User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 19

Tagging
I noticed your bot has tagging issues if the tag you are adding is already present? If that's right I could proabaly help you fix any issues. Depending on the code you use there could be multiple solutions. I'd be happy to help in any way possible. Let me know here, I'm watching your page. Cheers, §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  00:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. My bot uses AWB. Right now, it's at the tagging stage for Afghanistan. The default tag I'm adding is however some have already been assessed for importance. I have a skip if is on the page, I need one if it has importance rated. My bot uses AWB. If you could help me with this I'd appreciate it a lot. Many thanks, Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  00:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm confused. I'm getting that's you're auto-stubbing Afghan articles?  Are you using the KingK plugin or your own module?  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  00:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm just tagging the talk pages of articles with Wikiproject banners. I'm not using any plugin, I'm just doing "Prepend to page", and adding the Wikiproject banner. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  00:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oookay; I see what you're doin'. For just adding the template the KingK Plugin is really useful; have you looked into that?  If you don't like the plugin you could just set it to skip if it contains {{WikiProject Afghanistan| .  That would skip if it has the banner period even if it has class and importance rated. Is that what you're looking for?   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, some pages have {{WikiProject Afghanistan|class=stub}} as well, some have just {{WikiProject Afghanistan}} on them. The bot needs to be able to change those templates to the full while ignoring pages that already have the full template, eg {{WikiProject Afghanistan|class=stub|importance=low}} on it. Any ideas? Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Making an xml file for you.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks a lot :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you email me an address I can send the XML to? PS I have to go in about 5 minutes; but might be back later. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You have email. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  01:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I sent you one but didn't test it enough and it has some flaws. I'm working them out right now.  I have some arrangements tomorrow and won't have internet til 1ish EST.  Everything should be in order by then.  Sorry for the delay!  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats OK. Thanks again :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're on...could you stop by #wikipedia-en-friends on IRC. It's empty right now.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  17:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just awoke, and I went into the IRC channel, and there was no-one there :( Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had to run to the mall. Ping me when you're active.  Did you get the new XML as well?  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I;m not sure what you want me to do, but anything you can do towards mass tagging new articles would be a great help and save us a lot of time and effort. (in the same way a bot creating new articles would). As the bot beginning its run is currnetly on hold anything you can do would be warmly appreciated. Thanks  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       {{sup| $1,000,000? }} 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll contact BAG, I've had a bit of an issue as some tags were added to articles already, such as here. It would ease my task if you could not add the tags to the talk pages yourself, would make it much more simple. However, one question. Are all the ones you assessed for importance, are they at a "Low" importance level? If so, I may be able to do this a fair bit easier, as I was having trouble with skipping talk pages that you have tagged. And I'm happy to tag the talk pages, as well. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

{{User:Steve Crossin/Template:MyDone}}. All pages in {{cat|Afghanistan geography stubs}} have been tagged. I can do it easily for all other pages that are created. :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job mate! There is a bit of talk going on at the village pump currently so there hasent been progress past the 100 articles made for Afghanistan. I am sure that BIO or Fritz or anyone else associated with the project will deffinetely get in contact with you when we need help in adding wikiproject tags on the talk page. Keep up the great work! Calaka (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, let me know when and if the next task is needed. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  02:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Well if we were free to continue with the bot we'd work at each country at a time. But.... I've tried to tag some of the african countries myself but there ar emany not tagged. Burkina Faso currently has some untagged for the first region of Category:Cities, towns and villages in Burkina Faso. Other than this I know a huge number of Brazilian, COlombian, and Argentine articles on municipalities need tagging. The best thing to do would be if the bot ran thrugh Category:Cities by country and ensured that every article is tagged. I think Somalia needs doing too, remember with africa seom are only tagged as e.g Template:Africa Project|class=stub. Whatever we need is to ensure they are all tagged for the sub projects too e.g Template:WikiProject Africa|Somalia=yes|class=stub|importance=|Somalia-importance= etc. Perhaps the bot can read wther pages are tagged. I mean some articles have comments in the talk pages but no assessment banners. Other than this I;d recommmend speaking to User:John Carter who does a lot of work primarily with tagging  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       {{sup| $1,000,000? }} 14:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, are all the articles to be rated as stub class? If so, it makes my task a lot easier :). Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if they have all an importance of low, then I could kill two birds with one stone, and assess them as low importance, as well. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For Africa I think yes, evne the more developed articles for some places in Somalia etc are becaus ethey are so poor a quality and don't evne qualify for a starter article. Most articles are stub class or low importance. If we find larger towns hav been tagged as unimportant later this can be addressed most smaller places are on the lower end of the scale so that should make it easier. Other than this the bot could scan "new pages by Blofeld of SPECTRE" and tag an articles created without tagging perhaos. South Africa and Egypt though obciously have more developed articles than most African places although still far too many stubs, I'll have a look around later and let you know if there are any specific areas. There were many existing afghan settlmeent articles which weren't tagged I know that for sure  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       {{sup| $1,000,000? }} 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah no it would have to be {{AfricaProject|Burkina Faso=yes|class=stub|importance=low|Burkina Faso-importance=low}} and the same for the rest of the African countries ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       {{sup| $1,000,000? }} 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

