User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 15

Reporter looking for Wiki Mediators
I’m working on a story proposal about the challenges of administering controversial or ideologically charged Wikipedia pages. It seems like you've done a lot of this sort of thing. Anyway, I’m really interested in talking to you regarding some of these issues. Would you be willing to talk to me? You can get me here: matt.phillips@wsj.com

Bible changes might be deleted because it is empty
A tag has been placed on Bible changes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Need some illustrations
Roman-Spartan War has three external images below the infobox. However, it would look better if these could be replaced by illustrations (to keep it simple: black and white, not color). There is some information written to the external images and I can provide you with more fom Osprey and other illustrated books on the era. Would you be interested? (Please answer at my talk page) Wandalstouring 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Space suit
Your removal of the disambiguation notice at the top of Space suit has been reverted. Given the significant notability of the band, this is a helpful disambiguation link, not spam. — Swpb talk contribs 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the disambiguation notice at the top of Space suit is not spam. — Swpb talk contribs 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What policy are you referring to? The existing notice was perfectly acceptable.  The disambiguation page is unnecessary, as only one page with the name actually exists.  I don't think you're aware of what constitutes linkspam - the addition of external links to direct users to an outside product or service.  Disambiguating a plausible search phrase is not linkspam.  I believe it is you who are unfamiliar with the relevant policies. — Swpb talk contribs 05:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF - my position is not a "promotional" one; I'm not a fan (or promoter for that matter) of the band in question. The difference between Space suit and Frankfurt is that Frankfurt actually requires a seperate disambiguation page, because multiple articles which would have the title Frankfurt exist. The same is obviously true of Smith. This is not the case with Space suit.  Because you already created the Space suit (disambiguation) page, which may expand in the future, I don't see a reason to change it back, but I also don't see a good reason for the original change.  Also, your original redlink ("a TMBG song") and lack of description of either term was very sloppy.  If you insist on creating disambiguation pages for topics that don't require them, please at least do it right, and with clear edit summaries. Try reading WP:MOSDAB for starters.— Swpb talk contribs 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
We're the #1 hit for "lede text" on Google, beating out the entire rest of the internet:. Hahahaha! See you back at the RfM.&mdash;Perceval 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Yahweh (disambiguation)
An editor has nominated Yahweh (disambiguation), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mediation" of soundbites?
Hello. Just after receiving two, three or four (depending on how one counts) responses of medium length over at Talk:African American Vernacular English, you've responded: Did I not ask above for "a sentence or two?". Yes indeed you did. More precisely, you asked for a sentence or two to explain one's reasoning (my emphasis). As I mentioned, I was puzzled by your request as a whole, because you appeared to be asking for a recap of what had already been done to death on, and what (I thought) was obvious from, the very page on which you were asking. That puzzlement aside, Wikipedia is not (I hope) CNN or "Fox News": intelligent discussion of policies for encyclopedia articles requires more than an exchange of slogans or soundbites, and I judged that more than two sentences were required for an exposition of anybody's reasoning. While I disagree with much of what the next answer said, I have no criticism of its length: reading it and thinking through its implications took me two minutes or so. If each of the four people writes a reply whose digestion would take five minutes, would the sum of twenty minutes be too much to ask of a mediator? -- Hoary 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand that you are busy, but I have to say I now realize that I understand less about mediation than I thought I did when I signed my agreement to it. Indeed, I start to wonder if I was misinformed. For I'd read here that ''the parties will be contacted and given the opportunity to make their case in full. It is at this point in the process that the parties set out their sides in full detail ''(my emphases). Further, To be a good mediator you must be a good listener. &para; Perhaps I misread this, but it suggests to me that you volunteered for this as the sixth in a row of mediations, now all open. Are you prepared to read and consider subtleties within arguments? (That you say you are sort of jumping past the various points of view makes me wonder.) If not, I don't understand the rush to jump in: this also says that an agreement from a mediator to mediate the case [...] comes at the mediator's discretion, generally within two to four weeks after the initial acceptance. &para; I hope I have misunderstood your approach to mediation; I look forward to being proven wrong. -- Hoary 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

