience to discuss this. I'm here to work this out with Steve, who proposed the community ban. If we can agree, then we'd come to you. If not, you won't hear about this again, most likely, unless NYScholar independently requests assistance. --Abd (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Abd, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It is not my fault that you don't understand what I am saying. I erased your comment at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy because Wikipedia talk:Banning policy is not a place to discuss about the community ban of NYScholar; it is place to discuss about how to ameliorate the Wikipedia:Banning policy page. I'm not just pointing at 73.33%; I'm pointing at the solid rationales of people who supported the ban. You are needlessly disrupting this talk page and other talk pages. If you disagree with the way community ban was conducted, please contact the ArbCom; making needless comments here and there will not help your cause. AdjustShift (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see the problem. You think I don't understand what you are saying. I do. I've incorporated that into what I've written, here and elsewhere, but you may have missed it. Now, is it worth the words it would take to show that? Here? --Abd (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A few points on all of this:
 * I think Abd is drastically overestimating what constitutes "involved". I, for example, was involved in this only insofar as I proposed the ban.  Most of the people commenting in the ban discussion, on both sides, were uninvolved, even if they had crossed paths in the past with NYScholar.  Past knowledge of/experience with the editor does not constitute involvement in "the underlying dispute".
 * AdjustShift has it right on the relative quality of the arguments, in my view. But then, I was involved.
 * I thought User:SheffieldSteel put it well at WT:BAN: "A community ban is an appropriate sanction for editors who have exhausted the community's patience. It seems that gaining a consensus in support of such a ban is going to be problematic at best, if we are to ignore those editors whose patience has actually been exhausted."
 * If NYScholar wants to appeal the ban, in form or in substance, he/she can do so through Arb Comm.
 * I'm not likely to participate further in this discussion unless specifically asked to comment on something, but if you guys want to continue it here on my talk page, that's fine with me. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am only here on your Talk page, Steve, for the purpose of open discussion with you, not to debate with AdjustShift on the ban. There are extensive discussion now at Wikipedia talk:BAN over the issues raised by this close. I can appreciate that you may disagree with the analysis I presented of the votes, but what I think you could agree with is that if involved editors, ones with prior conflict with NYScholar, are set aside as to votes (but not as to arguments, necessarily), the results were not as AdjustShift presented them and the consensus is less decisive than claimed. You were involved, Steve, you had a specific dispute with NYScholar that you were engaged in, if I have it right; there was a reason why you did not simply use your tools, as you could have done. (In fact, I believe, we'd have ended up with a better result if you had simply declared, at the outset, a topic ban for NYScholar, and then had used the display of the Big Stick to encourage the development of solutions that would at the same time protect against further disruption while leaving a door open for the recognition of NYScholar's actual contributions or, in any case, an insurance that future contributions were not disruptive. Generally, I've seen, premature recusal for involvement can be almost as harmful as failure to recuse when challenged; the real key to cases where failure to recuse has been admonished by ArbComm are ones where the admin stubbornly held on, they were not ones where an admin acted in good faith and went to a noticeboard for confirmation when seriously challenged as involved. In a thoroughly refined wikilegal system, any block would be proposed by an admin, but could only be temporary, pending, and a truly neutral implementation would be required for anything longer, but that's further than I'd see we would go in the near future. An involved police officer may arrest upon belief that public safety requires it, but the matter is quickly taken out of that officer's hands.)
 * I will continue whatever you permit of this by email. The case of NYScholar is a sad one, but there are many such sad stories, I'm here only to try to build a discriminating wedge, to help establish policies and procedures, sometimes by pioneering them, that will prevent such dramas from continuing. I think you know me well enough to trust that. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Steve Smith, can you please provide your input at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy? AdjustShift (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo
You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at. Your comments & suggestions are very much appeciated Arteyu ?  Blame it on me !  20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)
I love your FA nomination reason, and your dedication to the topic! -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
No problem whatsoever - my articles have been sitting there unreviewed for so long a day won't make a difference! As someone working for a firm of solicitors for around 50 hours a week I know the intrusion of real life into WP, so no pressure. And I'll reiterate again - brilliant to have you back mate. I always had a healthy respect for you as both a mainspace contributor and a wiki-theorist. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fantastic review :). Any chance I can persuade you to look at my other three articles there? They're all a lot shorter. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2009 June 16
Thanks for closing this, it's been sitting stagnant for a while. Sadly, most FFD discussions that attract more than a couple of replies end up swamped by those who do not understand or not care about our non-free content policies- in such discussions, it's necessary for the FFD regulars to all offer their arguments, leaving no one available to close the discussion. Debates like this are, annoyingly, very common. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked an apparent impersonator
See. The clincher was when he put your signature on a RfA comment. I reverted that, noting the impersonation. I also deleted his user page and blanked his talk page (he transcluded yours). Everything should be reverted, but I wanted to give you the heads-up. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt
Hey,

I was referred to you by Ironholds. I created the article Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt and I was wondering whether you would be willing to review it for GA status.

I self-nominated the page for GA. I also accidentally started the review page, so disregard it if it says somebody has already started reviewing it. I marked the review page for speedy deletion, so maybe you won't get such a notice... small matter, either way. Never mind that, the review page was deleted.

The talk page can be found here: Talk:Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt -- --TachyonJack (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement request formatting
Hello, Thank you for fixing my text in the enforcement request - I am not very good at formatting.  Thanks, 144.189.100.25 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Thanks for your coaching on copyright. More importantly, congratulations for having an article into which you put a lot of time and effort appear as today's featured article on the Main Page! Newportm (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I'm back
Hi Steve, you know me from a while back. :) Please edit this page to remove the "retired" template as it's no longer accurate. For confirmation and some details, check out a thread on User talk:Iridescent. Chutznik (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sent you a PM on WR. Chutznik (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to have you here again
You don't know me under my new handle, have only worked from IP's before, but I know of you from your earleir one and am very glad you're back here. In a major clean-up I've started on Swedish royalty, I'm trying to recategorize 2 Swedish queens (real ones) so they will list like the others chronologically under Category:Swedish queens.

I've tried to put "Category:Swedish queens|Christina 1497" and "Category:Swedish queens|Christina 1604" on their pages (in double brackets of course) but they still won't budge. Christina of Saxony and Christina of Holstein-Gottorp. What am I doing wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I see now that the changes have gone through. I am a bit of an impatient thang re: rsponse time. Anyway, t'was nice to greet you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text for Charles Stewart
No, you did a good job. Some editors might take offense at repeatedly mentioning the color of the subjects' skins, perhaps, but it's fine with me. I did catch and fix 3 purely decorative images (included via templates) that also needed fixing via " ". I hadn't bugged you about that article yet since the infobox patch hasn't been installed yet by an administrator, but after that happens the lead image's alt text should start working. Eubulides (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Costner
Thanks. I had almost gone ahead and done that but wanted to get someone else's support on it because I sometimes end up in inadvertent edit wars over such things. Rossrs had just posted about the section on the talk page and then I was going to suggest removing it when you went ahead and did so. In looking, it's been removed at least three times now, and each time, the same user has eventually returned it. I didn't realize how badly it was skewed until I was looking at the references and writing my comments on it on the talk page. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices Invite
Hi ,

On behalf of Wikivoices, a community podcast based on the English Wikipedia, I would like to invite you (and all the other Board of Trustees candidates) to a round table interview on Skype to be held at 10:00:00 p.m. Friday July 24, 2009 in UTC. The format of this interview will be question-answer style whereby interested members of the community will pose questions to one or all of the candidates involved. If you would like any further information about the process or Skype, please contact Durova or myself on the English Wikipedia. Please be advised that spaces are limited and the sign up page can be found here. We look forward to your attendence at this event. Cheers  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wanted to thankyou for signing up and we look forward to seeing you at the event.  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ashly Covington


The article Ashly Covington has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * NN, fails the GNG, no indication of significant reliable 3d party coverage

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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Stalker & edit warrior
In an unfortunate breach of the Dramaout - so sorry! - I must ask you this now: What do we do with stalkers? This disruptive and uncivil person is making the lives of many of us miserable and has been stalking an excellent contributor and friend of mine for some time on 3 projects. An administrator at Commons just today warned him for perpetual edit warring. An arbiter you and I both know is aware of this also. Any ideas? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

More of the same. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del
Are you on a TOR I.P., by any chance? Because otherwise you should be able to edit semi-protected pages. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. At work though so that might be why. Rootbear75 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Signpost interview request
Steve, I invite you to answer a set of questions for the Wikipedia Signpost about your board candidacy: Wikipedia Signpost/2009 Board elections/Steve Smith. If you choose to do so, please let me know. I also encourage you to respond by 26 July; interviews with all candidates who respond will be publicized in the 27 July issue of the Signpost.

Faithfully, ragesoss (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Global warming swindel
I looked through the talk page after reading your edit summary of the revert, and I didn't really see any conversations pertaining solely to the first line of the intro. What I saw, it appeared to me, was one or two editors who were promoting the article's anti-global warming aspects, and a couple of others trying to ensure that the article states as much as possible that the film is going against scientific consensus. Both of these views are POV and inappropriate. The article should focus on the film itself, not on the question of whether global warming is true or not. That's why the first line is not, as currently written, NPOV, because it is an attempt to present an opinion on the movie's veracity and credibility regarding that larger question. Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:


 * T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
 * WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
 * WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
 * WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
 * WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices
Dear , It would seem that I do not have your skype username as of yet, please email it to me ASAP so that things can run as smoothly as possible on the day.  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:GoldDragon
Edits from User:GoldDragon are constantly slanted in some way, usually in violation of NPOV in one aspect or another. I just had to revert another distortion he added to the Gates article, and a copyright violation from the arrest subarticle that distorts what a BLP actually said. I see from his talk page that you have attempted to deal with this editor before, but nothing has really changed. The user has been editing Wikipedia since 2005 and has had ample time to learn how the place works. What do you suggest? Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If I have to repeat my defense here of the introduction paragraph of Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, so be it. ''The issue is that President Obama, despite the lack of facts, made a statement calling the police actions stupid, so several figures from law enforcement criticized him for taking sides. It didn't diffuse the controversy that Obama also admitted that he didn't have all the facts, it is because he went ahead anyway to make an initial judgment. (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I gotta note that Viriditas has quite a history as well. GoldDragon (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Steve Smith/Cormier
Hi Steve. I see by your contribs you are busy every day improving Wikipedia articles. As you know I have been active in writing articles and discussions at CNN´s http://www.ireport.com & http://www.ireport.com/people/DoDaCanaDa?view=documents&numResults=50 and visit Wikipedia occasionally to see if you completed filling in the script accompanying references 6, 7 and 8 in the subject? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me Steve. I understood that, but I had all the references I land mailed to you uploaded, and e-mailed them to you on receiving news of your return to Wikipedia. I was thinking perhaps you might find the time and inclination to just complete the Early Life and Conversion Section around unscripted references 6,7 & 8. Apart from that one Section you greatly improved, in my opinion, the rest of the BLP is mis-representative and inaccurate in tone and substance.