UserCompare
You mentioned the UserCompare tool when responding to a sock report. Where would I find that tool? Thanks. Doczilla  STOMP!  08:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a restricted tool that you need permission from Betacommand to use. Best to leave him a message and ask. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It took me a while to get round to doing this
Well, thank you very much :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  11:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?
I wanted your opinion on this. Thanks. -- RyRy5 ( talk ) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that you asked for my opinion, but I think it's a little long (took about 15 seconds for about half of the top section of icons to load on my browser)... but I can see it being pretty useful for the ones who can actually load it in a decent amount of time. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I already answered him on IRC. I think you really should unwatch my page Calvin ;-) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Calvin 1998 (t-c) 03:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  03:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Adoption
Hey, just thought I would let you know that I updated the permissions lesson to include the userright "accountcreator", the lesson can be found here. I am hoping to make some large changes to the program and some of the lessons here soon. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Concern
Hello Steve. My concern is that there are people listed in the mediation page Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat that simply are not engaging in discussions in the proposals pages, choosing instead to engage in long, and protracted discussions about the subject of the article and against the policy of WP:NOT in the article's talk page. I do not know why these named parties are not willing to engage in proposal discussions, and cannot be forced to do so as that is voluntary. But if they do not participate, their names should be removed from the mediation page. Please advise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

. Commented on talk page and added soft redirects to alternate talk page.


 * Also note that there is no notice of the MedCab case in the header of Talk:Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I forgot to move it from the Divine Light Mission article. Moved from here to here. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  20:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob Zick
Hi, Steve. I just wanted to notify you that I created the above article.-- RyRy5 ( talk ) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Baseball again.   Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  04:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, more baseball. I'm looking for a good topic at WP:REQUESTS and other Wikiprojects. I just decided to create another article about my best interests again. I'm trying my best to spread my contributions to various places.-- RyRy5 ( talk ) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Yes! Good spot, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's no problem :D Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  10:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

