User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 19

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not attack you. I simply asked you to be constructive. Deleting two or three paragraphs of someone's work with just a stroke or a click is not being constructive. Thank you for the {underconstruction} tag. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blake Lemoine


The article Blake Lemoine has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Classic wp:BLP1E only cite is to a dead website (although archive.org reveals that they were reprinting a Reuters story), does desertion satisfy wp:notability? I dont think so.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bonewah (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Universalism
Template:Universalism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jump
Template:Jump has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nephesh
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nephesh. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vegetarianism and veganism


The article Vegetarianism and veganism has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I see this as a personal essay that does not belong in article space at this time

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Sinneed  14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Vegetarianism and veganism
I have nominated Vegetarianism and veganism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Vegetarianism and veganism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Sinneed  16:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Octonianf.png
Thank you for uploading File:Octonianf.png. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Octonianf.png
Thank you for uploading File:Octonianf.png. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to International Phonetic Alphabet, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. rʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Its set to minor by default. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That can be changed in Special:Preferences. Best, rʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dominion of man over the beasts
A tag has been placed on Dominion of man over the beasts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of 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. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Barking Fish  Talk to me | My contributions 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I declined the speedy, but I do think there are some valid concerns about the article that should be discussed: Talk:Dominion of man over the beasts seems a good place :). Prodego  talk  03:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dominion of man over the beasts


The article Dominion of man over the beasts has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:OR essay

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

IPA
I admire your brave attempt  to  find a solution to  the very flawed IPA key. Are you aware of all the other lengthy discussions on  this topic? I rather fear you are in for a hard time from the major IPA players who  have remained totally  intransigent, and even uncivil towards any suggestions since they were started in December.--113.53.112.84 (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've recently come to understand, just through investigation and consideration, the issues with IPA and its now 6-year usage here as a pronunciation scheme. I'm largely motivated by what I think is a mistake in promulgating these respell keys, and how we are stuck between an extremely sophisticated pronunciation transcription system and an extremely unsophisticated one. Regards, and please join the discussion at WT:RESPELL. (And consider getting a login name) Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 07:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on animal rights
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is nogivet going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
 * Um. You know how to leave a meaningless POV-motivated boilerplate warning on my talk-page, but you don't know how to respond to direct intelligent communication, or even how to sign your posts?-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 08:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, are your edits supported by the article or good sources? I don't see that they are. Do you understand what WP:LEDE and WP:RS mean?  Need I remind you, it is no longer June, 2002?  In one of many examples, you write, "Animal rights advocates use anthropomorphism to argue that animals ought to be viewed as persons, not property."  This statement is sourced to Gary Francione, however, Francione does not use the term "anthropomorphism", but you do, and you attribute this term to Francione.  Interestingly, in Francione's book, he writes, "This is not a matter of anthropomorphism".  Should I consider your edits vandalism, Steve? Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why were you using a quote of a person without giving them attribution? There was no evidence from the sentence, other than forehand knowledge, that that sentence was a quote. The rest of your comments belong at the talk page, and I will deal with them there. You wrote: "Should I consider your edits vandalism, Steve?" You should consider yourself a partisan who is unable to join an open discussion and having lost all sight of NPOV has chosen instead to make themselves unpleasant. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 08:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A partisan on what topic, Steve? Do you understand what you are writing, or do you just pick words out of a hat like Tristan Tzara? Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm. Your antagonism here comes without the context or merit of actual participation on the discussion page of.. the topic in which you appear biased. Francione also apparently says: "Nonhumans [..] certainly do have cognitive states which are equivalent to human beliefs, desires, etc." (Note the quotation marks (") are used to contain attributed quotations). What a philosopher. A regular St. Augustine. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 08:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, do you understand that in a discussion, you need to make an attempt, however small, to communicate effectively? This means understanding what words mean and using them appropriately.  For example, you use the word "antagonism", yet I have shown none.  You say I have not participated on the discussion, page, yet clearly I have and I've pointed to my last time stamp.  Is there a reason you cannot edit constructively?  I'm not understanding the problem.  If you have a change to make, and it's been reverted in the past, propose it briefly on talk and wait for a response.  Don't give us 500 lines of word salad and expect us to dig through the cereal box for a Stevertigo decoder ring. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Copied to animal rights talk page. Your split discussion here creates an impression of your insincerity. For example I've dealt with your Francione quote accusation. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 09:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already on the talk page. First you accuse me of antagonism and then insincerity.  And, you haven't dealt with the Francione quote, nor have you dealt with the "anthropomorphism".  If English isn't your favored language, let me know which is, and I'll find a translator. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm. I have dealt with the Francione quote. You or the one who inserted it used it as an image caption and did not put it in quotes. Way to go for academic honesty and not to mention NPOV. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 09:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I never claimed it was a quote. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. This discussion belongs at the talk page. No further comments here will be regarded. Thanks. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 09:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-alt.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-alt.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.