Enjoy your summer. We haven´t had summer in Ottawa yet. It has been cool and raining every day. Vancouver is enjoying our normal summer and we got Vancouver´s rain. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Stewart
Hi there. I think I'm done with issues on this at FAC. Nice work; check out my remaining comments; and note the use of semicolons in this sentence; they really are excellent workhorses :-) Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing more c/e not needed at this time? → ROUX   ₪  19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Objections?
Although you may have seen clear objections. I haven't. What I've seen is "submit for review", which is very anti-Be Bold. I have yet to see a single argument against the examples themselves. All the arguments are "this needs to be discussed first", to which I say "what is it that you object to?" Again, not a single objection has materialized. Dems on the move (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Steve
I selected you at random from the list of administrators and I hope you might be willing to partake in the discussion at. My concern is that the two people who favor listing current productions in what is supposed to be a general article about West End theatre are ignoring two very clear guidelines cited by the editors who believe the list should be removed. Maybe words of wisdom from an adminstrator can resolve the issue. Thank you. (By the way, it would be great if somewhere in Wikipedia administrators were listed according to their major interests so if someone needs help with a theatre-related issue he could consult the list and find administrators listed under theatre.) MovieMadness (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2009 July 9
I've read through the debate again and, basically, I think this was a bad close- many of the arguments in support of the image are clearly invalid. To take just one example, "Historic image of one of Martin's most iconic roles; rarely shown in color" has nothing to do with the NFCC. The original concern that the physical appearance of Martin in character was unimportant was not addressed, and surely that alone would be enough to delete on. Basically, I'm asking for you to reconsider, or at least clarify, your closure. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say it is the job of an admin to judge the strength of arguments based on policy. That's why it's not a straight up vote- we have policies, and the discussions are an attempt to judge how those policies relate to the specific file. If no accurate demonstration can be given of how the file meets policy, it should be deleted. For me, this sets a dangerous precendent that non-free images of actors in role can be littered throughout the articles on the actors. I will consider taking this to DRV; thankyou for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've raised my concerns at Deletion review/Log/2009 July 30. It's not meant at all personally, I'm normally very supportive of your actions (and ranked you highly in my vote earlier today). J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

United States Senate election in California, 1950
If you'd like to do a copyedit, feel free. If you think some restructuring is helpful, do so, but consult with me please. Thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattsson vandal
Repeated vandalism going on here. Need a rollback and a warning and/or block of the vandal. No other contribs. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Steve,

Noticed you again at the Board Elections this year. It's nice to see some Canadian representation. I respect your goals for the foundation- your business experience is an asset to your candidacy.

Just wanted to say hello, as a fellow Canuck (and Oilers fan :P).

Good luck on the elections.

Perfect Proposal  22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dems on the move
Would you mind explaining this: ? --Reinoutr (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed - I was rather surprised to see that in my watchlist too. Have you seen Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where consensus was to unblock? EyeSerene talk 07:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: this is now under discussion on the above ANI thread - if you could drop in to clarify things, it would be much appreciated. EyeSerene talk 08:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Dems has been unblocked per consensus on ANI. Please explain your previous action as soon as possible in the ongoing discussion. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just came by to post the same thing. I've provisionally unblocked Dems on the move, but when you're back onsite your input at ANI would still be very welcome. EyeSerene talk 10:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. All the best, EyeSerene talk 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gubernatorial
That's how I described Roosevelt's candidacy, but I've been reamed out in the FAC for using a word supposedly uncommon outside the US. On your head be it!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I got rid of Bogie and the Tipton material, with some regret, but I've come to the conclusion that there was no such plan and Tipton was giving the reporter some bull, putting a brave face on an election that was almost certainly going to be lost. Only thing left is the titles.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working with me in such a committed fashion. I really appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request
Thanks for your testimony which exonerated me from the sockpuppetry. I'll try to keep a cooler head on future editing disputes. GoldDragon (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

YCSU Young Democrats
Regarding the above article which you declined to speedy delete. The same article named YCSU “Young Democrats” was deleted yesterday which is why I nominated again. Thanks, --Sophitessa (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob Anderson
Thanks for your post. This is the official biography of Rob Anderson that is being distributed by his office (for which I work) and will be featured on all his official websites. --Eldonm (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki harrassment
Dear Sarcastic Idealist, Off-wiki you made fun of me on Wikipedia Review about the statement from a previous WP edit that it is impossible to register an account on WR using the internet provider Free.fr. Although I do not intend to edit this article further, you could actually check this yourself. At present, to my dismay, I am registered with the email ***@math.berkeley.edu which I never used at registration, only in an email to Somey. I restored the edit after I discovered that various pages on WR were not unavailable for me to view with my login on WR - Somey or Hersch must have pushed some buttons behind the scenes, just as they disabled free.fr. Do you know anything about that? Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2009_July_22
I don't want this to become a trend, but "it's established practice that illustration of album cover artwork meets NFCC #8" is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. A few clueless newbies upload the covers, then a vocal minority defend them- there is certainly no precedent that these images are legitimate, other than the one you've just created. Since when has "substantially different" been a valid reason to keep? Since when has "If the album is notable enough to be here at all, the alternate artwork is notable" been a valid reason to keep? Some of these people are looking for a way to game the system, and you're offering them it. Once again, "the prevailing view of the editors participating in the discussion" is not important- it's not up to people to just say that it is, they've got to demonstrate it. It's hard enough to enforce our NFCC without these closures going in what is clearly the wrong way. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll not be taking this to DRV, as it's a waste of time. All I will be doing is avoiding IfD- you have removed one of the few tools available to myself and others with regards to enforcing our policies. In both cases, you've effectively said "it's obvious that this image shouldn't be there, but I'm going to leave it there anyway"- this is bureaucracy at its worst. In response to your first bullet point, the fact that some newbies include, and then some non-newbies don't remove, unneeded alternative covers does not mean that there is consensus they meet our policies. The fact that something exists on a large scale is not indication that it's ok, which is basically what you're saying. That is not the attitude we need, and especially not the attitude we need with policies like our NFCC or BLP- policies that are deliberately strict, and widely disliked. I don't really understand what you're saying in your second bullet point- I assume I've misread. As for your third, yes, there have been other discussions that have come out wrong. Doesn't mean we need more. This whole thing is just blowing my mind- I can't believe I'm saying this stuff to you, of all people. You know we have non-free content criteria, you know they're unpopular, and you know they need to be enforced. So please, help us. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Howie Morenz FA nomination
Thanks for reviewing the article. I've addressed the brief comments you made on the nomination page, and would like to see what you have to offer in how I can fix up the article. Grammar and the like have long been a poor subject of mine, so if your up to giving a list of suggestions on what to deal with, I'll do everything I can to make it work. I'd like to pass this article on this review and not have to wait through another nomination, as I first nominated the article nearly 2 months ago and its starting to drag on a bit. However their could possibly be a minor hurdle in this happening, as I'm leaving on a short vacation in a few days, though if you can provide a list of things to fix, I'll do everything I can prior to going. Let me know what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure do that and I'll see what I can do on my part. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

File:PeterPan1.jpg
On July 29 you closed a discussion about deleting this image. The consensus was to keep it. Now someone has nominated it for deletion again at. Can you please put a quick end to this? Thank you. LargoLarry (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Wiki
Know anyone level-headed at Swedish Wikipedia? Know anyone who might know anyone level-headed there? There is no management or real administration or arbitration or problem-solving channel (lots of snippy bosses though) so I need help finding a constructive person there. Who is in charge of working under the Wikimedia logo there? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got email, I hope. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not re: Swedes but anyway - sometimes people know whom to vote for in an election, sometimes they are way off base or out bicycling as Swedes do say. Have changed the little notice on my user page to past tense, but didn't know how to keep it as a pretty box with your pic. SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

canadians, hmmph
you are a very rude person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DroolingVegetable (talk • contribs) 01:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for unarchiving.
Hey sorry about that didn't mean to make you repeat archiving.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons rename request
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Sarcasticidealist. Steve Smith (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Hey Steve, I'm hoping to get History of the Montreal Canadiens up as TFA in December for the team's 100th anniversary date, but will really require a couple of good copyeditors to help identify the rough spots. Right now all I am seeing are little C's and H's. Would you be willing to give this article a look for me? Thanks! Resolute 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it, but no need to rush! heh. I hope to have it up at FAC by mid-September. Thanks! Resolute 04:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lol... I don't mind at all. Many of my friends would agree that I am in need of a copyedit.  ;) Resolute 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to see if you think this article is ready to brave FAC? Unless it still needs another good polish, I'm likely to close the PR and nominate it within a few days after one more good look over.  Thanks! Resolute 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your image concerns, and am putting it up at FAC. Your assistance with the copyediting thus far is most appreciated.  Thanks! Resolute 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon vs. Ryulong
For a no-contact model, you could look at the one defined for me and User:ChildofMidnight. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The main story is somewhere in recent ANI archives and in the ArbCom case about the Obama articles. However, the essence of the restriction is here: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently Mythdon filed an ArbCom case that led to Ryulong being de-sysopped, so there is obviously a lot of history and bad blood between them - worse, probably much worse, than there was between me and ChildofMidnight. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that this no-contact thing has worked well. I was rather annoyed about it for a day or so, but it has been easy to follow, as we currently have no articles in common that we edit. It might be tougher for Mythdon and Ryulong, as I assume their bad blood goes back to content disputes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought such things were a great idea, but given that Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision implies that there is no policy under which admins can currently give topic/page bans, I'm not sure how solid the ground is for giving such a ban if it were ever challenged before arbcom (you could always phrase it as a discretionary sanction I suppose). And yes, I do agree it is stupid that it is perfectly acceptable to indef block an editor, but that topic bans can only be made under the wording of a discretionary sanction.   MBisanz  talk 02:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, one detail I should mention: This no-contact restriction was agreed upon by both parties, not just imposed as such. That might make a difference. But it was attached to the broader ArbCom case, hence it's enforceable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We've come up with a wording at the AE discussion itself, with I think enough safeguards and clarity to avoid the need for further questions. Most admins don't seem to be ready to go near this seemingly-endless mess, so it may be you who needs to impose it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Per the log of the ArbCom case, this has now been imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Howie Morenz Peer Review started
After some delay, I've finally been able to list Howie Morenz on Peer Review. As you commented about the prose in the last FA nomination, I was hoping that you might be able to go through the article and offer some suggestions or comments. I'm hoping that after this review I'll be able to submit it for a third FA nomination and have it finally pass. The link to the review page is here: Howie Morenz Peer Review page. Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

Regarding the removal of talk page privileges from Mythdon
I'm pretty certain that banned user's aren't routinely prevented from editing their own talk pages. I have no idea whether or not he deserves to have his talk page editing removed; he very well might have deserved the block extension (or maybe not) but that's not the issue; the rationale seems faulty. I've certainly never seen talk-page-editing-blocks handed down as part of the general terms of all bans. If he was abusing his talk page, that should be noted, rather than making it seem like such actions are matter of course in the banning process, which they are not... -- Jayron  32  04:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Civility
With all due respect, in the past 24 hours I have been called a moron and told not to read Wikipedia because two editors did not agree with my point of view regarding the validity of a statement about Tax protestor arguments. I have been on Wikipedia for a long time, I have contributed several articles, and have never reacted in this manner, however I believe Mateo SA in particular is an instigator and has an overinflated ego. By comments of others on his talk page, I am not alone. Paraplegicemu (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Mr S...
... but I think there's yet another such in your e-mail now. Best to you as ever, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiVoices
Hello,

There is a dispute about the publication of WikiVoices #45 of which you were a particapant. Do you have any comments to add about how this matter has been handled? 99.150.255.75 (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Redirects
Thanks for your welcome message, and fixing the redirects for me - I wasn't expected to have someone looking over me, but appreciate the help. As far as redirects go, I've tried to redirect Alberta Court of Appeal to Court of Appeal of Alberta, but think I somehow screwed up because it doesn't the former doesn't bring you directly to the latter. Could you please double check it for me?

