User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

LOL. Yeah, doesnt it give a whole new twist to the other debates going on here? Danny 23:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Some of us take our comics very seriously ... (hey, i have two comics from my collection on loan to my museum right now.) I am glad though that I am dealing with this, rather than the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Danny 23:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was slightly confused (ah, the joys of caffeine withdrawal) by your statement on Uncle Ed's talk page, but I understood them better when I realized that you were a member of Queer Wikipedians. I like lesbians too, although probably not in the same way you do! ;) Glad to make your acquaintance. AvestanHamster

Category:FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World
I note that you have moved three-day-old criticism of your behaviour regarding Category:FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World to Talk:User:Stevertigo Archive 9, unanswered. Andy Mabbett 21:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How unpleasant this user is! +sj +

Hi Stevertigo. Just read your comments on anti-American sentiment and anti-Semitism. That's a great idea to ask highly partisan contributos to refrain from editing a particular article. I think one of the problems with Wikipedia is that after a while people who have worked a lot on that article feel they own it, and theye don't tolerate any changes. Edit wars then lead to page protection and the article is stagnant. IMO the page protection policy should be reformed somewhat, and such people should be forced to stay away from a particular article for, say a couple of weeks or a month if they are unable to resolve their dispute.pir 00:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not exactly agree -- please see my comment on the anti-Semitism talk page. Slrubenstein

Thanks for your message SV, and apologies for not having the time to reply yet. I read your post on the mailinglist and saw the draft. I think it's very interesting but there are also some problems with it. I'll post a message to the list etc. pir 13:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Semitism
I very much dislike your ideas for resolving the troubles on anti-semitism (which incidentilly I think may never be solved, at least until the arab/israeli crisis is solved). Interestingly enough, I find your ideas interesting in regards to very different purposes. I have long had an idea for achieving 1.0 which is outlined here and here. This is alot of peoples idea, not just mine of course, but I think your method of regulationg the anti-semite page might be better suited towards a method for article validation. Thanks for reading, let me (or others) know what you think, Sam [Spade] 04:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Picture of the day
I noticed you've been removing text from the images of the day. The text is supposed to be the same height as the image. It looks better that way than having a tiny bit of text next to a huge image. Do you not agree that taller images should get more text? Angela. 18:51, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

We could specify a font size but that might annoy people more. The draft looks like it contains far too many rules to be workable. People have difficulty following the policy already. Angela. 20:20, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * But what is standard? I thought my font size was standard, and the height of the text always matched the image, but maybe it doesn't? Angela. 20:31, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * A quick poll, but not an actual Quickpoll to see how many words most people see in a 300*300px box could be useful. Angela. 20:54, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds good. I'll leave you to set up the vote/poll/survey. :) Angela. 21:29, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. Whilst you're here, could you please vote on the potential new members at Mediation Committee. Thanks. Angela. 00:02, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Clocks
I don't think that will work as we use so much page caching these days. It's either going to prevent the cache working and slow down the site, or people are going to see the time at which the page was cached and not what time it actually is. Perhaps we could sell Wikimedia branded desk clocks to people instead. (Sorry, my mind's maybe too much on fundraising today. ;) Angela. 00:38, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You could talk to Tim Starling about it. He had an idea of getting a clock into the sidebar once. I don't know if anything came of it though. Angela. 02:04, Jul 24, 2004 (BST)

Hi Steve. We have a lot of mediation work coming up, and not enough mediators. Can you please vote on the new candidates. Thanks. Danny 14:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RTL text
Hi. I just found the "RTL" article on meta and noticed that you wrote it yourself. If possible, please read the query I put on Tim Starling's talk page on this topic, and if you could provide any answers I would be grateful.

Thanks!Dovi 05:51, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I like pollination :-) thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing 21:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ahmed Qurei
Please compare what I (re)wrote with the original. The NPOV, if any, is in the original article. By removing the "internal corruption and lawlessness", you have removed Ahmed Qurei's reasons for resigning. Now it appears to be a matter of personal pique. "Critics claim" hides the fact that Ahmed Qurei is one of these critics. ;( Lance6Wins 19:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On July 27, 2004, Qurei retracted his resignation after Yasser Arafat granted him some powers to carry out reforms. Qurei was given control over parts of a security apparatus that exhibits internal corruption and lawlessness. These characteristics of the Palestinian security apparatus are seen by United States-led mediators as preventing the advance of the Road Map. Yasser Arafat has retained control over the bulk of a dozen security services. Arafat acted after the Gaza Strip experienced an unprecedented explosion of public unrest and demands for reforms, including elections. 