New Great Game
Hi, I reverted your edits to New Great Game along with a few edits before that. Am I right to assume you added the sources template because of the claim that the CIA funded Al Qaeda? I just went through a series of reverts with User:Cs over this claim and I would rather not revive this dispute. If you wish to pursue this then please contact Cs on his talkpage. Regards, KazakhPol 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious significance split
I do not support the split especially at this time. Edits have not been resolved, and thus splitting the article has been done prematurely. I understand I was away from some time, but I do wish I was reminded earlier before making such a move. None of the major edits are even close to being resolved, nor have we given much thought about how and what to split. Aside from the edit reasons, I, and most other editors when the issue arose before, am against the split since many of the historical and religious connections are tied together. I do thank you for effort and hopefully we can resolve the problem. Also, I encourage to have the other articles be merged back in the main article at least until the dispute subsides. Thank you. --Shamir1 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also encourage you to read the talk page when the issue of splitting first came up. Most people were opposed. The one editor who supported it was for reasons that were not quite encyclopedic. Also, may I contact you via email? --Shamir1 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
I don't know if you've looked at the article Race and intelligence recently, but it has over the years become a stockpile of information to support the genetic hypothesis. Myself and a few other editors have been working hard over the past few months to add more information about environmental factors, and other aspects of this topic, such as media portrayal to try to balance the article. I notice that you were active in the early debates on this article, and I'm hoping that I can convince you to come back and get involved again. What do you say? futurebird 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

John Edward mediation
Sorry I missed the start of mediation, I was away and just got back today. I'll start engaging tomorrow, when I've recovered from jet lag! Looks like a lively discussion over there already - even without two of the three involved parties. :) Dreadlocke  ☥  19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for taking on the mediation of the Transcendental Meditation page.

I posted the following under the discussion there and wanted to make sure you saw it:

"SOOOO grateful to have a third party!!! Stevertigo would you elaborate what you mean by "voting format?" Also, please note, as I work on new habits, I will be communicating VERY slowly, please expect a couple of days in between responses."

There is also so spill-over currently going on at [] One user wishes to remove some cited critical material, and now Timidguy has entered the discussion. Sethie 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would again ask you to come by the Maharishi page, I believe Timidguy is now making arguements which to me very much resemble ones he has been making on the TM page and of course the two pages are very closely related. Sethie 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward mediation
Belbo is ignoring the results and has found an ally to continue the very same dispute. What can be done? They keep putting the NPOV tag back, and Belbo's comments are increasingly rude and disruptive. What can be done? Dreadlocke ☥  16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring it, Dreadlocke themselve in another article talk page admits when one does not agree then their is no consensus. I would really like to know why this mediation is considered closed I find it puzzling when two of those named in the mediation are not in agreement with the 'consensus', I am also puzzled as to why Dreadlocke is suggesting that I am being rude, I merely disagree with their veiwpoint. Belbo Casaubon 19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you disregard my announcement without discussing it with me?
Given that Race and Intelligence is under mediation, I think we need to make sure that no one has any objections before archiving discussion. That is why I made this announcement. Why did you disregard it without discussing it with me or at least explaining in the appropriate section why you felt everyone was ready for even more talk to be archived? If you think I have been handling the archiving of discussion in an inappropriate way I wish you would just tell me flat out rather than archive away with no explanation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I promise you I am keeping an eye on archiving the talk page. But it has been contentious, it is under mediation, and there has been a lot of talk - I want to archive in a prudent and systematic way. At least for now. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Go board
Since you once edited this picture, I thought you may want to comment on the nomination.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh detention mediation
Thank you for weighing in on the issue regarding Rush Limbaugh's detention. Regrettably, editor Dual Freq (whom I had listed as an "Involved party" in the RfM but who subsequently removed him or herself from the mediation process) has again deleted the paragraph at issue. His or her sole argument now is that an earlier POV fork somehow precludes the paragraph, despite that ElKevbo, who nominated the fork for deletion in the first place, disagrees, and has noted the logical error in so contending. I think it is unseemly for an editor to decline to participate in mediation yet continue to edit war. Would you, as the Mediator, kindly restore the paragraph to the article? Kpedsea 18:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New Great Game
Cs re-added the claim that the CIA funded Bin Laden in the 1980s. I would revert, but if I do an edit war would just ensue. If you contest the claim then you will need to revert because I cannot. KazakhPol 01:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

R & I
What version did you have in mind? futurebird 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's too focused on research. That's the whole reason for the change. I don't think moving back to that version would be a good idea at all. futurebird 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good info, where to put it?
I don't think it's a good idea to raise points of argument in the intro. It may be perceived as POV pushing. Perhaps some of the old intro could be restored to the first section of the main article: "Background information" Like this part:

This research is grounded in two controversial assumptions:
 * The social categories of race and ethnicity are concordant with genetic categories, such as biogeographic ancestry.
 * Intelligence is quantitatively measurable (see psychometrics) by modern tests and is dominated by a unitary general cognitive ability.