Thanks. Canadian Copy Editor (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing discussion headings
Hi Steve! Hope you are OK. Am I right or wrong here about discussion headings. That user and I both need to be sure. Best to you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image
I am not sure why you deleted the image. Please show how it was not a fair use image, or help me make the case for it if I have done it inappropriately. Is there a way to use the image?--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have uploaded very few things and technology is challenging to say the least for me.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could this be used [] ?--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A rather icky source has some pictures of the subject. Does the source mtter if is a notable person?( The source is Stormfront via yahoo images). Could I email themand ask for them to release the rights?--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If they claim ownership, then how should I proceed? Would we take their word for it abscent evidence o the contrary? If I go to the trouble of contacting them,I don´t want to have wasted my time or would the email address that I left handel that? Kinda icky, I really don´t want toeven log onto their site to find out.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is photobucket any good?--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought flicker and other such sites were released unless the author specifically says they are not. Am I wrong?--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally tracked own the owner of the material or some very similiar. Not very pleasant stuff to wade through: []. I imagine that he really is the owner.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That image is a clear BLP violation. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the I.P. It's possible that a BLP-compliant image could be extracted from that cover, but in any event I doubt that the owner of that site owns the copyright to the images. Steve Smith (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno, The one with the camera is OK. Not sure what the BLP vio would be.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry
sorry, the person who thought me how to edit vandilism didn't know himself that just because something is tagged or is from an ip user, doent mean its vandilism, I found that out later. I'm not blaming anyone but myself, so, I'm sorry. regards-- Orange soda  kid  15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I find people on wikipedia to help create articles?
Hi again,

As you know, I'm trying to create biographies for Justices of the Court of Appeal of Alberta. I've done lots of the leg work, with a list of their names, dates in office, links to sites, etc, but require additional help. How do I go about finding/soliciting/encouraging help? Thanks. Canadian Copy Editor (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Email replies?
You've had mail. RSVP! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Edmonton Mayor Photos
Hey, I was just curious as to where you got some of the pictures of Edmonton mayors you've uploaded. I see you have cited he Edmonton Public Library, but can you elaborate? I am quite interested myself, and would love to know where you got the pictures. Was it a book? Connormah (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. You have done great work on Alberta premier/Edmonton mayor pages, so I'd like to thank you. I am currently also trying to find signatures of some premiers, do you know of any places on which to search? I have contacted the Provincial Archives, but there is a fee for scanning. If there are no other places, there is no problem, I'll just follow through with the Provincial Archives. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll take a look. Connormah (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Accurate News and Information Act
Hello! Your submission of Accurate News and Information Act at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR award
At WP:FOUR we attempt to have all nominators review one nomination to keep the queue to a reasonable length. If you have time please review another nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing my award, and no problem about the extra formatting! I still have some way to go to catch up with you, though... BencherliteTalk 06:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Ruttle Martinez
I noticed that another editor blanked out the AfD - was this a correct move? I would have thought not, but as the closing admin I'll leave it for you to decide if it should have been blanked or not, and if not to rollback to the previous version. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Slim Question

 * I mean no offense, but you are very geographically close in New Brunswick to a part of the problem. What exactly is your interest, and how did you manage to see that edit and 2 minutes later be on my page? With out an explanation, it seems kinda creepy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your email, but was unsure if you meant to suggest that I had harrassed the user you mentioned in some way. I believe it might have been better for you to have disclosed that link before voting there. Any way. I think you´re a fine admin, and a fine person, but I think I will handle it quietly and have my ducks in a row when I get there.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per your request to be notified, I have left a request at CJCurrie´s page requesting more information about the events at SRM.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your copyedit to and comments on Overman Committee. I'll try to get to the comments ASAP, but I might not have time for another 24 hours. Thanks again. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with the criticism, it wasn't harsh at all. I was genuinely surprised by Markles' comment that it's a "well-written article". Bsimmons 666  (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Stewart Cameron The Day After Election.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Stewart Cameron The Day After Election.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock  (T ALK ) 06:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastilysock (talk • contribs)

incomplete deletion
Hi, I just came across List of sea captains which appears to be a sister list to list of naval commanders which you deleted here. If you delete the one, I really don't see why you would not delete the other at the same time. PDBailey (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have argued that this would have been a very good reason NOT to delete this item, that they deletion should have had to make sense first. I think deletion is supposed to make Wikipedia's layout make more sense, not less. PDBailey (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I proposed the captains for deletion and this really bothers me: many respectable editors are arguing for keep without even mentioning that an essentially identical article was deleted. Do they think this is a good policy? argh. PDBailey (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Name change worries
Hello again! I am quite concerned here that the article will be name-changed incorrectly. Apparently some publications of lower quality have misunderstood what the queen's name was, somebody probably one time thought the "l" in Helvig (a practically unknown name) was a misprint for Hedvig (more well known name) and this has spead in some less educated literature in English. These two users are trying to get the error established here on en.WP. Any neutral ideas? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please put a copy of a deleted article in my user space
Back in April, you closed Articles for deletion/List of naval commanders as delete. That AfD has come up in a current AfD, Articles for deletion/List of sea captains. Would you put a copy of the deleted article in my user space? It might help the current discussion, and we might even combine elements of both lists in different ways that would get a consensus. Either User:JohnWBarber/List of naval commanders or any other name would be fine. thanks, JohnWBarber (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul Stephenson (civil rights campaigner)
Thanks for the review. I think your points have now been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again for your considered and thorough review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Block Request
Can you please block 24.67.32.9 - he's randomly putting in lame "jokes" and misinformation in various articles. Canadian Copy Editor (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
Well there was a bit of fighting last night, but generally the article has improved slightly, particularly the lead. I wondered what your thoughts were on how best the article could be aimed at FAC? I was happy to see it only at GA, possibly because I don't want anyone to think that I might agree or sympathise with his political views, but I think it can only get better now, and deserves a shot. I honestly think right now its the most neutral and informative article on Griffin anywhere on the internet, and that's what makes Wikipedia a great project IMO. Parrot of Doom 10:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, thanks for replying so quickly. Parrot of Doom 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC nomination
Hello Steve. I have recently nominated Makinti Napanangka at FAC. You have a critical reviewing eye and comments at the review page would be welcomed. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your queries - I have now responded to all of them, but there was one about which I was guessing a little as to what your concern was. Have a look and see if it's ready for your support. Thank you once again for your copyediting efforts. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Strikethroughs
Thanks for your input. I mainly use strikethroughs for self-reference so I know what I have already dealt with. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Welcome back
Yeah, I haven't been around much lately, been doing a lot of looking stuff up, but not much editing. I've noticed the beta Wikipedia beta layout, that's a much welcomed improvement in my opinion. EDIT: wow, it's been so long I forgot to sign my post Haha &lt;/post&gt; Geek45 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(crap, how do I make an indent?) AHAHAHAHAHA! I don't care about the looks, but the beta editor is what I meant, should've clarified that. &lt;/post&gt; Geek45 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like this? &lt;/post&gt; Geek45 (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. I see. &lt;/post&gt; Geek45 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

License of media in Wikimedia Commons?
What is the license of the pictures/music/whatever in Commons? Are they free to use? &lt;/post&gt; Geek45 (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * right, thank you. Also, I should warn you, that I won't be around much, if at all, during November due to NaNoWriMo. If I am around, please feel free to yell at me for not writing. &lt;/post&gt; Geek45 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did it last year, although, I did terribly, it was still fun. 1692 words in 1 week. I kinda stopped after that. &lt;/post&gt; Geek45 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sex
I like a steamy read, my own last FA featured female impersonators, same-sex coupling, and promiscuity, so nothing snails can do will shock me.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A shell's more like dressing up than role play - you've not done your research  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken reference
In your last edit to Charles Wilson Cross you added a reference. Could you please give the full details of this reference, or tell me where to find them. thank you, Debresser (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing it. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying
Thanks for trying to work on the Kerry slug FA nom. I am very active in Project Gastropods and I have tried to help out with this article especially during the last few weeks, but it is extremely discouraging to me when the nominator himself puts most of his effort into arguing rather than actually trying to fix up the article in response to comments. I will be happy when WikiProject Gastropods eventually gets its first FA article, but I do apologize to you and the other editors involved that you had to deal with all this aggravating and time-wasting kerfuffel. I don't quite know how to circumvent this. I suppose I will have to try to explain to the nominator that this kind of behavior is extremely counter-productive. I have to say that I think it qualifies as "abrasive and inconsiderate" behavior, as described here:. Sigh. If you have any suggestions as to how I can best approach the nominator about this kind of behavior, I would be grateful to listen to what you have to say. Invertzoo (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ray Joseph Cormier
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ray Joseph Cormier. 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 Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier 3. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just want to know if you are still planning on updating this article with the sources you said you have? I saw your 'weak keep' but no comments on whether you still plan to update the article.  I am not pushing but if you have plans in the immediate future to write the article like you have stated in the past it may be weighed in on whether I think it should be deleted or not.  Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, I was going to change my iVote to allow you the opportunity to do the rewrite but I have to admit DoDaCanaDa has me really upset with his behavior. I really feel that this is a vanity article, at least it is by his behavior plus I feel it fails WP:BIO and possibly other policies.  I really wanted to see an article written well that has reliable sources that aren't available on the net like this one.  With his canvassing, the comments on the article talk page, the comments at the AFD, my talk page and this I don't know how I feel.  I would appreciate any suggestions you may have for me because right now I am on the fence about changing my iVote to see an article you would write and keeping it for things I mention above.  If you prefer not to respond I totally understand.  Just say so.  Thanks either way, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting material from talk pages
I understand your point about deletion if there have been no responses. However DodaCanada is aware that I have made reference to his posting to the article talk page in my message about him on COIN. I think this constitutes a "response" -- so that deleting his post is possibly even an attempt to undermine my message there by creating the impression that I am mistaken in at least one of its claims. Would you reconsider deleting it? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Posted on User talk:DoDaCanaDa

Discussion of your actions

Your actions are being discussed here. I'm only notifying you because I'm required to do so and don't have the slightest interest in hearing from you in return, and if you post to my talk page I will delete summarily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Hello, DoDaCanaDa. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It´s bad when I delete from a talk page but OK when someone else deletes from their talk page? Not that I would have posted anything to his page after that message anyway. My writing is not crafted or intended to deliberately irk anyone unless it is warranted. If some are irked by the truth and reality as I see it, so be it.