Qurei retracted his resignation on July 27, 2004, after Yasser Arafat granted him some of his requested powers to carry out reforms. Qurei was given control over parts of a security apparatus; Arafat has retained control over the bulk of a dozen security services. Critics claim that this particular organization exhibits internal corruption and lawlessness; United States-led mediators have blamed them for preventing the advance of the Road Map. Arafat acted after the Gaza Strip experienced an unprecedented explosion of public unrest and demands for reforms, including elections. [1]

How about this, its not just one security force that Qurei's gets. Based upon your suggestion I have added a quote from the NYT as well. After Yasser Arafat granted Qurei control over parts of the security apparatus, one of his requested powers in order to carry out reforms, Qurei retracted his resignation on July 27, 2004 stating: "I am satisfied that President Arafat is serious this time, that it is not just words but that this time there will be action." Arafat has retained control over the bulk of a dozen security services. Ahmed Qurei and other critics claim that these organization exhibits internal corruption and lawlessness; United States-led mediators have blamed them for preventing the advance of the Road Map. Arafat acted after the Gaza Strip experienced an unprecedented explosion of public unrest and demands for reforms, including elections. [1]

Your thoughts, please. Lance6Wins 20:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding this version you wrote: "Qurei retracted his resignation on July 27, 2004, after Yasser Arafat granted him control over parts of a security apparatus. (Named?, what does it do?), its control was one of Qurei's conditions for the retraction; among other concerns he listed as necessary for carrying out reforms. Arafat has retained control over the bulk of a dozen security services. Qurei among the critics of who claim that the security appartus shows signs of internal corruption and lawlessness; United States-led mediators have blamed (members of? the existence of?) for preventing the advance of the current Road Map, put forth by the so-called "Quartet." Arafat acted after unprecedented public unrest in the Gaza Strip; protesters calling for reforms, including elections.


 * Named? What does it do?

The organizations given to Qurei's control are not named in the reports that I have seen so far....there are between 12-17 or so different ones.


 * critics of

yeah....Yasser Arafat is the answer, or Yasser Arafat's running of the PA, but will that be acceptable to Wikipedia?


 * members of? the existence of?

yeah....who gets blamed is again an item that will cause an uproar.


 * you lost the quote after saying that it added a lot????

"I am satisfied that President Arafat is serious this time, that it is not just words but that this time there will be action."

Your thoughts, please. Lance6Wins 21:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Yasser Arafat's leadership" is fine. "running of" carries connotations of dicatatorship, ???? George W Bush runs the United States Executive Branch. Are there connotations of dictatorship there? I think not. (note this is not based upon his policies but rather long usage in the US press...the president runs the gov't if not the country.)

SO do we go with this version...?

After Yasser Arafat granted Qurei control over parts of the security apparatus, one of his requested powers in order to carry out reforms, Qurei retracted his resignation on July 27, 2004 stating: "I am satisfied that President Arafat is serious this time, that it is not just words but that this time there will be action." Arafat has retained control over the bulk of a dozen security services. Ahmed Qurei and other critics claim that these organization exhibits internal corruption and lawlessness; United States-led mediators have blamed them for preventing the advance of the Road Map. Arafat acted after the Gaza Strip experienced an unprecedented explosion of public unrest and demands for reforms, including elections. Given what we have changed....what was POV about the original version? We have rearranged a little, added a quote, added other critics as well as Qurei. Lance6Wins 21:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You wrote: Go with it. Avoid confrontation with Viajero and Zero, unless its in the context of mediation. Dont revert - make comment/criticism. Im done for today (sorry-longer text got lost -shortened version)

I'll go with the version immediately above as you indicated.

"Avoid confrontation with Viajero and Zero" this is difficult. will they participate in mediation? both have made a habit of checking my user contributions page and reverting without read the contribution or the talk. How am I do deal with that behavior? To date I have reverted their uncommented deletions. (I count "go away you fanatic" as uncommented.)

There is a larger problem here that I brought to the mailing list. That larger problem is unaddressed to date.

There is another larger problem that you touched upon in the mailing list. How is Wikipedia to accomodate multiple reasonable viewpoints? You expressed it much better in the wiki-en mailing list.

I look forward to exploring these two issues with you further. Lance6Wins 21:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by POV language in option 2 on Talk:New Imperialism? Could you please altert me to it so that I could correct it. Thanks, 172 00:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vandal blocks
You blocked 66.122.183.77 for two bad edits   to current events without giving the user any warning at all. This was not vandalism, and the user was just testing to see if Wikipedia can actually be edited. I unblocked them, because your block violated the blocking policy. Guanaco 01:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

History project and New Imperialism
Thanks! I like your idea about the resources list. (I've started using for non-Wiki projects even; it's much easier to organize and sort through than my MS Internet Explorer favorites list.) The Wikipedia project on history is a great idea. (Notice, e.g., the philosophy and critical theory project boxes on User:Snowspinner's page-- I'd really like to work with you on doing something like that for history. We could also ask Slrubenstein, John Kenney, Danny, and some other users if they'd like to help out.)