These aren't the only controversial assumptions though. See the information I added here:

Some of these may be specific to the bell curve... But they could help serve as a starting point for sourcing and augmenting the section above.

I think we should add:


 * Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
 * Intelligence must be depictable as a single number.(Gould, 1994; Brace 1999 )

to this list. futurebird 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

idea
Perhaps the old intro would work best here Race and intelligence research and here Race_and_intelligence? The intro at Race and intelligence research was written by me. and WRN has tagged it like crazy for sources. Perhaps you could take a look at it? futurebird 07:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

wow
Great new intro. futurebird 08:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

African American Vernacular English Mediation
The contributors over at the Talk:African American Vernacular English page seem to be subverting the mediation itself and opting to "vote" on whether or not the Cosby quote should be included into the article. They seem to be using the same old and refuted arguments over and over and seem to be oblivious to any attempt at NPOV in the article. What should I do? Will you spend some time talking to them or should I take it to the arbitration committee? Wikidudeman  (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Get when get back to mediation? --Shamir1 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem and Islam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Edward mediation
Is this one still open? A new editor has come on the scene, changed the wording from what was agreed upon in the mediation and claims there is a "new consensus" that allowed him to make the change, and to go back to the previously agreed upon version (in your mediation) that we have to have a new consensus. I think this is backwards, and the new editor needed a consensus to change the version agreed upon in mediation. He engages in edit or wheel wars to make his edits stick. This is a terrible situation, and I need some advice. Dreadlocke ☥  22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ste|vertigo, I have done what you said. Can it be protected now? Which version?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally happy with the current version, even though I've re-written it. It doesn't look like the protection scheme is going to work and I guess mediation isn't enforcable.  So it looks like we're stuck with this version and who knows what over the horizon - unless we widen the scope with an RfC, but even those don't seem to add up to much.  It's disappointing to go through intense discussions, find a good solution, have it later disputed, engage in mediation which agrees with the disputed version - only to have new edit warriors sneak through some kind of false consensus changes.  Anyway, enough of my whining about this! :) Thanks for your help on this, you did the best that could be done.  Dreadlocke  ☥  22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless, that is, you have a plan? Dreadlocke  ☥  23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading Martinphi's consensus vote comments, I would like to further pursue the whole "performs" introduction, and have some kind of commentary on the terrible way the "victorious" editors went against mediation, pushed through their own version without following the rules of civility nor dispute resolution. But I dispair that nothing can be done. Any advice? My email is dread_locke@hotmail.com if you'd like to drop me a note telling me to just shutup and take my medicine for taking a four day wikibreak and allowing this to happen.... :) Dreadlocke  ☥  05:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a group that can look at an edit and give a final judgement about whether or not it is indeed NPOV? I'd like to run the "performs" issue by someone like that. ArbCom perhaps? I just think the NPOV violation accusations are completely off-base. Dreadlocke ☥  17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

John Edward
Stevertigo,

As I believe the issue of the lead for the John Edward article has been settled (see Talk:John Edward), would you be so kind as to close the mediation case and remove the tag? Thanks in advance. – Lantoka  (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please revert your changes here
The comments I made at the top of Essjay's talk page were for the benefit of the community. Your act of moving them defeats their purpose. I have received numerous comments on how they were beneficial and a good idea. I strongly urge you to move them back to where I put them. (See, for example, .) Regards, Kelly Martin (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Custom skin
I wanted to say that I love the skin you came up with. It's a lot better looking at light text on a dark background than the other way around. I have one question, though; infoboxes, the navigation box, and subject/headline boxes are still white, is there any way around this? Just a suggestion anyway. Keep up the good work. James Callahan 21:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:ProtestantBranches.svg
Hello Stevertigo, I noticed that you uploaded Image:ProtestantBranches.svg. I would like to bring your attention to a comment that I posted on the discussion page. Your reply there (or on my talk page) would be appreciated. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rursus crudely remove usage of image until fixed. Cannot have such an image, then better no image at all. If disagree, then shout a reply. Rursus 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

