User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 1

Hello there Stevertigo, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hey Steve -- instead of using redirects to sign your talks, why not just use the three tilda trick and set your prefs to show SV (which is probably going to become a disambiguation page someday for things whose acronym is SV)? No biggie - just want to give you a heads-up on how to do things a bit more easily. Try it and ~. Chow! --mav

- thanks! - yeah i was curious about that. SV


 * No Problemo. --mav

depending on one's definition of propaganda and revisionism one could read that either way! hehe Lir 03:49 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

how'd u determine that I was a she?

lol

Hey Stevertigo, this is perhaps a little pedantic, but do you think intuitive understanding should really be just a link to grok? I admit that both topics might make for worthwhile articles; the latter already seems to be one. But it seems to me that the two do not have the same meaning, at least much of the time; if anything, intuitive understanding seems a broader (and more problematic) topic than grok. I propose that we delete the former article until someone wants to write independent content for it. --Ryguasu 23:10 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

Ok, lacking a response from you, I've nominated the page on Votes for deletion. Please object there if you really want the page preserved. --Ryguasu 08:08 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

You're welcome -- and thank you! Slrubenstein

Its like shaolin kungfu, except without the kungfu! Vera Cruz

---

The one problem with that move is that 1871-1914 are really very arbitrary. Vera Cruz

Sv, thanks for your note. It's amazing that we (almost) agree on something. :) Let me know if you come up with any "deep thoughts" about how best to separate the "facts" from the "beliefs". How blatant does the separation need to be? I'm sure there are some potential Wikipedia readers who will ignore every instance of "Raelians think that" and "Rael claims that", and take the ideas and claims as facts. But we of course can't cater to the most careless reader imaginable. I don't at present have explicit theories about how to do this; it's all very case-by-case. --Ryguasu

-

-- I should hope that I have some influence over this article. After all, I wrote the vast majority of its content. I agree with 131 since “New Imperialism” is a very commonly used term in historiography to refer to this era specifically. The introductory paragraphs, thanks to some additions to my original text, make this point abundantly clear almost ad nauseam. The term “High Imperialism” is popular as well in reference to this era, but is less common. The version that he keeps restoring also makes the point that New Imperialism had inextricable links the breakdown of Pax Britannica.

172

I’m not emotionally “attached” to that article, if that’s what you’re insinuating. I simply disagreed with the redirect for the above reasons. I welcome all changes that are constructive.

172

yes, I am not ready to impute bad faith to anyone, I think he was trying to archive some part of the article and messed up. Let's see.Slrubenstein

Mea culpa. I was doing an archival move when someone entered the page, so when I tried to save, it wouldn't let me, when it did, your last comment was missing. I went back to an earlier version and saved that to restore your comments. The earlier stuff was transferred to the archive page, to make more room as the page at that stage was full. Your missing bit should be back. Apologies, JTD 01:10 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

It seems quite a few Wiki people are annoyed at your tone and antics. A queue of people at this stage have emailed me telling me (a) to ignore you, and (b) that if you try to 'vandalise' the page (their words) they will keep reverting and reverting. The pity is, I was told at the start that you were a sane sort of guy, albeit with the odd chip on your shoulder. On Ireland, it must be one hell of a chip! So calm down. Abuse and insults gets you nowhere. I'm too busy to waste my time bothering on pointless arguments. But you would do well to learn your Irish history, if you want to debate it. JTD 01:34 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

- JDT, I frankly find it ironic that you start this whole mess calling my editing (of your crappy, toryist, biased article) to some semblance of NPOV, - as ignorant, and a "2-year olds understanding of history", though dozens of people disagree with you. Now, you tell me that "insults get you nowhere".

You indeed are a revisionist, and an apologist for sheep-loving, Boston tea party hating, conformist loyalists, who cant break from your pride for two seconds to accept a thank you, when you read one. You indeed, sir are a P.A., and no communication between us is further necessary. -

signed ever so sincerely, Steven, Your Mom. --- David Peat when he worked for the National research Council of Canada measured the acceleration due to gravity in very deep mine shafts controlling for all known variables and never came up with the same number twice. He was using the best scientific methodology available and this is what his accurate measurement taught him.Two16 01:10 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thank for guns germs and steel looks very interestesting. Do you know Rats, Lice, and History. Two16 01:17 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Sv, could you please clarify, in simple language even I could understand, whether you object to the deletion of Grain of salt/Poetic interpretations and Grain of salt (philosophical interpretations)? (As you will recall, they are just redirects to pages in your user space.) If you don't object, I'd like to add this information to the votes for deletion page, which currently seems to show more conflict between us (RE these pages) than actually exists. Thanks. --Ryguasu 06:38 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Sv, perhaps I overreacted on Talk:Nature versus nurture. You have a style of writing that, at least for me, is rather ambiguous, and the sum total of your ambiguous comments directed at me has left me with the impression that you find yourself superior to me and disapprove of most of my edits. Naturally, this makes it a little hard for me to look at you and yours in the best possible light.