French communes
PLease could you tag all in Category:Communes of Nord with. Thanks I have a feeling a number of the otherd departments haven't been tagged either ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 15:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can do that. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor CTU agents in 24
Hi Steve, a sortable list makes more sense to me, so I reverted your undo. TunaSushi (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That possibly could be the case, but as it's a large change, and I'm not so sure if the manual of style allows that sort of thing in an article (just a sortable table), I've asked for wider input from the project. Also note that the sortable table breaks the links to the page, as you can't add an anchor to a table. Let's see what the project thinks. If they feel it should stay as a table, then it should stay. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look into the redirect links when I get out of work. That should be an easy (maybe) fix. TunaSushi (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A review
Hello, Steve. Since your my adopter, I thought you should see this. Thanks, RyRy5  ( talk ) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright then, thanks, I've seen it. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Useight's comment. Taking a second look at the thread says that they will have to look at it carefully. -- RyRy5 ( talk ) 07:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's up to you, but just be aware that they will look at it with great scrutiny, like Useight said, as you've had trouble with DYK before. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rawat proposals
I suggest that User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1 and User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4 are ready to be added to the article, replacing existing material. Both have been discussed and no substantive objections have been lodged to the last versions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add editprotect requests. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  08:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1 is fully referenced already. It's ready to go. User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4 repeats what is already referenced in the bulk of the article, but I'll add references for the major assertions per your request. The previous intro had over 20 references, which I think was excessive and unnecessary. I hope we can keep the intro streamlined and uncontroversial. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as I was looking over there now I noticed that another editor has made a new proposal, which appears to ignore the previous discussions on the proposal talk page and which is unexplained. How do you suggest we proceed? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did see that. I'd suggest discussion and negotiation continues regarding the new proposal, I can't make the edits if there's another new proposal, however. I have gone and made this edit to the article, a sysop agreed it would be simpler if I made the edit myself. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  09:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to your handling of the Prem Rawat mediation. To announce an intention to choose and insert a proposal on the Prem Rawat talk page and to make that change less than 30 minutes later is outrageous. This is isn't a race. Important changes must be clearly notified to all involved and ample time given for a response to your proposed change.Momento (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your edit summary of consensus, 11 editors signed on for your mediation on the Prem Rawat talk page. Only one WillBeBack commented on your proposal on that page.Momento (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to format my computer, I will deal with this once I'm done. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response to my concerns.Momento (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, just understand how difficult it is to try determine consensus if there is no discussion or alternatives offered by the other parties. Thanks, Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * May I request that the mediation proceed more actively? We have five proposals some of which appeared to have had consensus. Now it's not clear if any of them will get there. Could Steve pick one or two and help us out? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps start a straw poll on the proposals? After the last "incident", I don't think it would be wise for me to try and pick out any of the proposals above the others, i must remain impartial. That said, I'll oversee any such discussion or straw poll. Try to keep working through it, I suggest you send a message to all the participants about the proposals. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  07:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let's try some straw polls. Let's start with Proposal #1. I'll post a strawpoll on its talk page, with notifications all around. Feel free to redo my work if it's not to your liking.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I had't meant for Steve to pick one individual proposal over another. My request was just for him to pick one or two topics for which there are proposals, and to engage in active mediation on those topics. The strawpolls may take care of the problem - I just wanted to clarify my original remarks. On a related note, perhaps the nomenclature of these proposals can be changed, at least in the future? Maybe something like "Topic 3#Proposal B" or even "Proposal 3#Proposal 3.2". "Proposal 3#Proposal 2" gets confusing very quickly when several proposals on different topics are being discussed.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a big help if you'd oversee the discussion at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1. Things appear to be getting chaotic. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, I asked for your help and you told me to use a strawpoll and that you'd oversee the discussion, but you never did. I asked again for your active engagement, and you didn't reply. So far this mediation has been going on weeks, and tens of thousands of words have been written, yet not a single substantial agreement has come of it. How do you think mediation is going? Do we need a second mediator or can you become more active? Should we thank you for your time and efforts, and move on to formal mediation? The methods we've used so far haven't brought any results. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that I haven't been very active in the discussion, I've had things going on. I have been keeping an eye on the process, and haven't ignored it at all. I'm sorry that I didn't reply, however, on the page where there was a straw poll, I did reply. I noted that I wasn't using it as a vote, more a way for me to determine a rough consensus. I know this is a slow process, but it's a difficult one, and it's one that will take time. I feel the idea of "no results", so far, that's a little rough. No article changes does not mean no results. Discussions have taken place, and proposals have been written, which appears to be improving as time goes on. If you wish it, I can become more active on the discussion pages. Additionally, I don't feel a second mediator here, well, to be honest, there are very few mediators that would take on a case such as I have, given it's such a contentious topic. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly appreciate your help, and know what an unpleasant task it is. But if all we're going to do is protect article indefinitely then we don't need mediation for that. What results have you seen that are a result of the mediation?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, while I'll agree that the results haven't been much, I'd say the fact that there has been more constructive and focused discussion on the proposal talk pages is a big plus. It's working towards edits being made, where there is a consensus for them being made. Consensus isn't where everyone agrees, but where everyone can live with the outcome. Regarding the protection, I have my reasons, which I outlined on Jossi's talk page. And, I did get your email from a few days ago, I understand your concerns, and I'll do what I can to be more active as a mediator. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. At the outset you said that your preferred style is to ask questions. Could that work? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It could work, yes. Right now, the style I'm using is a more collaborative one, where the editors more discuss such changes in a more structured way. Additionally, I've been less active in the mediation (and Wikipedia in general), due to real life stuff, such as her and preparing for one of these in a few weeks. I personally like to try quite a few methods of discussion, and I'd even do a Skype chat with all of you, if the parties were willing. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the discussions aren't leading to any conclusions. I certainly appreciate that you have many more important and enjoyable tasks than mediating a dispute among locquacious editors. Let's if this next week brings any better results. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that in time, progress will be made. What would you think of a skype chat? Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  07:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would Skype give us that we don't have in a talk page? If it were conducted the same way as current discussions then I don't think it's any more likely to achieve a result. A structured discussion aimed at achieving a specific result with an active facilitator could succeed regardless of the medium. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a quicker discussion, which could produce faster results? Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1 alone has grown to over 11,000 words. Previous discussion on the same text at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36 sprawled to 5,000 words. How many more thousands of words are needed to get us to a conclusion? I don't think we'll ever get there without active mediation. One lesson we've learned is that getting a consensus among only some of the editors is useless if, at the last moment, another editor suddenly pops in and wants to start over from scratch. So for a Skype chat to be effective it would have to involve all of the active editors, editors who are spread across the globe. Rather than more words faster, could fewer words discussed more slowly succeed? That is, you putting out a question and waiting for everyone to agree to a formulation before moving on to the next point, slowly building up material with complete, explicit consensus among all active parties. I dunno. Perhaps the some members of the MedCom could offer suggestions?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion is getting long, I have no doubts about that. Discussion about content is probably something that should happen, however, I could definitely become more active in the discussions, raising questions, and after this bunch of proposals, or at least one or two, are done, I think we could switch onto the other foot, go back and address the other issues that are on the MedCab page. However, I feel the best way for consensus to be formed is discussion between editors, with me asking questions when necessary. I'll ask a MedCom member, but I think shifting how I oversee the mediation slightly would be better than overhauling it completely. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This mediation began a month ago. We wrote 11,000 words on the mediation page before that was discarded. The five active proposals (including Prop.1) have a total of almost 28,000 words of discussion. Since the mediation started, talk:Prem Rawat has seen another 60,000 words written. That's 100,000 words of discussion in the past month without a single significant agreement about changes to the articles. If you think that a small change in methodology will cause a major change in results then go for it. Whatever works. But if things aren't working then a change, large or small, is necessary. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I've seen a lot of discussion. The discussion on the mediation page (I assume you mean the discussion that was archived?), wasn't discarded, was just moved to the talk page. The current discussions on the mediation page haven't been discarded, just put on hold. I will have a chat with someone from MC. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)
 * OK, "dormant" is better than "discarded". My mistake. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, dormant rather than extinct. :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  12:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IRC - yes, I can get on IRC. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I misunderstood your question. I have IRC, and would be willing to make special arrangements to use it for the purposes of a directed discussion on a private channel. I never participate in public IRCs. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the topic? What's the purpose of the discussion?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like IRC, and I'm not sure that having private conversations is a good precedent. However I'll stop in and see if I can help. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