P.S. I have written nothing negative about you there. You are mentioned once, positively, in regard to a former incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
Huh? -- Kendrick7talk 18:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. That section has been split off to a new article. I'm not going to maintain everything in two spots, and there's already WP:POVFORKing issues creeping up. -- Kendrick7talk 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replace the section with a summary style. Yes, there were already POV forking issues, e.g. the Hamas reaction got moved out from under Palestine. It lookrf like someone had picked countries at random to keep, for example 2 Greek ships were part of the attack but Greek reacion was missing! There's no reason to fork the contents, readers can just click the link. -- Kendrick7talk 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, State information
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, State information. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - State. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at State - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Shashwat986 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Related
Template:Related has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

TTC
Regarding your recent change: notice that there are a couple of dozen articles that use 'TTC' expecting it will go uniquely to Toronto Transit Commission. They are in this list. Your action undoes the opposite redirection that was done in December, 2009. I queried that editor as to what he was up to, and he did persuade me that Toronto Transit Commission was the most important use. Could a discussion be needed? EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Prod at Theoretical_substance
I have prodded this disambiguation page; there is no need for disambiguation, as all of the articles listed have unique and unambiguous titles. --Amble (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think there's a need for an article, then please remove the disambiguation template and add some sources. There's clearly no reason to have a disambiguation page for these articles, since there's no ambiguity to resolve.  --Amble (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you might want to remove the template: it's meant to respond to a speedy-deletion request, not a prod.  --Amble (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (I'm sure you know this, since you've been editing for years, but just in case: you can contest a prod by simply deleting the template.  Anyone can do that.  It's a good idea to explain the reason on the talk page.) --Amble (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Image question
Hello. While looking through the many Wiki.png versions, I couldn't help noticing a summary by you: "(redone wiki logo for all backgrounds)". Could you tell me how you did this? I am looking for how because a few images on another wiki require this, but no one there knows of it. All I know is that it appears as grey squares.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of PBS idents
I have nominated PBS idents, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/PBS idents&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno what this has to do with me.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You originally split it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Life value" of "higher" organisms?
I am not fully comfortable with your recent addition to Organism, even less so with the present wording. Where does the POV come from, that "higher" organisms need to have mental complexity? Is not a tree more valuable than algae, even without a state of mind? And, should the "value" part in fact link to Intrinsic value (ethics)? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See higher and lower animals. The terms "higher" and "lower" are of course relativistic and can apply to any relation on the spectrum. But trees don't classify other species (like algae) the way humans classify them. So the issue of relativism is constrained by this basic fact that humans actually have language and use it to classify things (colloquially or scientifically), while trees and other "lower" life forms do not. Hope that answers your question. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You should have linked to this article! Anyway, now I am even less convinced. Your argumentation may be valid in the humanities, but not in a science article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Humanities?" It is valid in linguistics and philosophy too. And because these are not strictly science articles - they in fact are Wikipedia articles - all articles come under review from other academic approaches. So the ideas of "higher" and "lower," while not strictly scientific, are nevertheless common colloquial descriptions, and thus are relevant in any article which discuss the terms and how people conceptualize them. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Usage of "higher" and "lower" has been superseded by "complex" and "simple". Please update your paradigm as needed.  See also: Evolution of complexity. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Some questions come to mind: Where has this "superceding" taken place? Are "complex" and "simple" well-defined? Are they well understood as being colloquially subjective and relativistically functional like "higher and lower" are? Is a cow a "simple" organism, within this the complex-simple spectrum, or is it necessarily "complex," and thus by politicized extrapolation, a being, with implied idiosyncratic equivalences to human beings? Strangely enough the relativistic terms "higher and lower" require context to be defined and as such are perfectly NPOV. "Complex and simple" may have wonderfully universal designations, but would not be used by some people in ways which are NPOV. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you try to define what a "higher" and "lower" organism entails, you'll find that the definition falls apart before you've completed your sentence. Another problem is that such terms imply or support a teleological argument of some kind.  Although I'm not certain on this, this wording appears to come from the old concept of the great chain of being, and unfortunately found its way into early theories of biological development in the 18th century. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, but I think you could talk about the history of the terms in the appropriate article with good sources.Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Truthfulness, higher and lower are not well definable - they are simply relativistic and work at any point on the spectrum. For example you could say "relative to humans, bovines are lower organisms," but you could also say "algae are lower organisms relative to mammals such as bovines and humans." You could use "complex and simple" in the same way, but to me there appears to be some kind of anti-teleological argument embedded in them. "Higher and lower" are not too much different from "complex and simple" in that they do not come from any "theory" except to say that when a person looks at a chimp, they realize that the chimp is missing a few things that the human being has. That's just a fact, and remains such regardless of any well-crafted anti-teleological counterarguments.