The concerns Nomoskedasticity brought forward to the COI Noticeboard are not undermined by deleting a redundancy in the article talk page that was not in his original complaint. The citations he brought forward are not affected. It was only after ChronieGal deleted the AfD section I created in her talk page, not having noticed the automated bot message, did I realize it was redundant to have it in the Article talk when it is so prominent in the article. AGF is much talked about on this site so give me a little, please.

The editor who nominated this AfD edited it in the past to be as NN as possible,

Revision as of 16:28, 18 February 2009 Raymond Joseph Cormier

Raymond Joseph Cormier is a self-proclaimed Prophet in Canada.

He has run for a seat in the Canadian House of Commons as an independent, and once ran for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Contents [hide]

* 1 Arrests * 2 Pilgrimages * 3 Politics * 4 References

Arrests

He was arrested on a number of occasions in the late 1970s for disturbing the peace in Downtown Ottawa. He was convicted, and later breached his probation and was sent to jail.[1][2][3][4][5] On the first day of televised debate in the House of Commons, security guards removed Cormier from the gallery.[6][7][8]

In 1985, on Remembrance Day, Cormier was arrested and fined $250 for causing a disturbance. [9][10][11]

Pilgrimages

In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon. Four newspapers and Maclean's wrote stories about his journey.[12][13][14][15][16]

In 1986 he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[17][18][19][20]

Politics

Cormier ran in the 1984 federal election. He received 71 votes out of 40,000 as an independent in Ottawa Centre.[21] He ran again in Ottawa Centre as an independent in the 1997 federal election. He received 91 votes out of 50,000.[22][23][24][25] References

1. ^ "Preacher Arrested on Mall" Ottawa Citizen 3 September 1977 2. ^ Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2. 3. ^ "Emissary from God undaunted", Ottawa Citizen, 22 October 1977, pg 2. 4. ^ "The self-styled prophet hauled off Mall again", Ottawa Citizen, 3 November 1977, pg5. 5. ^ "Mall 'prophet' jailed again", Ottawa Citizen, 5 November 1977, pg 5. 6. ^ "Prophet hauled out of Commons gallery", Ottawa Citizen, 18 October 1977, pg 3. 7. ^ "Gagged protester gets heave-ho", Ottawa Today, 18 October 1977. 8. ^ "Masked protester returns", The Ottawa Citizen, July 15, 1978 9. ^ Jane Taber "'Prophet' fined for shouting at Nov. 11 service", Ottawa Citizen, 3 January 1986 10. ^ "Anti-war speech costs man $250", Globe and Mail, 3 January 1986 11. ^ "Cormier condamné", Le Droit, 3 January 1986 12. ^ Steve St. Laurent. "Visiting 'prophet' no average preacher", Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11. 13. ^ Cathy Lord "Visions compelled search for God", Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981,G13. 14. ^ Leslie Cole "Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style", Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3 15. ^ Nicholas Read "'Divine gifts' inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message", Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981 16. ^ Maclean's Magazine, pg 40 31 August 1981, People Section. 17. ^ Richard Caron "Raymond Cormier sillonne le pays pour precher Dieu", Le Soliel, 28 July 1986 18. ^ Elizabeth Hanton "Prophet sees Canada as the new Israel", The Halifax Daily News, 11 August 1986 19. ^ Sylvia Reddom "Shares Faith With Canadians - Religion More Than Going To Church Says Travelling Born Again Christian", The Charlottetown Guardian, 20 August 1986 20. ^ Emily Dyckson "Wandering prophet shares his faith", The Weekend (St. John's), 30 August 1986 21. ^ History of Federal Ridings since 1867 22. ^ Kernaghan R. Webb Focus Magazine September1984 'RJC: Cormier makes people nervous. Especially authorities.' 23. ^ Elections Canada On-Line | General Information 24. ^ Kathleen Patterson "Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil" The Kansas City Times pg. 3A 13 September 1976 25. ^ Robert W. Butler "Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction" The Kansas City Times 2 November 1976

Steve, you have all the references in front of you. Just try to put yourself in my place as the subject. You cannot edit because of COI. You plead with other editors to come forward to correct and improve the article. Nothing! Silence! What would you or any fair minded editor do? There is no doubt the subject is controversial. The fact that an unknown individual could accumulate so many stories written about his vision over so many years in so many cities and staying on message is significant. Maybe there is some Truth in reference #22

Know this to be true. I am concerned with the facts and the truth as contained in the references to be central to this article. If there is any vanity involved, it is no greater than being able to say, "I´m a Wikipedia Administrator.¨ DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard Reid
Onto the next name on the list, eh? I'll try to get to reviewing the article within a couple days. Incidentally, its a shame the next provincial election is still 2+ years away. You can almost feel how the media wants another classic Alberta revolution with the Wildrose Alliance right now. Resolute 03:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * lol! Good thing the gears of the election cycle have your best interests in mind!  I've been looking at the WAP related articles trying to decide if I even want to wade into that mess. Resolute 03:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've added my comments to the peer review. As I said there, I don't think it's quite at FA-level yet, but it shouldn't take too much to get it there - it's a great article. As for your offer, can I postpone it? I don't have anything at the moment, but probably will soon. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I got there finally. i had one minor query which does not in any way detract from my enthusiasm for an article written so well that there was no possibility of falling asleep. On the contrary, it is a good yarn. well done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review?
If you're not overly busy with your FAC and other commitments, would you mind taking a glance at Manitoba? I've put it up for peer review here. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:File:John C Bowen.jpg

 * I notice you've tagged the above image as being in the public domain, but I'm not sure that it is. Its creator, Illingworth Kerr, died in 1989, so it's obviously not in the public domain by reason of the creator's death date. It could be in the public domain if it's subject to crown copyright and was published more than fifty years ago, but it's not clear to me that it is; that it was commissioned by the government does not mean that it was produced by the government, which is the requirement for crown copyright. Do you have any particular reason for believing that it is in the public domain? Steve Smith (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, what the hell does that mean? Something can be "commissioned by" but not "produced by" the government?  So the only way I can show crown copyright is if I can show that the Minister of Community and Rural Development personally painted the portrait?  That can't possibly be right.  In the immortal words of Mr. Bumble, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass."  Although given the ridiculous and byzantine nature of Canada's copyright laws, I suppose anything's possible.


 * Look, it's clearly a government-commissioned portrait, found on a government website. 50 years ago is 1959: John C. Bowen was in office 1937-1950, and it seems reasonable to assume the portrait was commissioned while he held the office, or at least sometime before his death in 1957.  I think that's a good faith argument that the image is under crown copyright and I think it would be silly to remove the image without some affirmative indication the portrait isn't under crown copyright.  Adam_sk (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the fuss was all about
Hi Steve, I'm not sure why Mikkalai/Antenmann decided to unblank my RfAs, but I think he was prevailed upon to undo that. Maybe I'll look into what happened later. To be honest, at this point more than a year later, it does not bother me if the RfAs are unblanked. Their existence in plain sight caused me emotional grief and real concern regarding private details that I wanted to keep private going forward. However, my use of abusive accounts (of which Mikkalai is probably aware but it didn't directly harm him AFAIK) should not invalidate the premise for the previous blanking.

Since I'm here anyway, I think you should stand for Arbcom. Given that you haven't kicked the habit over three years, it seems likely that you'll stay addicted for three more, and you have the experience needed for the role. I've drafted answers to the questions in my userspace but have not decided to run especially because I have zero chance to win, and don't really wanted the job anyway. Chutznik (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir Manfred of the exploding nymphs
Thanks muchly. Your rationale summarizes the situation much more succinctly than I was managing :-) Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback needed
All the edits to Swedish Royal Family made today by 213.6.124.192 need to be rolled back. I do not know how to do that. They are all mischief. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Broyce Jacobs
I am just doing some basic research on creating an article for John Thompson MLA for Cardston from 1975 to 1986. I noticed that "B. G. Jacobs" nearly defeated John Thompson as a Social Credit candidate in the 1979 general election. I can't find any sources indicating that the Broyce Jacobs representing CTW has the middle initial G. Can you help dig something up? --Þadius (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dug up one mention of Broyce G. Jacobs from Cardston I am little confused as to whether it indicates he is deceased or not. I also e-mailed the constituency office with my inquiry. --Þadius (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to bored talk page watchers
My most recent featured article candidate is in danger of being archived for lack of reviews. More comments there, whether critical or laudatory, would be much appreciated. Steve Smith (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wishwynne
Can you try to explain to this user that s/he needs to add citations for all the information s/he has added to articles? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's a nice explanation.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Manitoba
Actually, it should be ready in a couple of hours, I'm just finishing off the media and culture sections. Once those are in, I'd be grateful for your eyes on it. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, ready now whenever you've got a few minutes. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use Images
Hey Steve, thanks for all your help the other day. I've talked to some people, and it seems they would prefer the fair use route if at all possible. They have provided me with a low res picture for this purpose, so where would I go from here? Your help so far has been very much appreciated.BunnySound (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, is there a specific format I should put the source in? It's from them, so... Wapos Bay Productions? Address or contact info required? Thanks for the tip about only putting the image in the article aswell. BunnySound (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Very helpful. BunnySound (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1937-1938 Alberta Constitutional Crisis
I just read your work on 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt and Accurate News and Information Act. I think that combined with information on Reference re Alberta Statutes, John C. Bowen, William Aberhart, Government House (Alberta), etc. you have the making of a potential featured topic. Have you considered doing a summary overview article for those two turbulent years of Alberta history, or perhaps for all of Aberhart's government? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Bankers' Toadies incident is also relevent. Meanwhile Prosperity certificate, ATB Financial, Canadian social credit movement, Social Credit Party of Alberta, etc. could be considered part of the topic and all need work. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Maryland Toleration Act
I wanted to express my thanks again for the very helpful peer review and copy-edit you've given to Maryland Toleration Act. I'm planning on nominating it at FAC in the next couple days, if you have any further suggestions. Geraldk (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/Nikita_Khrushchev/archive1
Karanacs has asked all reviewers of this article to opine on whether this article is a proper length or should be cut, either by excising material or having sub articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Responses ready on Romney GA
FYI I've completed my responses on Talk:George W. Romney/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin(s) needed
I believe you're familiar with the editor, but not involved in the article Waterboarding. Mind taking a look at this? Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what image you mean
Steve I received the message below

Copyright question about one of your images See WP:MCQ#Is this a free image?. Steve Smith (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what image you mean and what you want.