D13G054NCH3Z
It's just leet for Diego Sanchez. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but when I spoke to them about it, this is the response I got. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  01:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
Hello, Steve. I was wondering if this was a good edit. -- RyRy5 ( talk ) 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's fine. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  01:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion assignment
I've read it a few times and I have started the assignment. I don't think I should continuo since your offline but I tagged this as db-bio. The content was "Marisol was meant for Kyle when she first laid eyes. They should be together forever but it has to start before the end of year ends. The worst part is that they are going to separate schools. This will hopefully make more of a reason to go out now.". If it's deleted, then just click on Marisol_and_Kyle for the reason for deletion. I hope when it's deleted that you trust that I actually tagged it. Please tell me when I can finish the rest of the assignment. Thanks, RyRy5  ( talk ) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I'd say that could be. Okay, continue the assignment like below, okay? Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  07:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright Steve. -- RyRy5  ( talk ) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged a few earlier. I'll list them below in a second. Oh, and happy 4 month anniversary at Wikipedia. :) -- RyRy5  ( talk ) 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagged articles

 * Marisol and Kyle ✅
 * Orgasems ✅
 * Great Yarmouth Pleasure Beach, UK ✅
 * Piggy wiggly    Not tagged by you, I was told
 * That was most likey the one I got into an edit conflict with, thinking that I tagged it. My bad. -- RyRy5  ( talk ) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Naked Brothers Band: The Video Game ✅
 * Emily Jade Hill  would have been better.
 * ZionWorx ✅
 * Eric Edmund Gross ✅

Pilfering
Hi steve, Is it ok with you for me to pilfer some of your adoption course ?


 * Seems like you already did. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  11:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some help or advice, if you don't mind
I'm asking this of you before I take it to any noticeboards or admins. They've got a tough enough time as it is without dealing with fanstuff for a silly sci fi series. All the same, there are some very contentious editors over at the Doctor Who family of articles. I tried to insert some information based on evidence that is directly supported by the episode, and even got one of the dissenting editors to agree with my argument for inclusion last night, but we're back to square one for some reason today. I'll admit, I probably need to cool off a bit, but I trust your insights on matters such as this: what do you think I should do?

The article in question is The Sound of Drums. The debate got pretty active yesterday. Thanks in advance for any help or advice.