 * Perhaps what you are really arguing is that "higher and lower" are somewhat qualitative terms, and that science should not make qualitative distinctions, only quantitative ones. This is a valid argument, but only if science POV does not trump NPOV. We are all humans who read this encyclopedia, and humans do sometimes need qualitative distinctions in their lexicon.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, I've placed a merger tag on Higher and lower organisms, requesting that it be merged into Great chain of being. Unless you have references that talk about the topic in a contemporary manner, I don't see why we need to have a separate article. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are claiming that "higher and lower" are not just colloquial, but arguments for the reality of Intelligent Design? Interesting. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For some reason, (other sources have gone into this) the terms found their way into science papers and books, but as is the case with many words, they can lose their meaning over time. I think you'll find that aside from a few older scientists still publishing, the terms are rarely used. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that they aren't, as you claim, teleological. They are colloquial. For example 'all people on Earth eat lower, more simple, life forms.' Again you should respond more clearly to what I've stated - particularly the qualitative / quantitative distinction. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, let's get down to brass tacks. Are you going to add citations to your essay? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When? Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I can. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Minor" edits
Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —David Levy 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Appreciated. My edits are marked minor by default and sometimes I forget to uncheck certain edits. Which article or articles brought this to your attention? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw your revision to Hatnote on my watchlist. I then noticed that almost all of your edits (including substantial ones) are labeled "minor."  I recommend that you change your default setting, as the reverse error (minor edits not so labeled) would be preferable.  —David Levy 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to overstate the importance of my edits. Regarding them all as "minor" seems like a good way to do that. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In this context, the term "minor" has a specific meaning unrelated to importance. Your intent might be to be modest, but you actually are misleadingly labeling substantial edits in a manner indicating that they require no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.
 * Speaking of a dispute, I see that you've continued leaving the "minor" checkbox ticked even when actively taking part in one . This is especially unacceptable, as is failing to include a meaningful edit summary.  You've effectively deemed Bkonrad a vandal.  —David Levy 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not clear on how whether my own changes are listed as "minor" or else (ostensibly) "major" I have somehow labelled someone, particularly a longtime editor like Bkonrad, a "vandal." If there is some process by which minor edits have such major influence over the status of a particular editor, I would assert that "assumption" has some undue role in that process. I will consider listing my edits as major by default. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rollbacks of vandalism (and well-meaning but inappropriate test edits) are labeled "minor" and contain no rationale. This is because vandalism is considered non-meaningful (so its removal requires no review or explanation).
 * Conversely, the reversion of a good-faith edit as part of a content dispute is never minor. An edit for which a dispute is even a foreseeable possibility is not minor.
 * In labeling your reversion of Bkonrad's edit "minor" and omitting a rationale, you treated it exactly as we do vandalism. You conveyed (though I'm sure that this wasn't your intention) that Bkonrad's edit was patently inappropriate to the extent that there was no point in explaining your reversion or in other users bothering to examine it.
 * Yes, please consider disabling the "minor" label by default. Its absence does not indicate that an edit is of particular importance.  Rather, its presence indicates that an edit is so trivial that it can be ignored without consequence.  —David Levy 00:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that such a precise system for noting vandals would use the virtually arbitrary "minor"/"major" (implied) indicator as its basis. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of not having a precise system for noting vandals (because their edits aren't worth noting), and instead lumping the reversion of vandalism together with other inconsequential revisions.
 * Use of the "minor" checkbox for this purpose indicates that the reverted edit was of no greater merit than a typo is. —David Levy 01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "Use of the "minor" checkbox for this purpose indicates that the reverted edit was of no greater merit than a typo is." - Applying this principle to the recent case, my notation of "minor" was accurate: Bkonrad deleted a passage I had reinserted from my initial draft version of that page (2005). Its merits were few. His edit was deletionistic and accompanied only by a terse comment calling my writing "grumbling." The difference between his delete and vandalism is too slight to relegate judgment to a simple binary choice between "minor" and "major" (implied). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above assessment troubles me most of all. I feel a bit awkward saying this to such an experienced editor (let alone a former administrator), but I suggest that you read or re-read WP:OWN.  —David Levy 02:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you made some edits to the Amen article, and I think there is a need for some furher changes. The line "There is no academic support for either of these views." should change to read "There is little academic support for either of these views." Since the first statement is not technically correct, as there are some (allthough very little) support for the idea that the word Amen came from the Epyptian god Ammon/ Amun/ Amen. So just as you noted that "there are unsubstantiated claims by some Hindu writers that "Amen" and "Amin" (Islam), came from the word "aum."", the entry about Amen vs. Amun should also be modidied. Jove 05:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnoakgrove (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Steve! :)

3O
Hey. I just saw your request for a third opinion. I've removed it because I want to try to help, but also because there are more than 4 editors involved in this, so it doesn't really qualify for a 3O. I'm trying to understand what's going on, but it's just spread out all over the place, so it's hard to follow. Is this editor being particularly tendentious? If there's a consensus for one particular view and he's the only one speaking out against it, then he might be. And if you feel like you're being stalked, well, that's an issue too. You might want to bring this up over at WP:ANI or something, but I would be careful, as it could end up backfiring on you. More specifically: on Punishment, for example, it seems that Modocc was unhappy with your edits, yet you just reverted rather than start a thread on the talk page and discuss your edits. And over on Time in physics, it seems that Steve Quinn didn't like your changes to the lede. My recommendation to you is this: take a step back, cool off, and think about your edits. Is it possible that you're being tendentious, not JimWae? You could choose to escalate these issues, but I would take a good long think about them before you do that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence article
Hi