I appreciate your efforts to intervene in the dispute on New Imperialism. I'm getting ready to make some comments on Talk:New Imperialism/Merge. I'm still not sure if a general overview is necessary, but I'll be more than happy to discuss this with you. Thanks again, 172 07:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration
I saw that you provided a list of "evidence" at. Each of those disputes was settled. VeryVerily and I settled our dispute. Those request for comment pages have long been delisted. There is no need to rehash disputes that have already been settled. Although I know you were acting in good faith, your links only have the effect of spoiling the well, and opening up old wounds, which is a bit unfair to me. Thus, I'd appreciate it if you removed those links. The only thing that belongs in the list of "evidence" is Talk:New Imperialism, which will allow everyone to see that this is not a serious request for arbitration by serious users. Thanks, 172 15:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought that you added that list. 172 15:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Thanks for the response. It was added by Sam Spade. He didn't sign his name to the list, but yours was above, so I made the mistake of thinking that the list was yours. (BTW, sorry if my comments at Talk:New Imperialism/Merger are a bit lengthy. I see text there a step toward an eloquently written draft with a nice flow, despite the verbose comments. I guess that we're both finding out that this is one of the hardest historical topics to write a general overview about.) 172 16:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quote
So what's the deal with Quote? You addded it to Goings-on and then seemed to abandon it before it started making sense. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You might want to take it off of goings-on then, since it isn't going. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars
Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins
The Lance6wins arbitration case is open. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Lance6wins/Evidence. --mav 10:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Relationship between segments of Judaism page
Hey Stevertigo

You've protected the Relationship between segments of Judaism page in order to (in your words) "force disagreements to the talk". Normally I would consider this a reasonable step, but given that RK has refused to respond to any talk on the page since you protected it in the form he prefers, it seems your intervention has had the exact opposite effect from that you intended. I can understand why RK would be perfectly happy with the current situation, but I don't see how it will help bring about a resolution. Do you think your action should be re-considered? Jayjg 02:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Stevertigo Sorry to bother you again, but a couple of days ago you posted to my webpage that the article is now unprotected, but it is still protected. Have I misunderstood you? Jayjg 16:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikidigest
Is that better? Wikidigest +sj + 06:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page Protection on George W. Bush
For what it's worth, the article content disputes on the GWB page were resolved over a month ago. As you can seen by looking at the GWB talk page, clear and strong consensus was reached on article content. (The article page history might also be enlightening.) There is no article dispute. There has not been an article dispute for the past four page protections. Kevin Baas | talk 03:57, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)


 * I think you misinterpreted me. What I meant was that consensus had been reached on article content, and that that consensus is not in dispute.  Clearly, the article page is not staying on consensus.  But that does not necessarily constitute a dispute, for example, it may constitute vandalism.  A dispute involves a verbal engagement wherein people exchange information with the goal of reaching a resolution that takes all of the information into account.  This is not happening.  The article content in question is not being disputed, or even discussed, on the article talk page.  I do not mean to say that there are not people who would have the article a different way.  There are probably quite a few such people who have quibbles with the content, differences in opinion and the like, but most of them tolerate their differences out of respect for other users and the rational understanding that they can't get everything that they want.  These differences do not necessarily constitute a dispute of article content.  Since it is clear what the article content in question is ultimately going to be, and nobody is throwing this into question, i.e. there is nothing of questionable legitimacy in the article, there is no article content dispute. However, I do understand that VV tacitly, though not verbally, disputes the content of the page, and that therefore there is a dispute of some sort.  But this is his own personal dispute, and does not exist on the talk page, nor do the other users recognize anything disputable about what has been agreed upon, or the process which has led to that agreement.  I.e. there is nothing in the article of questionable legitimacy.  There is a dispute, but the legitimacy of the page's content is not in question. Consensus on the article content has been legitimately established.  This is what I meant. But regardless, my purpose was simply to inform you of the atypical nature of the events surrounding the article (hence "FWIW"), which your response indicates that you are aware of. So, 'nough said. BTW, thanks for your feedback.  :) Kevin Baas | talk 22:45, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Re: Bush Talk
Why are you offended by Yiddish ?

You do recognize that Yiddish is spoken widely by many persons as an interesting slang, yes?

Do you even know what "Meshugass" means?