White people
You asked me to join to meditation. Is this Talk:White_people it? Obviously, I dont agree with your first impression. Can you advance the meditation a bit please so it would merit some attention? Lukas19 07:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really disappointed by your remarks: "...But I will say that whatever changes he has made should be reversed, and any changes he wants to make to the article will need to be proposed here..." about me. I think you have to revert this article back to here: which was right before my first edit: . Thulean was my old nick which I changed because of harrassment. Lukas19 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can not believe that you want me to revert almost to 5 months ago!!! Especially considering, every edit I have made cited reliable scientific sources. I'm not even talking about the massive work needed for me to "weed out" my edits among hundreds of edits from other editors. Can you please recuse yourself from this meditation, I do not believe you are neutral in this case whatsoever. Lukas19 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the recent controversial points have been removed. Now, may I suggest you to suggest others to remove their controversial points, ie: pic of African man? Lukas19 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Privet
Privet, mojhna zatret mediation pajalsta?

How is my Russian?

Thanks for your help. I would respectfully ask that you close the mediation.Travb (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempts to help us
Thanks, Stevertigo, for taking on our mediation and trying to help us. I'm sorry we weren't receptive to your suggestion. And in the odd way of Wikipedia, the whole dynamic has changed since I initiated the mediation procedure. At the time, it was mainly a battle between myself, Tanaats, and Sethie. Olive and Duedilly had recently appeared, so I included them. Then Tanaats never showed up, and Sethie did somewhat. But now he's sort of disappeared, too. And two other editors have appeared, and all the issues have changed. Luckily, even though they're vehemently opposed to what they say is a pseudoscientific aspect of Transcendental Meditation, they've made excellent suggestions for improving the article that we all agree on. I guess the mediation proceeding that I initiated is now moot.

The whole thing -- my advocacy page, initiating the mediation procedure, and the subsequent discussions -- had the effect of bringing a lot of issues out into the open and did a lot to help the situation, suggesting to me that this aspect of Wikipedia works, if not quite in the way one might have imagined. : ) I thank you again for taking this on and the efforts you made to help resolve things. TimidGuy 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Messages
Template:Messages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Firestone Mediation
Just a short note to see what happened to you. Your last message on the mediation discussion (2nd March) said "more tomorrow", a lot has transpired on the page since then and it's starting to get ugly. I would appreciate it if you could drop by and offer some mediation. Thanks. Mobile 01 Talk  11:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Paid editing
Hi, Steve. What would you think about putting together an alternate proposal, rather than trying to mix several different approaches in the same proposal? Thanks, William Pietri 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your help protecting an article...
You were helpful in mediations with me and I thought you could help me. An article that I'm trying to improve is constantly being vandalized. Specifically people keep removing a picture from it for baseless reasons. The article is Bodybuilding and the image is the 1st one listed in "Areas of Bodybuilding" with the caption "Natural bodybuilder posing." The image isn't the best image in the world but it's the best FREE image I have that fits the description listed. So can you protect it for me? I have a feeling it will be removed from new users pretty frequently and I can't watch it 24/7. So if you see that it's been removed can you add it back as it was? Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

White people talk
You need to take a look at the Edit War section on the talk page soon. My guess is that you simply haven't gotten around to it yet, so I was waiting, but it seems Lukas19 has decided that this delay means he can simply add the text he wants to add. From what I can see, it only adds to the growing problem of undue weight on the genetics view and OR via unsourced association of certain genetic studies & genetic information with this view and the wider "white people" concept. Please take a look soon, thanks. PS I will revert his edit since I feel it is not yet authorized. The Behnam 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:Stevage/EnhanceHistory.user.js
Stevage 04:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok it's slowly coming back to me now. You need to get the raw script first: . Not that that worked, but at least it stood a chance. Will have a closer look later. Probably Greasemonkey has changed or something...:( Stevage 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFM Cases
Hey, if you could let me know how your cases are going, that'd be great. You've taken so many, and I just want to make sure none have gone stale. Thanks for all your hard work.
 * Regards, ^ demon [omg plz] 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, are you putting the and adding them to the case archives after closing? Just checking. :-) ^  demon [omg plz] 01:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam
Please see Wikipedia talk:Spam. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relativity and quantum mechanics
I have added a "" template to the article Relativity and quantum mechanics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