What's your rationale for moving the Intelligence article to Active intelligence? It's not a term used in the profession, and the move doesn't appear to have been discussed.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On reflection the whole article needs a fair amount of work, it confuses disciplines, approaches and methodology. Do you have a reference for the use of Active, it's not a term I've ever seen in use and at first glance seems pretty meaningless as intelligence assessment is a pretty wide ranging activity.

ALR (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing talk page message from another editor or sockpuppet
Hi Stevertigo, can you please explain this edit where you changed the signature of by yours? Are you and Cymble the same person? If yes, please be aware of our policy concerning wp:sockpuppetry, stating in short: "The general rule is one editor, one account". Otherwise, please undo that edit per wp:TALKO. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I don't use socks in the sense that you should be concerned with. See WP:SOCKS.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (I moved your reply from my talk page to here in order to keep the conversation together. I have your talk page on my watchlist, so you can reply here.) Thanks, that explains the edit, but I wonder which of the listed reasons (in WP:SOCKS) you have for using two usernames, as I don't see any of the entries that could be applicable here. Also, have you complied with WP:SOCK? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonce essay tag in articles
Please do not add tags pointing to your essay WP:NONCE into articles as you did here. Doing so amounts to inserting a personal opinion about the article into the article itself instead of on the article's talk page. I have removed it. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of "Nonce"
I have left a comment at the talk page for this article, asking for consideration to rename the article and the redirect, and now I look at it, the tag as well. I don't know if you are aware, but the word "Nonce" is used in British English as slang (mainly in jails, but also on the street) to refer to a Child Molester or a Pedophile. So having a redirect from WP:NONCE, a tag marked nonce and a page for Nonce introductions doesn't seem like too hot an idea. What say you? :) Barking Fish  Talk to me &#124; My contributions 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Barking Fish  Talk to me &#124; My contributions 00:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2004)
nice work. Decora (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Expression (language)
Hello, Stevertigo. Thank you for creating Expression (language). You did not cite any source for your definition of "expression," and (as I note at Talk:Sentence (linguistics)) I'm not aware of any technical definition of the term within linguistics. Might you be thinking of Utterance? The relationship between utterances (as acts of language performance) and sentences (as somewhat idealized linguistic forms) is much discussed. Cnilep (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move: Manners of articulation to Manner of articulation
I have requested that Manners of articulation be moved back to Manner of articulation. Your comments are welcome at Talk:Manners of articulation. Cnilep (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit default
Hi. Gentle nudge. Please be more careful to turn off your "all edits minor" setting, when you're adding or changing significantfuzzy! amounts of content, eg and. Thanks! (Also, edit summaries are still handy for other editors, even when your edits are minor. Just a short "c/e" or "clarify" is often all that's needed! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please please turn OFF your preference. This is NOT minor. It is far better to not label any minor edits, than to ever mislabel major edits as minor ones. Please turn it off! Thank you.
 * Go to Special:Preferences -> Editing -> Mark all edits minor by default. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

General officer
a) Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

b) Different and only vaguely related topic: Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the use of this template quite a bit recently.
 * I've also noticed that the template users don't seem to either explain or justify their suggestions.
 * I've also noticed that in most cases NO-ONE, (not even the proposer), have contributed ANYTHING to ANY discussion.
 * I'm afraid I don't see the point. Can you enlighten me?

Articles for deletion nomination of List of popes (graphical)
I have nominated List of popes (graphical), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of popes (graphical). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandman888 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Move of floor to Floor (surface)
Please discuss moves like this before doing them. What was so all important that you had to change the name to something a silly as Floor (surface) which is simply wrong. Flooring is surfacing a floor and there is an article about it and it is different from a floor. Floor was perfectly okay as a main article rather than going direct to the disambiguation page but now there's all sorts of fixing and changing to get it back to a reasonable state. Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical template
Hi there, you're invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Historical. thanks, &oelig; &trade; 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo:

Regarding the above, I see that you're still routinely labeling your major edits (including controversial ones) "minor," usually without bothering to include an edit summary. This is disruptive and needs to cease. Please do so immediately. Thank you. —David Levy 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RSWP listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RSWP. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:RSWP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Colin°Talk 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing, please read this → WP:SYN & WP:COS ←, its for your own good. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Little edits vs big edits
This is rather off-topic for the ANI discussion so I'm replying here instead.

I agree about making several small edits when you're changing several different things, especially when the article is contentious; that way if someone disagrees with one of change but not others, they can undo just that one (or link to just that diff, etc). Editing section-by-section is a good example; I do that plenty myself, intentionally.