Terryjoyce (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
FYI, in regards to Q13 at your ACE2009 page: the question is referring to the "disclosure of known alternate accounts" case from less than two months ago (involving The_undertow/Law accounts), which caused a lot of stir. Regards, Jamie  S93  13:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got mixed up – question 14. :) Jamie  S93  18:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, I fail at picking up wit. ;) Jamie  S93  18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

CHU
Any objection to Changing_username?  MBisanz  talk 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Arb queries
Very strange sleep pattern :)

http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Steve+Smith&l=all

How will you work Arb demands around your other real life commitments?

(PS, "leniant" typo in your answer to NYB's question :) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, lately, I can't spell or type :) Inflates my editcount ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Barrington Plaza
Can you see this AFD? You speedy deleted the article but I'd like a chance to let the AFD run and work on the article. I've presented some evidence that there could be notability here. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point now, ignore the above message. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Wolff deletion
I haven't had occasion to look at this article; it was on my watchlist because I know the person in question (from training in teh sme gym). Not sure what the offending BLP content is, but unless his real name is mentioned I don't understand how BLP applies to a "stage name" alias. "Mark" is a hugely successful entrepreneur within the porn industry in addition to being a "gay porn star", running several agencies managing "performers" and producing hugely-successful CDs and websites. Not that that was in the article and it would take some work to source, as is the way with things you know personally but which may not be circulated as part of the presskit. I'm not in the habit of writing porn star/industry articles, it just struck me that this was a fairly important article industry-wise and I'm wondering what was so serious re BLP.....an article on "Mark" is definitely needed; maybe this should go to WP:Porn or WP:LBGT - ?Skookum1 (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

Wikivoices interview
Hi... since you're running for the ArbCom, I'd like to interview you for the Wikivoices podcast series. If you have Skype, it will be easy to do; otherwise, something might be arranged (like my actually paying to connect Skype to non-Internet phones). Let me know if you're interested. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG!
Man, I HATE it when ppl change their names and I don't realize that "person x who I don't know" is actually "person y, awesomely clueful"!


 * waves:::

Happy Thanksgiving, anyhow--good to see you're here, albeit under this s00per-s33kr1t identity...(Actually it does kinda sound like a spy or someone in Witness Protection....)GJC 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Responded at User talk:JayHenry. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt
Ga review done. Great work. I'll keep an eye out for revisions. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Signatures
Hey, thanks! I'll get to those ASAP. One thing, the Greenfield, and Reid signatures give me errors. Could you possibly save them to your computer, and email them to me? (cmahh@shaw.ca) Thanks. Connormah (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting one for Klein. I have seen a certificate, with his signature completely different than that. I'll take a look if I can find anything else. Connormah (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly search for Rutherford, also? I've been trying to get his for quite some time, and they are going to charge me 20 dollars per signature if I use the archives. Connormah (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. I'll get the Reid, and Aberhart up soon, but the Greenfield may take some time. as it is nested pretty snugly in there ;). Connormah (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [[File:Richard Gavin Reid Signature.svg]] How's this for Reid? You can add it. Connormah (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo! I've found Sifton's signature. Apparently he signed the Treaty of Versailles. I'll get it up ASAP. Connormah (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also found Brownlee's, and Stewart. Connormah (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right on that count. Now I'll have to start intense searching for Rutherford. Connormah (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you know if Rutherford signed any specific agreement/treaty or anything? That may make the search less complicated. Connormah (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think so. Manning is going to be another hard one. Connormah (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to tackle Greenfield tonight, too. If not, I'll search for an alternate. Connormah (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Manning, and Greenfield are done. Connormah (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm looking for Rutherford now, believe me, it is very hard. I hope I'll get it eventually, though. Connormah (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had no luck in the remaining ones. I've sent an email to the U of A archives, to see if the University Act has Rutherford's signature on it. Any suggestions of where to look for Lougheed, Strom, or Getty? Connormah (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm looking for Edmonton mayors, too. Any help on that would be appreciated. I've found Bury, and Blatchford's already. I'm pursuing Ainlay, & Hawrelak's now. Connormah (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I swear, Rutherford is the hardest search I've ever done. I've found absolutely nothing. Still waiting for the U of A Archives to contact me. Connormah (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the FA status for Richard Gavin Reid's article. You are great. Who is next on the list? Brownlee? ;) Connormah (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anytime. Out of curiosity, are you looking to make all premiers featured articles? Connormah (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're doing a great job so far. I'll continue to look for the signatures, but it's been getting increasingly hard. I may take a trip to the Edmonton Archives to search for mayor signatures some time, also. Connormah (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can definitely try. I am still waiting for the U of A archives to respond to me, regarding the University Act. Perhaps they can help. Connormah (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, has any of your FAs of Alberta premiers ever appeared on the main page? You should have that happen sometime. Connormah (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finally found Rutherford's after a trip to the Rutherford House. I'll get it up ASAP. Connormah (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And here we go. It took a bit long to find, but I'd say it's worth it. :) Only 3 more premiers to go. Connormah (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For Edmonton mayors, I've got Bury, Blatchford, and Mandel done currently, and Dent, Decore, and Reimer ready for tracing. I'm going to start searching for the earlier mayors soon, like McCauley, Wilson, Gallagher...etc. Do you know of any places where there may be anything? Connormah (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Alexander C. Rutherford
On Rutherford's article, do you think the infobox image should be an actual photo of him, not the official portrait? I've been able to locate a few (1 2 3) decent photographic portraits of him, that may be more suitable. What do you think? Connormah (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Sounds good. I was just wondering, for his signature image that I've uploaded, are the image details correct? I'm a bit unsure on them. Connormah (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't a document. It was a book in the library that happened to have his signature on the inside cover. I have no idea about a date. Connormah (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, some I've been noticing that some Edmonton mayors have missing birth/death dates. Do you have any idea as to where we could find these such dates? Connormah (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion request.
Hey, I've created an article for Joseph J. Duggan. Since I'm not so great at writing, do you think you could expand the article from the biography at EPL? Thank you in advance. Connormah (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: unblock Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
Go for it - that definitely looks like the best resolution to that situation. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for unblocking my account. However, can you be so kind as to also provide a bit of a warning to User:IronDuke who filed the 3RR against me?  He did not revert 4 times, however, two edits of his ( and ) were made a half hour apart, and were exact reversions, rather than simply language variations as my edits were.  This editing behavior is far more in the spirit of edit warring than were the edits I made.  By no means do I think his recent edits warrant a block, but I do think a nudge from an admin would be a good thing.


 * And yes... I definitely take that nudge in regard to myself as well. While I do not believe I violated either the letter or spirit of 3RR, I did indeed push for a style of modification to a section, fairly aggressively, while another two other editors were trying to put in contradictory language.  I should have let "the wrong version" stand for a while, and bring the issue more to article talk before making any further edits to the section in general.  LotLE × talk  09:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rob McDowall
I must say I am very confused and very annoyed that you have deleted this article after my sitting writing it. Last time you said the person wasnt notable. If you read the article, it is different to the last one you complained about before. This is a very impersonal and very unwelcoming site. Especially for a newbie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Np097264 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. I have asked for an undelete, how do I get a proper debate on this? It is confusing, all these links and everything. I am confused with it all. I felt enough links had been provided and people could add more. Doing a google search etc would reveal them all. the last one was more from a personal perspective, this one has gone into alot of detail. Np097264 23:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Np097264 (talk • contribs)

Deletion review for Rob McDowall
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rob McDowall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Np097264 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible William Henry Cushing Signature?
Hey, I may have possibly found Cushing's signature, but I'm not entirely sure. Please look at this petition sheet scan and tell me what you think. The signature in question is the last one, signed 'WH Cushing', listed as residence: Calgary, but lists the occupation as a manufacturer, where as the article about him on here lists him as a lumberman. I'm not entirely sure about this, and would appreciate your input. Thank you. Connormah (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Try searching up "Petition to provide for the extension of the franchise to women on equal terms with men - Part 1" on the Alberta InWord database. The repository is the Provincial Archives of Alberta, and this is page 7. Connormah (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, does this link work? if so, it's page 7. Connormah (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll email you the image. I just want a double-check. Connormah (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, oops, I just sent it. Well, disregard that. I'll have it done ASAP. Connormah (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

userfy Chali_(slang)
please userfy Chali_(slang) page for me.It was a funny piece and i dont intend to repost it on wikipedia... may be uncyclopedia (if not userfy is there any option i can get the text back?maybe u can copy paste it for me...i assure you i wont repost it)Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunwheeler (talk • contribs) 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No rush, but...
I've got a peer review open for someone who surely is one of your favourite hockey players of all time: Theoren Fleury. ;) Would appreciate any feedback you wish to offer.  Would I be correct in presuming you'll be looking to take the 1937 SoCred backbenchers revolt article to PR/FAC at some point in the future? Resolute 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Premiership of John Brownlee
Sure, I'll get to that this weekend. Thanks for the reminder. Connormah (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Wishwynne again
I am beginning to think that this user is a problem. See, e.g., what he/she did today (and on other days) at Lupino Lane. Are all the refs that the user had added to various articles about The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America BS? This person's edits over the past several months seem to be just pushing this organization. Check out their "official website". What should be done? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My friend Wishwynne has been busy at Gabrielle Ray. Please take a look if you can.  I left another warning on the talk page.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Block
I agree. In fact, perhaps you can scale the block back to, say, two months and see if it got her attention? I am guessing that she is a descendant or at least a distant relative of Gabrielle Ray's? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (replying here because you've removed the thread from your talk page) I'm not sure what reducing to two months would achieve. If (s)he shows an interest in constructive behaviour, the block will be a good deal less than two months.  If not, it will be a good deal more.  Is there a reason that you think two months might elicit cooperation better than indefinite? Steve Smith (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool FAC
Thanks for your feedback on The Political Cesspool's FAC. I've taken care of the issues you mentioned, so I think you might want to revisit the article. Is there anything more that needs to be done? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Provincial Archives of Alberta Images?
Apparently, they are wanting to charge usage fees for PAA images that are on Wikipedia. I recieved an email about these, here is a snippet of it "Please note even though images are in the public domain the original is held at the Provincial Archives of Alberta. Therefore we can reserve the right to charge usage fee for them, which we do at a price of $20.00 per image. You have not been granted this permission to publish these images and we request that you remove them."