I believe you had a good intention in collecting the material to create this article, but actually it contains serious misconceptions, and Quantum gravity already is an excellent article on the subject. What do you think? - Saibod 12:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your comment. IMHO your article creates the (completely wrong) impression that quantum mechanics is not compatible with special relativity. In fact, the two are compatible, and most of quantum field theory is actually formulated relativistically. The problem is that quantum mechanics and general relativity (in other words, gravity) could not be unified so far. Thus, the relationship of special relativity and quantum mechanics should be addressed in articles on quantum field theory, while the relationship of general relativity and QM should be addressed in articles on quantum gravity.


 * Parts of your R/QM article are taken from Quantum_mechanics, or actually an old version of it, since I tried to correct those misconceptions. - Saibod 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Math-symbols
I found this template when making a list of all math templates. It has not been edited in almost a year and no articles seem to link to it or transclude it. Would you mind if it were deleted? CMummert · talk 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would ask the same question about Template:MathSymbols. CMummert · talk 13:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Faggot (epithet)
Your edits to Faggot (epithet), recently, have both increased internal contradiction (e.g. stating the claim that the term stems from the burning sticks meaning, when later sections bring this into question), and introduced a great deal of original research with respect to the meaning of certain passages in The Bible. If you have a point to make, there are many discussion forums on which you could do so. I invite you to contribute to and improve the article, but bringing your own personal debates to the article isn't the way to accomplish that. Thanks. -Harmil 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, your edits sought to establish a connection (which is unsourced, and appears to be OR) between a particular passage in The Bible and a particular, hypothetical origin of the word "faggot". You then continue on, in an analysis of the biblical take on homosexuality. The former is, as far as I can tell, not a consensus as you indicated by re-writing the intro. The latter is simply not appropriate for the article at all, as it's an analysis of homosexuality (from a religious standpoint), not information about the word "faggot". -Harmil 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Considering that you are the meditator of White people, you may want to comment in Requests_for_arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM, if you have time. Lukas19 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Shortchronology
Template:Shortchronology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — bd2412  T 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence/Intro
Hi. I was wondering whether it made sense to delete Race and intelligence/Intro. It's in the wrong namespace and from what I can see the discussion over it has gone stale. This could probably be speedy deleted under criterion G6. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 15:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RFD of Navpop
Hi. I have proposed that Navpop, a redirect which you created, be deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. If you would like to participate in the RFD discussion, it can be found here. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WWII mediation
Are you still interested in the WWII mediation? Haber 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
WOuld you mind giving some input as to whether the section titled "Acceptance within the JW community is OR? tks George 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

France in WW2
I've looked at that talk page about WW2, and a topic that catches my eye is that if France should be considered an ally or on the axis, or as a major player. Personally, I feel it should be considered as it is now, as on the allies for the Free French and Axis for Vichy France (because of some collaboration and Operation Torch). Just wondering- how do you feel about that one?--LtWinters 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Morikami Park mediation
Was there ever a decision made about this, please? More has happened since the last comments made. See here for further info. Thank you. --Ebyabe 15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Kthorne.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kthorne.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre
As someone who is not an admin, you cannot close the AfD for List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, and doing so can be construed as vandalism or WP:POINT. However, I do not think it is either and am assuming good faith. Please see Non-administrators closing discussions for more information. Thanks, Rock star  ( T/C ) 06:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Meditation at white people
It seems a lot of information has been deleted in an article you are currently meditating. I have restored some of them. Can you have a look and possibly comment? KarenAE 14:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:MathSymbols
Template:MathSymbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SueHay 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

TFD nomination on Template:MathSymbols
re: && This section

As author/orginator of this unused template, please share whether we should keep this for some reason exists, or help us speedy delete it. Thanks! (Note: Tried to email you, needs enabled in preferences) // Fra nkB 07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Love-zh.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Love-zh.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Joelholdsworth 10:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lukas19
Hi, you have had some dealings with this editor. I'd appreciate your opinion regarding a suspected sockpuppet if you have time. Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19. Cheers. Alun 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Improper Moves
Please let me know how the moves were improper. Always looking to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantoke (talk • contribs)

System (disambiguation)
Thanks for creating the System (disambiguation). I was wondering if you've noticed that we've been talking about this in the Wikiproject Systems talk page. Thanks anyway. As you can see I added the international links there - Mdd 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for Race
There is an unassigned case for mediation. I was wondering whether you would consider adopting it. Regards Muntuwandi 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Draftsperson Wanted for free
Dear Stevertigo,

you was uploading this nice picture of a Meerkat, thats why I am asking you. I am looking for a applicant, a draftsperson of a graphic artist, someone like this. It would be nice to bring some good pictures on project-pages in de:.