My complaints about your editing style is that it looks more like you forgot to use preview and upon reading your submission went back to revise/correct your edits several times (which I admittedly do myself now and again, but you seem to do it excessively). Or sometimes it seems like you had to stop in the middle of working on an edit, and so sent what you had written so far and then completed it later, instead of waiting until you had time to complete it and sending it all together.

Metaphorically put, your 'speech' (edits) here 'sounds' (looks) more like a disjointed "P. Er, that is, I mean, Q. ...ish. Except R." rather than a clean conjunction of several things, ala "P. Also Q. And not R".

No offense intended, it's just a little annoying :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll make more of an effort in the future to use the preview button and comment more in the comment line. I've been gradually improving in these areas, but I admit I can do better. We all have certain styles of behaviour when editing, for example until just a couple weeks ago I marked my edits minor by default (I just turned this off). As always, I appreciate your criticism. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Steve, just my observation here... when dealing with such problematic articles, I'd suggest that you might want to use the sandbox (or create one yourself!) to test out first before saving the page on the actual article page itself. Another thing, it could also save on a lot of frustration on your part when there's a lot of potential edit conflict involved. Best. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the advice. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom
I'm not being biased, I have discussed this in it's talk page. If you see the history of the page, the contraversies were part of the opening para when the page started off, which makes sense as the wiki home's "in the news" section linked to this page mentioning contravery of the visit, also contraveries are the main discussion points in the news and media. So I'm just moving back the contraversies back to where it was. Don't you think it makes sense for contraveries to be in the second or third para of the page? -Abhishikt 07:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)
 * First of all its "controversies" not "contraversies". Secondly we have a policy called WP:UNDUE which means 'don't give undue weight to information which is not high in importance.' I can understand that someone who has an eye for the controversies might say that the controversies are most prominent. But the critics are in the minority. The controversies need to be sequestered into their own section, and such sections typically are placed toward the end of articles. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Human being
This article is a content fork WP:FORK. As you stated in the ANI, it was part of the discussion on the "Human" talk page. You stated that the group rejected your edits, regarding "Human being" or "Human". OK fine. Now the page has to be taken back to a redirect, if you don't mind. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Before taking on new things, why don't we settle our issue at Talk:Punishment. Ive posted a critique of the current version. Do you have a problem with being responsive and civil, or do you want to take our issues to Arbcom? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are repeating the same errors, as before with your latest entry there (talk:Punishment). Why not make a statement over at ANI that you agree to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies from now on, that you will stop abruptly adding unsourced material to articles, and that any material that you do add will be based on reliable sources. If you make this statement the whole process over at ANI changes course, and will most likely, quickly, stop (as long as you are sincere). Also, I would reccomend working on skills dealing with other editors on the talk pages -  listen to what other people are saying without critiquing their response.  Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if you do decide to do this I would reccomend also saying that you will notify the editors of the article (on the respective talk pages) what you are proposing to add to the article, before you edit. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve - As an uninvolved administrator, reviewing the ANI case and your actions, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would explain what your thinking and reasoning was for turning Human being from a redirect to Human into a standalone article. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * George, I appreciate your concern. I don't know who you heard about the human being article stub from, but I'm sure whomever it was was motivated by only the highest concerns. But the issue at the ANI and RFAR is the punishment article, not the human article, and I don't understand what good it will do to look beyond current matters to matters which are not relevant to the RFAR. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the issue at AN/I is your overall behavior not just what you did at one article, and presumably if ArbCom takes your case, they, too, will not be limited to looking at one specific instance.  You need to stop trying to manipulate the discussion to suit yourself, and provide the community with answers to the various questions they have raised about your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, BMK, how is it that an uninvolved editor such as yourself, one with only half of my count in contributions, come to the conclusion that a total ban of me is justified? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Editcountitis much? Actually – not that edit counts have any bearing whatsoever on my ability to read complaints, evaluate evidence and make judgments – but if you're really interested, I've been here since 2005, and I have 65,000+ edits (see this for an explanation). And being uninvolved with you is exactly what one would want, is it not, a dispassionate judgment not based on previous prejudice?  If you and I had past history, wouldn't you be here saying something like "How can you possibly make an impartial judgment about me when we've conflicted so often in the past", right? Look, the only thing you need to worry about right now is making an explanation to the community's satisfaction of why people find you "problematic" and "controversial".  Don't squander your energy on little attacks like this one, or on tactical maneouvres like filing a pre-emptive ArbCom complaint and so on, take the straight-forward and honorable course and clear things up.  That's my advice, anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, I am attempting to work with you to determine whether your relationship with the community as a whole is irrevocably damaged and banning you or blocking you indefinitely is necessary.
 * I would appreciate it if you would:
 * A) Assume, please, that I read all sides of and the article history of the Human being article, before bringing it up, and did not take anyone else's word for anything relative to it.
 * B) Understand, please, that every one of your actions to date is to some extent under extreme scrutiny at the moment. If we ask you about it, you can chose not to answer or explain, but if you don't or won't to uninvolved admins' satisfaction it is not going to reflect well on you in the final community sanction finding.
 * Please take this seriously, and answer my question.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I hear a question in there Georgewilliamherbert? Perhaps you are referring to an older question - one which I did not see ATW? Note that the human being article history will show you nothing of the editorial debates at the human article. Hence focusing on that article is insubstantial to any claim of error on my part. If you are talking about the issues at the human article, please give me some indication that you have familiarized yourself with that article/talk history. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: George previously wrote: "I would sincerely appreciate it if you would explain what your thinking and reasoning was for turning Human being from a redirect to Human into a standalone article." - The article Human had such a detached anthropological tone that, ATT it didnt even contain a reference to "person." Note Maunus' comment on Talk:Human. Hence the concept of human being, while discussions were ongoing at human, seemed quite a different subject than the one they were dealing with at human (species). And, as I noted at the RFAR, (or ANI?) the changed redirect was not meant to endure as an article. I used it short-term to refer to as an example of a different, more philosophical perspective on the subject of humans - a perspective which the sterile, alien, skeptic perspective of self-anthropology apparently did not allow, and rejected outright. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: If the issue is a matter of some kind of harm being caused by the changed redirect, certainly we can ask someone in the technical staff to give us a count of the times human being was accessed as a link, and of them how many found their way to the human (species) article via hatnotes anyway. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I also read (and am re-reading to refresh my memory) Talk:Human.
 * The discussions there, along with your explanation above, appear to constitute you performing an end-run against consensus on Talk:Human that your ideas for that article, and for splitting that article, were not supported by the rest of the community.
 * Can you clarify, please, how you feel that creating that article fits into the discussions on Talk:Human? Do you believe that doing so was in alignment with, unrelated to, or against the consensus of discussions there?
 * Secondly, do you believe that creating free-form articles which substitute philosophical original research or synthesis for Wikipedia's usual core values / pillars as a "placeholder experiment" (my words) is an acceptable way to engage in consensus-seeking of article contents here?
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * George, the only thing that went on was that I used a little-used redirect as a parking space while contentious edits were going on. It was a redirect of little traffic, and the stub served a short-lived purpose in helping align consensus at the human article. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, could you take as a new principle "mainspace is not a sandbox"? I've seen several instances of this exact same dispute over the past couple days, over various edits you've made, where you've said "well, I just put something there with no expectation of having it stand".  Wikidemon put it to you pretty well: this isn't 2002 any more.  These days it's not good to add substantive material to a well-developed article like human, unless you're proposing that your addition is in essentially final form.  Others can then of course respond to the proposal and modify the text.  But you shouldn't add something with the idea that it's a mere placeholder.  Use the talk page or your user space for that.  67.119.2.101 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