What do we do? I have asked for which ones specifically. I don't think this makes sense. Public domain and usage fee don't somehow mix. I don't know how to take this up. Connormah (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I think it would be outrageous to delete all images from the PAA. I guess they risk people using them, if there are scans on the internet. Would you like the email address if you'd like to talk it up with them? I'm not really that great at this. Connormah (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll do it right away. I also brought it up on WP:MCQ. Connormah (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Forwarded, to your Gmail address. Connormah (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. It would be definately a bad thing if all PAA images had to be removed. Connormah (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to talk it up with them on this matter, and let me know what they say? I'm not really knowledgeable in that matter. Connormah (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. I also asked them for which specific images they are referring to. I wonder why they are just spouting me for this matter, not all of the other users who have uploaded images from the archives. Connormah (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems they were referring to one of Robert Brett, and 'any other image uploaded without permission', which I'd assume would be all. Did you get a response to your email? Not sure how to proceed here, we should leave them all until a response is made to your email. It still boggles my mind why we need permission and a usage fee to use a public domain graphic. Would you go with the same approach?. Connormah (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think it is anything you two really need to be bothering with. I'd simply tell them that the images are public domain so are free for use.  Tell them that they are free to contact the Wikimedia Foundation if they have any further concerns.  Let Mike Godwin deal with it if they think they can justify charging people for free images. Resolute 02:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, will I get the response, if they choose to do so, as well? Connormah (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they really do have anything to back that up. I mean, I got a reply to an email on Friday. Should we leave the images be until a reply? Connormah (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely think they are not happy. Should I respond to the email telling me which images to remove saying that we won't do anything until we get a reply to the other email? Connormah (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Connormah (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did send them an email telling them politely that we won't do anything until they respond. Maybe that'll prompt them to respond faster. Connormah (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, not sure if this'll help in any way, but when I questioned them on this in a previous email, this is what they said:

"Anytime any photo, image, map etc of our is “published” we need to make sure that the proper citation is provided and that people know where the research is coming from, with this $20.00 you are provided a Letter of Permission which is a legal document stating what rights you have to the scan and what you can and can’t do with it. We charge this fee even to researchers publishing in academic journals, displays and exhibitions, books, publications most of which are not profit educing. We do have a commercial use fee which is $50.00 which is for the purpose of resale, which we provide to people who are using the item to make a profit." Would this help at all in solving this? Connormah (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. We'll just wait for the reply. In the meantime, not sure if you've noticed, but I'm slowly climbing the ladder of getting all Edmonton mayor signatures. You can

see progress here. Connormah (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review for Bankers' Toadies incident
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

David Milwyn Duggan Photo
It was from the City of Edmonton Archives, but I understand that direct linking doesn't work all the time? What should I cite? Connormah (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Undelete request
Could you please undelete User:Southern Texas/Sandbox? I want to see if there is anything useful in it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Images: yes, we need to lift our game, I think
Steve, yes, I seem to be complaining on lots of FAC pages about teensy-weensy images. Images are something WP does not do well, something we've received bad press about recently (NYT?). When we actually can use an image freely, we often squander the opportunity through poor placement/size. We need a task-force to go around fixing them. Sometimes there are far too many images, all of them squint material. There's a tutorial for images, but I need to go check what they've done to it recently. The MoS tells you how to enlarge (I'd use px, not the proportional method); images need to be individually judged for size depending on the level and size of detail, the importance to understanding the surrounding text, the resolution, the images and text in the vicinity (text squash and image clutter can suggest not too large a size for each), and the vertical–horizontal dimensions. Tony  (talk)  14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Vandal
Yesterday, someone edited Roscoe Tanner. It was a couple of small edits, but my spider sense started tingling. One of the edits was to change a year slightly. I looked at the footnote. Reading that article, I found that the original date was the one in the source. I reverted.

I checked the IP editor's other edits and found a similar change to a related article:Fastest recorded tennis serves. I reverted that too, noting that the source has the original date.

Today I find the same editor has changed a year, slightly, in article about which I know way less: Chronological list of men's Grand Slam tennis champions. I think this is a pattern, but I'm not positive enough to do much more. How would you proceed?

Here's the IP's edit record.

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. David in DC (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He re-edited. I re-edited back. But you're right, it's not vandalism, it's a misunderstanding about what a reliable source is. I've apologized for assuming vandalism. Further advice, if it proves necessary, might be better appreciated if it comes from another source than the nitwit who mistakenly called him a vandal. David in DC (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Laurence decore.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Laurence decore.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  06:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hawrelak.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Hawrelak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  06:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
In your answers to ArbCom questions, you responded:

On-wiki, I'm pleased with my closes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) and Talk:Flag of Ireland#2nd Requested move (succeeded), though neither is especially analogous to the dry, sparse writing of Arbitration decisions; my closures resemble court judgments, while arbitrators' motions should more closely resemble statues.

Did you mean Statutes, or are you making an exceedingly clever joke I failed to comprehend? (Actually, I'm mostly trying to prove I'm taking this seriously enough to actually read answers.)-- SPhilbrick  T  17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonus
Well ... since no one reviewed the images, in spite of it being on that list for nine days, you get the bonus ... I think you can be trusted, but I noted the irony, considering how many you reviewed ... I hope you'll keep up the reviews even when you're otherwise entertained. :) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

License ...
For some reason found myself reading your userpage ... Just in case there's ever a moment you should have reason to talk to me ... and have a powerful hankerin' (I've got my mind wrapped around Western motifs at the moment:-) to let loose some branding-iron hot sarcasm ... well, you just go right ahead. If anyone gives you any grief about it, just show 'em this license. lol Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Reply 2 (in case my reply gets lost in your watchlist) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note: I saw your defense of humorous Fat ... The universe smiles. Pefect. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have time...
...I would welcome any comments you can provide on Peter Heywood, now at Peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
Would you consider reviewing Peer_review/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/archive1 Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I advise you to check this editors other contributions; Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations might be enlightening William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've just read the PR page. This nomination is a joke: the proposer insists on adding a POV tag to the article, which disqualifies it. It is currently protected due to edit warring, ditto William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented at User talk:ZuluPapa5. Steve Smith (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Credit where it's due
You've managed something no other Wikipedian has ever done: You've managed to get me to change an oppose to a support. I've changed oppose to neutral, but not to support. Mind you, the real deciding factor was the fact that Moreschi and Future Perfect at Sunrise have unreservedly supported you; two endorsements like that I can't possibly ignore.

Obviously, my vote stands one way or another, but as long as I'm here: I only ask that you keep as open a mind as you can about civility, especially as it relates to other factors like POV-pushing and even quality writing. And I mean that both ways: both where other factors might mitigate incivility, and where incivility might be the icing on a cake of misbehaviours. I pray I'm making any sense. I also do recognize some of your answers to my questions suggest that you are in fact doing exactly what I'm asking.

And by the way, I like civility and seriously wish it were in greater quantity at Wikipedia. The reason I endorse the ignoring incivility method is not because I want to minimize it, but only because I find all the more proactive ways create more trouble than incivility itself. But you probably already knew that.

Anyway, have a great day and all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal plebiscite, 1979
Hi there,
 * I see that you are a major contributor to Edmonton municipal plebiscite, 1979. I was thinking that is would be informative if this Trade and Convention Centre was explained, and a wiki link provided. Do you know if it is the Shaw Conference Centre (built 1983), or the Northlands Agricom (built 1984)? 117Avenue (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Two things
Hi. Don't worry about the block, it made my day that little bit more exciting! Plus it's good to see that admins such as you are quick on the draw when it comes to cracking down on vandals. As for semi-protecting my userpage, that's very kind of you, but don't bother extending the duration; if anything untoward happens after the protection expires, I'll probably be OK dealing with it myself. If not, I know who to call! :-) Cheers. CarrotMan (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

William J. McNamara
Can the William McNamara (mayor) page be moved to William J. McNamara (a redirect to that page)? Connormah (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Connormah (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Flagging again
If you've got 5 minutes before your inauguration (congratulations), you might be interested in this little draft of thoughts: User:Scott MacDonald/Limited Flagging.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
The same to you! KnightLago (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Second the congratulations, and happy holidays. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Happy Fun Land. Do you prefer the Porsche or the Ferrari?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to add my congratulations on the great and well deserved showing in the election! I look forward to seeing your work with the Committee this upcoming year. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was impressed by your responses to my questions regarding conflict on WP. Your assessment was completely on target. I look forward to your contributions!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 03:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now the fun begins. Congratulations.--Abd (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [b]Congratulations![/b] :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh you poor fool... ;) Congrats!  I hope your first term is a little smoother than a certain Alberta Premier's has been...  Resolute 05:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Same to you, fellow Arb-elect :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Steve. Please see MBisanz's advice here. Tony   (talk)  12:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Input request
I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in at Template talk:Infobox officeholder? Connormah (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Time for celebrating is over...


They are not long, these days of wine, roses, and celebration. Let me extend them a bit more with my congratulations. stmrlbs | talk 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Steve Smith's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
--DavidCane (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gavin Reid for Main Page?
Why don't you request Richard Gavin Reid for January 17, his birthday? It'd be interesting to see another AB premier other than Stelmach on the main page. Connormah (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Out of further curiosity, which Premier is next for FAC? Connormah (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When do you think Brownlee will be at FAC? Connormah (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then, good luck, and have a happy new year! Connormah (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing, if you're looking to get more info on Brownlee, there is an interview with him on Alberta InWord, search 'J.E. Brownlee interview (transcription)', if you haven't already done so. It's quite lenghtly, but here is the description as follows:

"Consists of an interview with John Brownlee, former United Farmers of Alberta Premier of Alberta, in which he discusses his early life, career as a lawyer, the UFA government, Henry Wise Wood, Herbert Greenfield, transfer of natural resources to Alberta, prohibition, railways, the Depression, cooperatives, irrigation and banking. There is an index to the interview on pages 144 to 150." Hope this helps. Connormah (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He's across the border but ...
Not an Albertan, but if you get a chance (ha ha), could you take a look at John Diefenbaker? I've submitted it for peer review, and am asking anyone likely to pronounce his name correctly to weigh in. I'm still tidying it up, but it is just about ready to go!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Get ready to add another Premier to your todo list. ;)
God I love Alberta politics these days. Two MLAs crossing the floor today, and speculation of more to follow. Since you are the resident Alberta politics expert, I wanted your thoughts on what it would take to get Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta to GA status. Partly because they are the shooting star of local politics right now, and partly because at just two years old, it is low hanging fruit, lol. I'm rewriting the history now, and will add a policies section. What else do you figure would be needed for a complete article?