Mael-Num (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note, it's already been taken to WP:AN. Someone just started a thread here.-- RyRy5 ( talk ) 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the AN thread to be closed, and I'll have a look at the talk page now. Fill me in on the details? Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  19:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on the other side :-) Essentially, they say that since a character who is the President-elect of the USA is in the story, which also involves paradoxes, twisted timelines and alien invasions, the story must take place between November and January 2008, as that is the way the US political system works. When pointed out that it is likely, or at least plausible (we really have no idea, hence the original research) that the US political system could be changed or different in the sci-fi story, we were informed that that was "pure speculation" on our part.
 * In a nutshell/case :-) ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  19:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, I added a new section here: Mael-Num (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I spotted it. I think you may be interpreting that specific part of the MoS incorrectly, however. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)

In regard to the above
Do you just want me to list beneath the articles whether they were good taggings (since we seem to be having some problems on IRC)? Malinaccier (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. Or if you could, email the contents to me, and let me judge for myself? Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll email em to you. Malinaccier (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (last one is good too) Malinaccier (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Something's seriously wrong here
In regard to the above, the case over at the noticeboard...well that was the last straw for me. Right or wrong, I'll turn a blind eye to bad behavior because I don't want to burden the boards with something I think we could have worked out on our own. The blinders come off when the cuplrit runs to the noticeboards himself, and paints a picture like that. Hopefully we can still work out the content portion of this issue without more administrative oversight.Mael-Num (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't merely about content any longer. I put up another bit at the AN.  Unfortunately, a pre-involved editor rubber-stamped it "Resolved" after dismissing my (well-researched, if I do say) many claims as "taking it personal".  What the hell is that? Mael-Num (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this, but surely strking out my comment, which Mael did, is against some policy? ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it is possible it was an accident, given the edit times. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  21:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How does one accidentally type  and   in just the right place so as to strike out the comment of one you're accusing of naughtiness?! And as for your comment on the talkpage - we've said that. He insists that we need to provide a contrary source as to doubt his argument is speculation. You'll need to do more than what you've done, I'm afraid. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed those tags. Thanks for pointing it out. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  21:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (rolls eyes in exasperation with certain un-named non-admins) Pleasure... Sorry to keep saddling you with this... ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know who you are referring to. Be nice, please? :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep pulling your eyes over the wool, Steve. Mael-Num (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, what does that comment mean? Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Prem Rawat Mediation
G'day Steve,

I just noticed that it is really difficult for anyone wishing to become a new participant to the Prem Rawat mediation to find their way to the right place from the main article. Try to get there manually from the main Prem Rawat article and you'll see what I mean. If someone clicks on 'discussion' and then your soft redirect, they end up at the almost empty talk page of the sandbox article, with no link to the page listing the proposal pages where most of the work is actually happening.

If someone was to go via the Media Cabal link on the protection template of the main article they would also find it difficult to find their way to where the current discussion is happening.

Can you have a go at making it easier for people to find their way to the right place from the main article or discussion page?

p.s. I've just posted a little bit of info about myself on my talk page in response to your posting there. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation process
I understand that you requested to be allowed to make a final assessment if there is consensus for an edit. See this that may be the case, but was performed out of process by Will Beback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, I do not think that protection is warranted at Divine Light Mission. There was no edit-warring activity that would warrant it and was a premature and an unnecessary move. I appreciate your assistance in the mediation but think you may have overreached a bit here. Hope you would take this comment in good spirits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about it for a few hours, and in the situation considering it, I do think it should be overturned. I will do as much now. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

✅ Unprotected. Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks steve, ive been needing to get round to that :)  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »  08:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, no problem. It was an eyesore, I had to do it. :DD Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  08:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * All I have to say is lulz. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My tagging
Hi Steve. I was wondering what you thought of my tagging so far. I was wondering when I should stop also? Thanks, RyRy5  ( talk ) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They seem fine so far. Yeah, stop for now, we will work on policies at some point. Also, have a look at Wikirights. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What is there to see? All I see is Shapiros and you staying, not leaving, getting along, and everything restoring back to place. ;) What else is there to see? Just kidding. :P I saw that already. But it's nice everything worked out. -- RyRy5  ( talk ) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Me pokes RFB :P Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a certain policy. I was looking for the policy that says that you can't !vote on other user's same interests as you or something like that. I was also looking for the policy that has something to do with not allowing two users to share 1 account. Do you think you can show me those? Thanks. -- RyRy5  ( talk ) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no specific policy saying that you can't !vote on something with similar interests as you, its just sort of, well, discouraged, just a bit. Sharing account prohibition is at WP:NOSHARE. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to close Articles for deletion/Bikini Bottom as merge. I was wondering how you merge two article appropriately. I already know pretty much but I would just like your idea of how to merge an article. -- RyRy5 ( talk ) 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Give the AFD more time before closing it, consensus can change. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But I am still wondering about your idea of merging. It could be useful in the future. -- RyRy5 ( talk ) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll talk you through it some time, but not now, I'm very exhausted. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  02:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)