RFAR
Response to User:Newyorkbrad and other Arbs.

I appreciate the time you and the other Arbs put into your work. Note that I did not make any complaints about the other editors, not because there wasn't anything to complain about, but because that's not what I do. What I do is I go around improving articles in various ways and, in the few cases where I face opposition, I argue forcefully for certain changes to be made.

In this case, at the punishment article, Steve Quinn and JimWae claim that their poor writing is supported by V, and that my writing is OR. Hence starting at the punishment article would seem to be more sensible than some general referendum in accord with some vague behavioural standard, steered by various disgruntled editors whom Ive soundly defeated in past debates (SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, etc.) -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Soundly defeated"? Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And perhaps take a look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia
Care to make a comment in the Oppose or Support section, since you created the current lead as well? We definitely need consensus on the matter. Not sure how long it will take, though. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nonce
Template:Nonce has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't seriously link mainspace article leads to the essay Nonce introductions. I reckon the template has to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

edit counter
Steve, for purposes of understanding your overall edit history, it might be helpful to others if you were to enable the toolserver edit counter as described here. It's apparent that your editing interests have changed a fair amount over the years. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Nonce introductions
Nonce introductions, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nonce introductions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Nonce introductions during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. → ROUX  ₪  18:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A request
Please do not put any more talkbacks on my talk page directing me to the AN/I discussion about your editing behavior. I will see what's posted there in my own time, and, in any case, you seem intent on focusing the discussion on me and my thought processes, and that's not what it's about. As I've said repeatedly, these tactics of yours are wasting your energy, which should be directed to answering the questions that have been raised about you, and not to ancilliary issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the good advice, and the fact that, at least on appearances, you have moderated your views toward me somewhat. You still have yet to justify why you support an "indef block or community ban" on the basis of zero direct experience? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I cannot say that my view of you has improved at all; in fact, your evasiveness and failure to be straight reflect quitre badly on you. You are heading for a sanction, of that I'm certain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of sanction? Note that its quite common and natural to be a bit evasive when someone is trying to hit you with something.-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Email about use of undisclosed user accounts
Please look for an email from about your use of undisclosed accounts. Please respond to let me know that you've received it and will follow up with ArbCom. IMO, an user with a history of editing warring and ArbCom sanction should not be using undisclosed accounts without a very good reason, and then the accounts should be disclosed to ArbCom. So, please follow up to answer my concerns. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please list the accounts you have found in an email. I can state unequivocally that I have not used any sockpuppet accounts in any adversarial or otherwise improper way. A thorough check will show this. If there is some technical matter with Arbcom and its past rulings, I will deal with it. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not used any other accounts in a long time, and even when I did, such usage was rare and well within the guidelines at WP:SOCK. Note that the Arbcom ruling was largely topical in scope, and does not cover articles not within that scope. At no time have I used socks while under the sanctions listed at the previous Arbcom ruling, as I am sure you may already know from the history. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop reinserting content on Arbcom cases page
AGK is one of the Arbitration Committee clerks. It is explicitly his job to remove extraneous material from case filings.