And, Happy New Year! Resolute 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. GAs are easy to write, so I don't think I'll have to beg you for a thorough review on this one, but I'll let you know for a quick once over.  Nothing big though.  Between your own projects and having to mediate the rest of Wikipedia's drama, I'm sure you will be busy! Resolute 17:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In re Basboll amendment
Here's how it ended at ArbCom amendments.--Thomas B (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move request
Could you move the article United States Senate elections in Colorado, 2010 to United States Senate election in Colorado, 2010 in accordance with naming conventions? I can't move the page over a redirect. Everyking (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But only one election is being held! It's to fill the seat to which Ken Salazar was elected in 2004. The other seat was filled just last year by Mark Udall. Everyking (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's wrong, and now that you pointed it out I've removed it. I actually know what I'm talking about, and if you'd follow the links above you'd see that I'm right. But all right, let me go find someone who understands this stuff better. Everyking (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Everyking (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley
This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeal
Hi Steve, please could I request your help for a moment, there is a certain editor User:Dbachmann being very uncivil toward me and harrassing me. I'm very concerned with his behaviour toward me, as you can see on my talk page and his, and the article History of Iraq. I noticed you are an eguor admin and appeal to you in confidence. Izzedine 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Block needed
Happy New Year. This persistent vandal, User talk:Jonvvv2 just vandalized Hydrogen vehicle today, despite numerous recent warnings. Would you go ahead with an appropriate block, please? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride 2
Agreeing to hear a case before you even got to hear from the plaintiff? Do you realize how shortsighted that is? @harej 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as shortsighted; I'm satisfied that the case needs to be heard, which will include extensive opportunity for MZMcBride to be heard (I assume that's who you meant - Durova's the plaintiff, and we've already heard from her). Short of demonstrating that Durova's completely fabricated this incident, which she plainly hasn't, I can't imagine what MZMcBride would say that would convince me that this isn't at least worth looking into.  And hell, if he does shock and astound me by providing me with a convincing reason to decline, I can always change my vote.  But that possibility is sufficiently remote that I don't think it's helpful to pretend that there's any reasonable chance of my not accepting. Steve Smith (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the defendant. And thank you for your swift response; it is quite reasonable. @harej 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I entered some remarks into the record. Hopefully they make sense. @harej 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Good to see you. I do remember that encounter, and the RfC that got very little input. The point was as I recall far from clear cut. Congratulations, and thanks for being willing to take on an arbitrator's role. DES (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Gwendolen Clarke
Someone has tagged Gwendolen Clarke for deletion. I am not sure how to respond to this. I thought I'd ask you before doing anything, as I imagine you've been through this with some other articles about municipal councillors you've created. Could you please assist me? Thanks you. Connormah (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you briefly tell me what kind of sources you're talking about before I make a fool of myself at AfD? I can imagine there might be offline sources to establish notability, but otherwise I really haven't been able to find anything.  Thanks—   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 10:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've nominated this article for deletion, the discussion is at Articles for deletion/Gwendolen Clarke.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 03:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly comment on the AfD? 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ
The rate at which you're accepting new cases is nearly laughable. Take a page from the other Arbitrators' playbooks and slow the hell down. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4 minutes ? If you want to replace "rate" with "pace" above, that would be acceptable. I still haven't had a chance to see if you beat Rlevse's record for quickest acceptance, but my guess is that you probably did. As I said, it's nearly laughable. I realize you didn't get the case you wanted from the "BLP deletions" filing, but come on. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The inertial solution to unreferenced BLPs
Hi Steve, I've noticed the recent brouhaha with unreferenced BLP deletions, so I decided to pitch in and help. The last bio I've cleaned up, S. Ashok Kumar, reveals one thing that can happen when a BLP is left unreferenced from 2007 to 2010: Mr. Kumar died in 2009. Chutznik (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná peer review
Hi, Steve! I saw on peer review volunteers page that you have "a willingness to learn about any other country's". Could you, then, if possible, take a look at article Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná and write your thoughts about in its peer review page to how could it become a featured article? Anyway, thank you for your time. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Accurate News and Information Act
Great article Steve! Well done! Lowe4091 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:Peer review request
I figured that you may have been busy, and decided to let you off. ;) I believe the Adams article is in pretty good condition, and may be a bit easier to get to GA. If you can do anything to assist me in this, please do go ahead, however. Thanks! Connormah (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal plebiscite, 1979
I'm thinking that it was the Shaw, with the new information that Edmonton Gardens wasn't demolished until 1982. 117Avenue (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gustav I moved
This move was done today totally arbitrarily and without notice or discussion. Gustav I of Sweden it by far the best name for the English article. I do not know how to revert it. Please help! SergeWoodzing (talk)
 * This has been taken care of now by another user. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

William Aberhart
Hey Steve, I've acquired a book about premiers (and Lieutenant Governors), prepared by the Alberta Legislative Assembly, from the Edmonton Public Library, compiled of multiple sources (newspapers, interviews, biographies, books, etc), and I was wondering if you'd like some help on getting Aberhart to FAC/GA? Also, I'd appreciate it if you can take a look at Talk:Herbert_Greenfield. Thanks! Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, will you be in Edmonton anytime soon? If you will be, I'd strongly encourage you to check out the book I have currently, from the Edmonton Public Library, entitled 'The Mantle of Leadership, Premiers of the North-West territories and Alberta, 1897- 2005. It is a highly informative resource that I'm sure would be helpful for info on premiers. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. By the way, will you be taking Frederick Haultain, as a part of a FT drive for Alberta premiers? Just curious. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ctrl+Alt+Del
Good day, just to inform you I have contested the proposed deletion of Ctrl+Alt+Del due to the fact it would not be an uncontroversial deletion, and that I feel the scenario would benefit from gaining full consensus at Articles for Deletion. Additionally, the proposed deletion was contested in the past before I reviewed it, making it ineligible for the prod process anyway. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Super Bowl players BLPs

 * Administrators%27_noticeboard

Please read and comment on my observation of extensive vandalism to Nate Kaeding's article two weeks ago, and on my request to semiprotect all the articles of players in Super Bowl XLIV for the next two weeks until a week after the game ends. Chutznik (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Case amendment request
Hi Steve, I was wondering what was happening with this. I've identified the articles in need of references as you suggested in light of Radek's request passing. --Martin (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of these stubs look a bit dubious in terms of notability, as it was a preliminary list some of the article stubs were given the benefit of the doubt. However if some of these stubs do in the end prove to be not sufficiently notable after reviewing the sources, then I can certainly tag the articles appropriately. --Martin (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

R.G.Reid
Thanks! No trouble, really! I come from a family of compulsive describers. Conversations go "I saw this girl at the K-Mart checkout. Gee she was beautiful, she had one of those heart shaped faces like Ingrid, you remember Ingrid?.... and great big limpid eyes, like Catherine's, turn downed at the corners, blue hazel..... and strawberry blonde hair that grew up from her forehead in a cowslick...." The description is likely to include her expression, her voice, her hands, her carriage, her state of health, and whether she has ever fed a baby. Part of my role as a teacher was conducting art tours for the blind, and writing suitable educational material. I am enjoying being able to put those skills to use, and could just write alt descriptions all day, if there were not so many other interesting things to do! Amandajm (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Porno passing for history
Hi there again! The porno drawing in this article is irrelevant to the bio in my opinion and is only in there as a slur to the queen's memory. It became "famous" when published in 1987 by tabloid-type tv people, i. e. 200 years after the smutty fantasy events it mocks. Know anyone who might agree that it is inappropriate and is authoritative enough to get it out of there once and for all? I am very liberal about sex, but what if WP allowed this kind of far-fetched stuff - wouldn't their be such drawings all over? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Social Credit Board GAN
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz
Fair enough. Sorry. You seem to say that Kohs' own site isn't a sufficient reference for his own nickname? Seems like it would be. The relevant idea is in WP:SELFPUB. fish &amp;karate 16:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed amendment
Thanks!radek (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lynn Johnston
She lived in Lynn Lake, Manitoba for much of her career, received the Order of Manitoba, and toured rural Manitoba with the Winnipeg International Writers Festival a couple of summers ago. But I'm guessing you realized at least part of that ;) Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious
Hello Steve Smith, I hope you are doing well. :) I am curious about a vote regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Proposed decision. You stated, I see no good coming from dragging this remark into the case. And yet, as of now in part because of the way you have voted on this case, it will be dragged into this case as (unfortunately) passing FoF 6a and Remedy 3. It appears that there is a disparity here between this comment you have made and your votes regarding this issue? Cirt (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian Arbitration case
Hi. In answer the question of why it wasn't brought to ANI, I responded to that question in the Comment from Master&Expert section. Let me know if this is adequate. Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Chabad Arbitration case
Hi, I note that although the Arbcom case was closed, the debate rages on here, with no end in sight. Is this typical in such cases? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Amend Brews_ohare sanctions, or not
Can we wind this up? I think we need a motion, and arbitrators' final thoughts. Brews ohare (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review
Mr. Smith, I was wondering if you would be willing to perform a peer review of the article on Tom Laughlin. I requested the review under the "Arts" heading because his substantial work in film is what he is best known for. However, somebody interested in American politics would suffice and would probably have just as much fun with the article. BillyJack193 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another administrator is now looking at the page and doing a thorough copy-edit, so please disregard this.BillyJack193 (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sollog
Would you mind undeleting Sollog to my userspace? I think I've come up with a new way to troll Wikipedia, and only you can help me! Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

re:
Yes. Yes it was. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ctrl+Alt+Del
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ctrl+Alt+Del. 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 Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of Liberalism
A peer review has been opened for the article Liberalism to improve it to a  Featured Article. The editors are asking for input from experts in the subject, especially regarding the Featured Article Criteria: Is it compelling, comprehensive, well researched, and neutral?

Since you have expressed an interest in this type of subject, you might wish to improve the article by commenting on the peer review, which you will find here.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify
G'day Steve, Can you please clarify your comment:

''Deletion of unsourced (not unsourceable) contentious material in BLPs is policy. It is desireable for the community to develop a process by which this policy can be fulfilled, but the absence of consensus on such a process does not mean that the unsourced stuff gets to stay; WP:IAR should never override WP:BLP.''

"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard."
 * 1) I don't understand your differentiation of unsourced/unsourcable. Are you saying you don't have to try to source contentious material, but it just should be deleted?
 * 2) Are you using what I would think most people would believe the definition of contentious material (controversial, unusual, negative material), or the preferred definition of some in this debate (we don't know what can be considered contentious to someone, so anything unsources is contentious).
 * 3) Finally, if you are leaning the way I think you are, can you explain how the follow section of the WP:BLP policy fits into all of this - should it be deleted from the policy, should it be followed by all, including the deletionist admins, until it is removed by consensus, or is this a bit like the bible, just choose to bits of policy that you want to follow and ignore the rest?

- WP:BLPDEL (my emphasis added)

How can we be expected to follow policy if the policy itself very clearly and explicitly tells us not to do something that ArbCom has commended. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused too. Are you saying that everything unsourced is "contentious" by virtue of the deletion drama? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You assert that all unsourced material in BLPs is 'contentious' and is therefore subject to immediate deletion. This is not policy and does not have consensus, as the recent RfC shows. Please recuse yourself from any motions on this topic as you are plainly not impartial. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, you said "I am saying that the onus is on editors supporting inclusion of material to source it, rather than on editors supporting its removal to demonstrate that it cannot be sourced." I would have thought that the onus should be on ALL editors to source articles.  Why should some users be given a free pass to the easy single button click route?  If we all pitch in we can get the job done.  Have you seen what WP:Australia has done in the last 6 weeks?
 * Having a view that some users can just declare themselves deletionists and not have to worry about that pesky hard work finding sources for articles that may have been written before inline referencing was in place, and in DIRECT CONTRADICTION of WP:BLPDEL is amazing for someone in such a position of power. Should there be an asterix next to BLPDEL saying only "if you really want to" or "not really core policy, although it's in a core policy document". Or maybe you could you maybe highlight to me which bits of the policy are core policy and which bits are only if you want to?
 * As to "provisions should be read harmoniously with one another", I don't think BLPDEL can be any clearer in it's intent. SOURCE first, DELETE second.  I was shocked when I re-read the Arbcom's motion on this issue the other day - I didn't recall it being so commending of the rogue admins actions, but I'm even more amazed now.   I have severe doubts that your selective reading of policy is appropriate for an ArbComm member.  Oh well, I'm off to reference some articles.  Have a nice day. The-Pope (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What Steve is doing here is helping to force a change in policy using his position on ArbCom, while asserting that policy has always supported such deletions. We have always been at war with Eastasia Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

IAR and BLP
Fair enough, though this issue is something you might have to work to convince your fellow committee members to re-evaluate their own positions. Unfortunately, the legacy of that motion will continue to haunt ArbCom until they deal with it. The committee may choose not to deal with it now while it is a hypothetical situation, sensibly, but this issue is going to come back to the committee again when someone decides they do not have to abide by the consensus established in the BLP RFCs. And I would bet that that motion will be used as a justification.