I hope this is just one of those misunderstandings that inevitably arise in text-only communication, and that we can clear away any brewing animosity. What do you think? --Ryguasu

Sv, it seems you wrote a nice Rape of Nanjing page, but there is already a Nanjing Massacre page, and from that a reference to the book. Perhaps you could just merge any additional details from your page into the existing articles and then redirect it to the Nanjing Massacre? User:Frank Warmerdam.

---

I'm afraid that down under, Labour is spelt with a 'u'. So the name of the article is wrongly spelt. My comment wasn't meant to be anti-American though.Arno

--- I don't understand your behavior in mucking up the Irish famine page? I studied history, including a detailed famine course run in Seattle. The page is exactly the history I was taught. It also matches many of the books I have read on the topic since. I don't understand your disrespect to the Irish and their famine dead. (My great-great grandfather died in the famine, along with two of his children. ) I am based in Ireland now as a computer program consultant. I don't think your views would be taken very seriously here. Why are you doing this? I just don't understand your behavior and think it wrong. Are you working to some sort of left-wing anti-British agenda or do you not know Irish history very well? DuggieH

I understand what happens, when one hits the wrong button.It happens to everybody. Sometimes it is a disaster.

To be very honest the edit war started, and I didn't tune in to what was changing' cause an edit war is ---well who cares? JTL was unreasonable in his actions to me, he wasn't responding to any take on discouse that I might offer finally

This is a C.C.of post I sent to a wikipedian about the edit war:

Of course the  article has gone down hill, there is an edit war going on! I touched the page once(to remove irony qoutes from around genocide). What kind of mind thinks in those terms? 'Irony quotes'. He can see the error of his ways( he doesn't do it, anymore.) It's a suckers game to edit that page. Imho, I have some credibility because I haven't posted; I've subracted mark-up.Some people have lost credibility from their posts. Some people from their talk. Some from their archiving.Some from their logical fallacies. Some for their gutteral language. More than one for their prejudice. Its not the first edit war I've sat through. They don't understand replies to critics. I'm a Canadain: why don't you go and read my posts in talk. 64.229.8.177 It's all day breakfast all winter long.

C.C. ends. Thought you might be like to smile @ this again: I can't say for sure what was on the other pages and doctoring histories serves no moral good; but what I see here is anything but propagandistic gibberish. I don't have to ask what he was doing. It SHOUTTED at me. Stevertigo has delivered an object lesson in communication that will humble you: make you embrace Wikipedian ethos.

I wrote this poem in the style of John Robert Columbo:(an obvious choice for a Canadain  to dispense poetic justice )
 * ===By His Own Petard: Well Hung===
 * It is my belief,
 * perhaps more than a strong belief,
 * of npov supression,
 * through a deliberate policy of man
 * Surely there must be another view?
 * Perhaps ignorance, a common enough sight.
 * Eureka!
 * Ignorance blind must be the cause,
 * 'cause SHOUTTED in his eyes
 * was POV nonsense. named:


 * bogus pov
 * among the fake Irish - living abroad' pov
 * patently false pov
 * It would have been ideal to run directly underneath JTL's post. I simply cannot believe that he reposted your guerilla attack. It is one thing for you to say he sees nothing wrong. It is quite a different thing for him to him to show that he had absolutely no conception of npov because because he saw nothing.  What a maroon!.

Doesn't mav get it:he defended the article. What kind of maroon is that? What is the chance that JTL will: before he embarrasses himself. Accepting that over time articles will tend towards npov, the process can be accelerated by studying npov.If every wikipedian struggled with npov and their belief in their own npov.... 64.229.8.177 timed out very late. the lure of sleep let thizzzzzzzz wait till later
 * bogus pov
 * among the fake Irish - living abroad' pov
 * patently false pov
 * Study npov: Ingrain it.
 * Study logical fallacy (and then he won't make them).
 * Read those posts  or they will trip him up.