Please stop reinserting it. It's not appropriate, please drop the issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, but why the shouting? Note that I reinserted the content in as hidden text, rather than shown. Hidden text is preferable as it preserves the history inline. What then is the issue? And why remove my comment and not SlimVirgin's? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't post that comment; you added it from an edit summary of mine, and I've now removed it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time
I am willing to mediate this dispute, if all participants find me acceptable, and the dispute is still live. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I made that request a month ago. There is current no dispute at time. Parties on both sides agreed to a single new lead sentence that deals with "a continuum." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous tip
I came by to give you an anonymous tip. Pleas, go here: Communication. (Of course if view the edit history this will not be so anonymous :>) --- The anonymous tipster -- September 27, 2010

Truth
Please stop editing the lede on the Truth article. We have a consensus lede. See the talk page. You appear to be repeating the same pattern. Leave this lede alone, please Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you know the ANI is still open? Did you know there is still a discussion going on? Yes, it was still active within the last few hours. You might be interested in what they were discussing.  Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A friendly comment
Hi Steve,

I've been watching the ANI/ArbCom involving you as it has unfolded, and various related things I've stumbled across while wikiwandering from them. I just noticed User:Beyond My Ken's comment on the MfD for your essay on vague/"nonce" introductions (this one), and I feel like I need to make a similar comment. I do not mean to attack you, merely to state my (IMO impartial) observations of what I've seen happening; both for your benefit, and also for the consideration of your (if I may frame it thus) adversaries and judges, who are undoubtedly watching your talk page here.

When I first encountered you at Rights I was, as you know, not especially happy with the edits you made; but I voiced my objections, and you replied civilly, and things worked out pretty well, in my opinion. I was left with no hard feelings toward you, and the incident felt like a good example of how Wikipedia's consensus process can work out disagreements between editors. When you requested I comment in the debate at Human, I observed that your behavior there seemed to me slightly more antagonistic or aggressive; even as I wrote qualified agreements with you or criticisms of your critics, you seemed to behave as though I was attacking you (or your position at least), until I explained otherwise. But then, the other parties in that dispute were likewise much more aggressive and blunt than I feel I was in our discussion at Rights, and I could easily see how their behavior could put you on the defensive. Nobody is ever at their best when they are on the defensive.

Similarly, as I've watched the ANI/ArbCom/etc unfold, even as I've commented in mild defense of you, your behavior in these various proceedings has seemed, to paraphrase Ken's comment referenced above, less than straightforward. However, also like at the Human debate, I can easily see how this difference in behavior is due to a difference in the type of opposition you are facing. The impression I get, if I may paint a picture with words here (and at the risk of sounding like your psychoanalyst), is of someone facing a serious threat, feeling inside themselves fearful of that threat, and wanting to fight or flee; but knowing that that will only exacerbate the problem, and instead desperately trying to diffuse the threat while presenting the calm, outward appearance of one who does not feel threatened; trying to appear neither vulnerable nor belligerent, even though he might truthfully feel either or both of those.

That is an honorable type of response, remaining calm while under attack, and certainly better than acting on a fight-of-flight response. However, the resulting behavior appears, for lack of better terms, "slippery" or "fidgety", certainly not calm, straightforward, and honest. It puts you in a bad light; even I am beginning to feel suspicious of the faithfulness and quality of your edits (though I am not, yet, granting those intuitive feelings conscious validation; I'm just voicing the emotional impression I am getting), and I can certainly see how others like Ken would get a similar impression. I suppose one of the reasons I am making this comment here is to name the feelings that I think I am observing, in the hope that it might help diffuse them, to help bring you genuine calm, which should not only be more pleasant for you but also, more practically, a useful attitude in navigating the challenges you face. (Of course if what I think I am observing is incorrect, then I hope I have not made any offense in suggesting that you feel thus).