Ahh well... I'm betting you didn't expect all this fun when you chose to run for ArbCom, eh? ;o) I know I'm not a fan of it.  I'd rather focus on writing about dead Canadian heros. Resolute 19:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"ArbCom, like the rest of Wikipedia, does not resolve content disputes." Bravo, man! I literally laughed out loud at that comment. Resolute 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship
Steve Smith --

During the Edo period of Japanese history, the hortatory precepts of the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate were widely known. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the aphorisms of Tokugawa Ieyasu faded from public prominence.

In our unique "mentoring" relationship, perhaps it may be construed as helpful to recall these words:
 * "One who treats difficulties as the nomal state of affairs will never be discontented."

I hope this becomes a helpful reference as we work together and face whatever lies ahead.

Sincerely,

Tenmei (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.


 * One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.


 * Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.


 * Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.


 * Blame yourself rather than others.


 * It is better not to reach than to go too far.


 * — Tokugawa Ieyasu, 1604

Credit where and when credit is due
Nice work. Hopefully you can muster enough support for it to pass. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything uncited is contentious?
I don't know if I'm misinterpreting your statement on Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. There, you seem to be saying that since a number of editor think that everything in a BLP that is uncited should be deleted, that means that everything uncited is contentious. In other words, the "Contentious" qualifier is essentially no longer in WP:BLP. Is that really what you mean, or am I misunderstanding? --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that all unsourced information is contentious; there are plenty of unsourced statements in BLPs that have not given rise to any contention. That is not the case for BLPs that are unsourced in their entirety, however: clearly those are contentious. Steve Smith (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you have an article of 40 sentences, all unsourced, all are automatically contentious. Source 1, the other 39 no longer are? --GRuban (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may interject... I think it is fair to say that the issue of unsourced BLPs as a whole is contentious. An individual unsourced BLP may not be, and I fear losing the distinction between the two will lead to negative unintended consequences. Resolute 14:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree---the problem is that Steve wants to apply the fact that the topic is contentious as justification to allow for specific cases---which has been repeatedly rejected by the community. The subject of unsourced BLPs does generate a lot of discussion, but outside of a minority segment (to which Steve belongs) this is not sufficeint grounds for deletion.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The BNP
Hi, what do you think about :- the British National Party article is locked again, it suffers lots of wars and reverts as you can imagine multiple editors feel strongly about the subject, the article was peer reviewed in Sept 2008, here. I got the idea today that it might at least give the involved editors a bit of a road map towards attempting to actually improve the article instead of warring over such things as wanting to add white supremacist racists to the lede. I saw your name in the peer review list and just wanted to ask you what if any value my idea has and if you think it would have a value, would you have time and inclination to do it? Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not interested? Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, there is no big rush as presently it is locked for about a week, but one editor is blocked and there is no chance of agreement about anything on the talkpage so I was beginning to think that we might as well ask Wknight94 to unlock it and throw it to the wind so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ta for looking, I totally agree with you that the wiki model is falling down for articles such as these, I suggested as a solution for such articles a locking of the articles and a hit squad of independant experianced editors to completely rewrite the article, personally I would lock them then, long term and only allow additions through an independent admin, that imo is the only chance for such disputed articles. I will throw it to the wind again and suggest unlocking, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lewis peer review
Thanks Steve. Made the changes. Abebenjoe (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Question re: Maclolm McKenzie
Good question. I like the book Lords of the Western Bench, but I believe that only goes back to 1905. I recommend trying John McClung's Law West of the Bay. Also, this [|link] might be relevant. Canadian Copy Editor (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
Steve, thanks for the heads up. I have to deal with some work matters tonight, but will have something there for you in the next 14 hours or so - definately no later and certainly less than one day.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Northwest Territories politicians
Hi,

I used various news paper accounts from that period as well as other sources. That was in an era before my writing improved and i started referencing sources better. I could never find anything to truly complete though. I actually meant to go clean up the 1902 article and change the party affiliations to Government, Opposition and Independents and its various permutations some day. It was written on the somewhat false assumption that Government candidates were automatically Liberal-Conservatives and Opposition candidates were Liberals.

This was the first mention i found of Northwest Territories parties and early elections which is what drove me to discover when the early elections were held, because Wikipedia had no information what so ever for early NWT elections at that time.

Also the Parliament website that has MP's and Senators who were MLA's sometimes has party affiliations for that period in their Federal Political Experience. Some articles from the 1898 territorial election mention races being fought on party lines. The Glenbow museum also had mention of communications from the Northwest Territories Liberal-Conservative Association from 1898, although I may have been mistaken as that was probably a federal party communication.

There defiantly was a Northwest Territories Conservative and Liberal party though as this article proves <-- A wealth of information on who was actually in the party, and it hints there was prior conventions.

A lot more research, sourcing and cleanup needs to be done. --Þadius (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Expanding on the Moose Jaw Convention, There were two motions of note listed, one of the motions listed in the article is the censure of the Liberal party for corrupt electoral practices during the previous territorial election and the clear definition of party candidates for the next territorial election. --Þadius (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rutherford was a supporter of the Haultain government. I actually came across an article in either the Herald or Edmonton Bulletin from 1905 that reported how disappointed the Government Staffers in Edmonton were when Haultain was relegated to opposition when the Saskatchewan election results came in.--Þadius (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

arbcom question
I'll freely admit to not having a clue what I'm doing, what did I do wrong on the case? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for the explanation. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 17:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Recusal Policy
Hi Steve

Your comment recusing in the case raised by Guy refers. May I ask you what your recusal policy is? Spartaz Humbug! 17:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kent Glowinski
Hi Steve. I just closed Articles for deletion/Kent Glowinski (2nd nomination) as default to delete per subject request. However, as I closed it, I thought that it might be best if the email discussion was archived in OTRS for posterity. Do you think you could forward it along to ? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 11:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Dick Ebersol
Hi Steve-

My name is Julia, and I work here at NBC Sports and noticed Dick Ebersol's page has very little information on there now. Can you offer any advice on how to get this more current? We recently updated his bio for the Olympics and have many articles that I could I send over as references as well. Let me know, any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Julianyc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianyc (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR of William Henry Cushing
Hi Steve, I have finished the GA Review for William Henry Cushing. I have put the review on hold pending a few minor issues (2 clarifications in the prose and one about adding an image).--Sodabottle (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk or Email
Yeah, it was the long term incivility and bad faith presumption I wanted to discuss, email or talk is fine. I'm not generally uncivil, though direct which some mistake for being uncivil. I wouldn't say I presumed bad faith either. So I wanted to go through what is was lead you to that conclusion. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 07:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note...
Steve, I hope you don't miss this response in the mounds of ever increasing text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Updates made
I think I addressed most/all of your concerns at Joseph H. Allen. Let me know if I need to do anything else.  upstate NYer  00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. I'll do a few more minor edits. I expected to wait a lot longer before anyone reviewed this, so thanks. If you have the interest and the time (though I'm certainly not trying to impose), Union College (New York) will be going to GAN soon. It was (re)written by the college librarian; he also has been donating a shit ton of images (including more than 100 photos he paid me to take). Each of those alone is an epic win in my mind. He also garnered input from a number of other staffers on campus and I've worked with him to get it to what it is now. You should see what it looked like before versus what it is now; quite a change (though we still need to rewrite the lead; it is much too short). And I like your FA overview, especially #10 and note 8. That made me laugh. Best.  upstate NYer  01:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about References for Dick Ebersol page
Hi Steve-

Thanks for all of your information by the way on building a wikipedia page. I am currently finishing up building Ebersol's page and had a quick question for you on references. I have a few articles that I have pdf versions of, but due to them being older I cannot either find the link online for them or they are archived and therefore, need to be purchased. Wanted to get your input on what is easiest and makes most sense in how to actually post these and to ensure that users are able to view these articles I want to include. Let me know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianyc (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ebersol page up
Hi Steve-

I put up all the info on Dick's page and wanted to get your feedback on it. I hope it is up to your standards, let me know if there is anything I can do to make it better.

Also I see this at the top of the bio too: "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (November 2009) " "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (January 2010)"

Not sure what all of that is referring to, but again, let me know if there are changes I need to make to this. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianyc (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TM case sock
You'd be interested in this: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Workshop  — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian Arbitration
Thank you for all the hard work you and the rest of the Arbitration Committee put into the case. Your intervention into what has been a three-year problem is much appreciated! Nightscream (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A question
Hi Steve, I've been some time off (and I'll be for some weeks, I'm afraid, because of personal matters). I've read your analysis of my behaviour here and I deeply regret someone having such an impression about me since. I'd like, however, to ask you for some diffs to answer to, since trying to refute generic statements is really impossible. On the other hand, I don't know how to proceed. Should I include my answers in the Workshop page, here, where? Best regards and thank you for taking time in analysing this issue even if I don't share your appreciations. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Rights
Hi, I noticed your listing at Peer review/volunteers, and thought you might be interested in reviewing the article Cyber Rights. It recently was promoted to GA status, and I started a peer review at Peer review/Cyber Rights/archive1. Thanks so much for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

G7
I was reading which referred to this which was deleted by you under G7. Are you sure it is one author? Sole Soul (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2006 September has 16 deleted edits, all by Werdnabot. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Case Comments
I just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case.

1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate?

2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes.

3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks.

4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:

activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination "Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated

''I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.  So that is three untruths in the same section from you,  Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?''

5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that.

6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again.

The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago, it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Helena Guergis
Hey Steve, since you're the most accomplished editor of Canadian politicians and their controversies, I was wondering, should you have a few moments, if you could take a look at a little edit war I'm embroiled in with Mr.grantevans2 over, among other things, the inclusion of the allegations that led to Guergis being asked to sit outside of the Conservative caucus. It would be beneficial to have a neutral voice offer some comments. Thanks! Resolute 05:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BruceSpringsteenBorntoRun.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BruceSpringsteenBorntoRun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)