Further more, I can imagine a (small and local) campagne to find some more students or professional WP-members, using a set of well-designed cartoons. I imagine a small "meerkat-family", each one of this in a typical character. (Mother, Father, Granny ... every one interested in some aspects of WP-articlework.)

Mother = tec subjects Father = bioscience Doughter = informatics Son = social science Grandma = physics Grandpa = geological science

something like this. I could provide textes, rhyming poems and good jokes, but I can not draw dinky pictures.

Do you got suggestions? :-) --90.186.42.85 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Joseki1.png
this image was uploaded by you a few years ago. At the moment its origin seems incorrect (if it is indeed a screenshot, the game in question should be indentified). Please clarify the copyright status here. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Radicalization
I have added a "" template to the article Radicalization, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Wnjr 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilding
Hey. Can you keep an eye on the Bodybuilding article? Someone keeps removing an image from the article which has been justified for being there. Their reasoning is baseless and personal and I don't want to break any 3rr rules. I justified it's existence on the talk page many times and it's the only copyright free viable and quality image that exists at present. Can you restore the image and revert their edits? Thanks. Wikidudeman  (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:State of Israel
Hi Stevertigo,
 * ''(lets keep jingoism (by boosting the font-size) out of wikipedia)

Just noticed and am puzzled by the above; many (most? nearly all?) other templates use larger relative font-sizes for their titles, subsection headings, etc, including templates about other countries, territories, etc. Hence I'm inclined to undo your change, but thought I'd enquire here first in case I'm overlooking something else. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ''...I think its poor form, as it creates unnecessary inconsistency. Compare United States, Russia, People's Republic of China...
 * The vertical-aligned templates here are Infobox Country which uses font-size:1.25em for its main heading, so I've applied this to State of Israel; hope that's okay! Best wishes, David (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Dont like it. Im sure others agree its unncessary. Much prefer standard font size, letting the end user decide what the display size should be...
 * Does that mean you reckon the 1.25em font-size used in Infobox Country should also be 1em – moreso, that all template font-sizes should be the same (1em), for titles and subheadings as well as text...? (Surely not...?)  Puzzled again, David (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I'll need to log-off soon, so possible delay before a further reply!


 * Stevertigo, considering that this was not discussed at the talk page, and given that almost every WP template has its title in big & bold (in addition to the mentioned above, see Jordan Series, History of the Levant, History of Iran, etc.), I think you owe us an explanation why you singled out Israel for your "anti-jingoism" campaign. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not my impression that this was standard. In fact I looked at three other countries just after David's comment here, and these showed a standard un-emphasised font size. Certainly by your snide comment you must be alleging some particular kind of bigotry, which is not the case - I would say the same thing if I had seen this formatting on the United States article, which, again, did not appear before. It does now, unfortunately. Perhaps my browser settings are haywire. -Stevertigo 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy-1994-Patti-Davis.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits?
I've noticed that virtually all your edits are noted as 'minor edits' (marked with an m). Since some of your edits are anything but minor, this could be construed by some as deliberately misleading. (I noticed this after I checked out some of your 'minor' edits to the article on Nation building. These edits completely altered the subject matter and thrust of the article in ways that could be considered controversial or even inaccurate, and should not have been marked as 'minor'.)

Bathrobe 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dott.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dott.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lock15.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lock15.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mdmascr1.png
I have tagged Image:Mdmascr1.png as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Deletion
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Deletion, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Deletion fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: wat a page To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Deletion, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:Deletion itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dis
Template:Dis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 10:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in List of FHM 100 Sexiest Women
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of FHM 100 Sexiest Women, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of FHM 100 Sexiest Women is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of FHM 100 Sexiest Women, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate List of FHM 100 Sexiest Women itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

National Committee for Responsible Patriotism
A template has been added to the article National Committee for Responsible Patriotism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.136.147.177 11:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)