I sincerely hope that the proceedings you are involved in work out for the best, that you are not banned or blocked, but can continue contributing here, in a manner that is satisfactory to all editors. If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to reference or copy these comments of mine anywhere in those proceedings, please feel free to do so; I'm not comfortable enough with the higher-level dispute resolution processes to know whether my comments there would be appropriate, nor am I involved enough to feel the need to interject them despite that uncertainty.

Best of luck, --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this. In a certain respect I agree with your criticism about calmness, or lack thereof. In another respect I think it just comes with the territory - its generally unthinkable that the threat of a severe action might come as a result of merely a tally on an ANI page. In that context, I don't think I've done myself any disservice by answering any charges, particularly those that come from left field or from old ghosts, looking to avenge old battles. That said, I do accept the general criticism that I take the source-first approach to editing, just as I put for the prognosis that some sourced editing suffers from an assumption of coherence. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 08:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve. I don't hold a view on you or the allegations made about you/your-editing or others/their-editing in relation to this. That said, I am of the general view that a consensus should be enacted in one form or another if it has emerged. Some users would prefer if you voluntarily accepted a binding revert restriction instead of having it imposed involuntarily. If not as anything else, it would be a step towards resolving some of the concerns (including those of Pfhorrest, who was among editors who opposed harsher measures but consented to a revert restriction being imposed on you). I've left a note and question for you here in relation to that - I invite your response to it. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you have been editing your statement on the main case page, whereas all new evidence or statements should be made on the evidence page. The main case page should not be altered once a case has been opened. Please could you either move your statement to the evidence page, or alternatively, if you prefer, I can do so for you. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Truth redux
Apparently I jumped the gun while you were editing the "Truth" article. One admin in particular thinks that your edits improved the lead. I agree that most all of them did. I hope you don't mind me saying that I was surprised. In any case, if you want to continue what you started I won't stand in the way. Also, I am curious to see what the finished product will be. Also, I guess I owe you an apology for jumping the gun in this particular instance. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject namespace
Hello, Stevertigo. This is to inform you that I have closed this Wikipedia proposal as failed, as it has not gained enough consensus on the talkpage to support it. If you have any objections, feel free to contact me on my talkpage. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  19:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Relativity
This kind of edit are the kind that people are trying to explain to you are problematic. You change a key word to explain the concept of relativity namely "relative" into "inequal" a word that has a specialised meaning within a very specific field, namely math. In doing so you change a statement that was backed by two citations into a statement which is no longer supported by a citation, but appears to have two citations that someone will eventually discover no longer support what they claim to be supporting. When you change key terminology please make sure to use terminology that is both clearly intelligible to lay readers (i.e. not specialised or jargon) and also base your changes with sources. If you alter the wording of a sourced passage, check the original sources and see if they also support your new wording - if they don't make sure to evaluate whether your source or the sources given are more authoritative or represent a more widespread usage. Most important:back up changes, also small changes in terminology with sources. ·Maunus· ƛ · 03:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you catching that. I had mixed feelings about touching that article, I did so to work in the various types of relativism mentioned in the hatnote. Inequality is not strictly a mathematical concept. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In social sciences you can talk about inequality, e.g. "gender inequality" but you never encounter a statement such as "the genders are inequal".(google search: "are inequal" gets 3.390 hits mostly about math oron blogs written by non-native speakers - "are unequal" gets 425,000 hits)·Maunus· ƛ · 03:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo ANI: Administrator close
(original on ANI sub-page / copy to User talk:Stevertigo + log to edit restrictions page)

This has been hanging open too long. There is community consensus for - at the very least - a community edit restriction of 1RR per week per article on Stevertigo, as noted above and described by Ncmvocalist. This is the least of the restrictions which had significant community support (a 0RR restriction and a moderate length ban also had more support than oppose, but due to poll respondee selection issues and the also-active Arbcom case I am inclined not to impose those).

Pursuant to that - As an uninvolved administrator, I am closing this discussion with a community imposed 1RR/week/article edit restriction on Stevertigo, without stated end date / duration as none was mentioned in the consensus discussions (though, obviously, Steve can request reconsideration at future time(s) reasonably not less than say six months from now).

I additionally and personally would like to add a cautionary note - Steve, you have contributed greatly to Wikipedia over these many years. It is evident that large parts of the community have now lost faith in your positive contributions and lost patience dealing with you, regardless of who is "at fault" in terms of policy and process. I urge you to consider your behavior and work to mitigate that loss of patience and faith. This cannot help but end badly if you continue down the path that brought you to this time and place. Administrators and Arbcom cannot help you if you drive a wedge in between yourself and the community writ large. I have no wish to be back here in another three or six months with a larger angry community who will not be satisfied by anything short of an actual ban. Even if others' behavior is entangled in the current dispute, Steve, you have to admit you've made a lot of enemies. Consider reaching out and trying to make them friends again.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a clarifying note with a more precise version of the edit restriction:
 * Stevertigo is subject to a community imposed edit restriction of 1 revert per article per week, with indefinite duration.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Network neutrality (disambiguation)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Main2 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Main2. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Main2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)