I appreciate the support 64... you might choose to create an identity here... It helps communication ... as for mav, well, i dont think he's a maroon- spread thin, certainly- hes everywhere, and some of us doubt the human capacity of anyone to read absolutely everything that he gets involved with - but somebodys got to break up fights... though in all fairness, i dont think he's without faults -nor am i. - my edits - adding the "Bogus" "super" and other adjectives, i did only for the time that i rewrote the genocide section. yes, then Jay calls the real work 'vandalism" and so on... Jay, on the other hand, is quite a horse's ass, but I'm not supposed to say that without reprisal''... You,re entirely right 64... -Sv

Not moron, maroon was once a common name for a sports team. Montreal Maroons won the Stanley Cup in 1924. Pretty sure 24.

Maroon
Maroon is both a gentler and more complex an adjective than moron. The uniforms of any team named Maroon are a beautiful scarlet. Scarlet gets deeper, darker, richer,brighter when wet with sweat or water. This makes Maroons excellent subjects for sports photography. It's downside is most often seen during High School basketball season: any player so incautious as to not shake after his pre-game 'relief' will find his urine stain visible in the highest bleacher. If you are a starting player there is no place to hide.

Well that sure was fun to write. Encyclopedia is a genre of Literature and I've been practicing. :-)

64.229.8.177 216

Threading comments on talk pages.
Hi Steve,

You seem to have some difficulty understanding the way that threading comments work on talk pages. Talk pages are not flat chronological linear discussions; if they were, we wouldn't use indentation. Here is an example of a multithreaded conversation:

Hi everybody, I'm back. --Forrest 12:00
 * Hi Forrest. How was your fourth of July? --Bob 01:15
 * Why is the fourth of July special? --Roderick 02:00
 * We Americans celebrate it as our independence day, Rod. --Forrest 03:20
 * It's the day we got free of you Brits, of course. --Dave 04:00
 * It was good Bob, how was yours? --Forrest 03:25
 * Pretty good, fireworks were awesome. --Bob 04:00
 * OMG I love fireworks. Ours were AWESOME this year! --Betty 04:10
 * What was so awesome about them, Betty? --Forrest 05:40
 * The smiley faces!!!! --Betty 06:00
 * Yeah mine were pretty good too, Bob. --Forrest 05:45
 * Hey honey, give me a call when you get home OK? --Mom 01:30
 * Ok mom, will do. --Forrest 03:30
 * Hey mom, I just tried calling but no answer. IM me when you see this. --Forrest 05:50
 * Hey Forrest. Welcome back. Will you have those reports ready for me today? --TheBoss 01:45
 * Yeah boss, I'm almost done with them now, should be off to you before the end of the day. --Forrest 01:50

Some notable points in this conversation:
 * I replied to Roderick's 2-indented comment with a 3-indented comment, then five minutes later replied to Bob's 1-indented comment with a 2-indented comment under that. Then Dave later put his reply to Roderick above my earlier reply to Bob, despite posting later than me.
 * Similarly, I replied to Betty's 4-indented comment with a 5-indented comment, and then replied to Bob's 3-indented comment with my own 4-indented comment. Then much latter Betty put her response to me response above my lower reply to Bob, again despite chronology.
 * I replied to my mom later in the afternoon, twice, while I replied to my boss immediately mid-day. However, because my mom commented before my boss, my replies to her goes above my boss's comment, even though I commented after my boss did.

On Talk:Time, I posted TWO comments: one "I concur...", in response to Manus' "Yes but time..."; and another, "My only real objection...", in response to your earlier "The retroactive first sentence says...". You wrote what appears to be a reply to "I concur...", but put it indented under "My only real objection...". You say in your edit summary "Your move gives a false impression that your lower comment is a response to my comment", but it does not, if you understand how indentation works; my comment is indented with other replies to your first comment. Instead, your move gives a false impression that you are responding to my second comment, when by all appearances you seem to be intending to respond to my first comment (which I imagine you took to be the first paragraph of a two-paragraph comment, but it is not; they're two separate comments).

Now that you've outdented your comment entirely, it looks like you're just starting fresh outside of the threads, and that's fine. But the way you originally posted broke the threading. "Proper chronological order" is not proper, because Wiki talk pages are not strictly chronological, they are threaded. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all of that, and as you well know Ive been editing here for ten years now, and know full well what indenting is. More to the point, I know that indenting has a purpose secondary to chronology - comments are primarily ordered chronologically. I understand that I may have indented my comment, and that gave you a false impression, and I apologise for that. But chronology is primary, and readers can decide what comments respond to which other comments. Its true that indents serve to indicate these kinds of responses, but before they do that indents simply indicate that a subsequent comment is separate from an above comment. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 16:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, would you want to check out this ANI and comment if you like? 71.169.190.154 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)