For years, the most popular morning radio show in the Boston area was called "big mattress meshugass" and it was NOT being used as a slur.

And what's wrong with "Plotz"?

As for those who claim they were cheated because they were unable to vote right, "Nebbish, Nyudnick or Schnook" are perfectly fair words (Schnook may not be bona-fide Yiddish)

I did however, remove "AK" (literally means "old fart"), because that might be misconstrued as derisive.

Rex071404 09:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * And to clarify, - prior to being enfranchised by constitutional amendment, Black Americans never had the vote, so it's axiomatic that any efforts to claim "disenfranchisement" must refer to only post-Civil War era issues. Rex071404 09:20, 20 Aug 2004 {UTC)

"Disenfranchisement" means to be entirely stripped, by statute, of the right to vote. It does not mean running into a SNAFU. Southern Blacks in the 1920's-60's were often treated in a way that is tantamount to being stripped, but the US Constitution was never revoked in that regard. The Jim Crow era was pernicious indeed, but nothing even remotely approaching Bull Conner and his minions occcured in Florida in 2000. Using the word "disenfranchisement" in referrence to 2000 Florida vote SNAFUs is a gross exaggeration and demeans the struggles of the civil rights workers and protesters of the 50's and 60's. To use that word here is to lose all sense of proportion. Rex071404 09:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS: Why did you remove this word: "racist" in favor of "bigoted"? Rex071404 09:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I took out "AK" because while that word does in fact mean "old fart", some Jews who speak Yiddish might interpret that word as applying only to Jews. Hence, that word had to go. All the other words apply to Jews and Gentiles alike and are therefore immune to complaints of "bigotry". It would be no different than using a French or Italian slang to insult a foolish person. People who design idiotic ballots and people who cannot record their own vote are correctly are, by and large, foolish. Even so, my swift removal of "AK" and copious detailed explaination proves no bigotry was intended. You are off base on this and should simply admit you over-reacted. And final note: the words I used were insults, not slurs. Those words insult on the basis of the individual's foolishness, not on the basis any of anyone being a member of any class, ethnicity or group, etc. they may be from. And you do know that the woman who approved the ballot design Theresa LePore sounds to be French, not Jewish yes? So why is insulting her with Yiddish automatically counted as a "slur" by you? Rex071404 17:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Insults?
No party to the discussion has had an insult directed at them, except me, when you called me a bigot. I was referring to my view of people not party to our dialog. Think about it. Rex071404 23:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics
Hi,

I've just put a revert warning on User talk:213.157.193.40 for 3 reverts in an hour. If you are around at the moment and feel inclined, could you revert their last edit (assuming someone else doesn't get there first). -- Solipsist 23:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I've listed on Template:Quotable on TfD since it seems to have no purpose other than being an out of date copy of Template:Opentask. If there is meant to be some use for it, please can you explain on TfD. Thanks. Angela. 19:21, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Categories for deletion
Hi. Can I ask you to revisit Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion, in particular the section headed Frustration - deletion without discussion - I still think there's a lot needing to be talked out and some kind of way forward found. At the moment category deletion seems to be controlled as a fiefdom. --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod »  .....TALK Q uietly  )  ]] 02:18, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

semi-serious
The belligerent and haughty are'nt smart enough to do either well. -- and they can't spell, either. ;-)

Mediation Committee application
Hi Steve, just a note to say that Grunt has applied to join the mediation committee. There is a vote at Mediation_Committee if you want to participate. Regards -- sannse (talk) 22:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Picture
Where'd you get the picture on from? It is in public domain or GDFL? Doesn't it need some information posted along with it about that?

-SocratesJedi 22:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

philandering
Why did you call me that? The other words are perhaps ok as your opinion, but you have no data to back up an accusation of "philandering". That accusation is, on it's face, baseless. And as an insult against my sexuality, it's particularly offensive to me. 23:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TfT
I think we have things figured out, do you think you could unprotect it now? Thanks :) --kizzle 23:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Your uploaded image
Thanks for uploading Image:Massoud.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know whether it's released under the GFDL, whether fair use is claimed, or what? Thanks,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Kuniyoshi image
Hi, that you uploaded won't display correctly for me. Any idea what the problem is? (I have plenty of Kuniyoshi images to replace it with if there's a problem.) Noel 20:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ooops, it's working now. Sorrreeee! Noel 20:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cartoon drawing: license missing
Hello Stevertigo, could you please add the license information (e.g. GFDL) for this image ? --195.33.105.17 12:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorism" straw poll
Steve, there is a straw poll going on at Straw poll on use of the term "terrorist" on whether or not to use the term "terrorist" to describe the 9/11 attacks. I'd be interested in hearing your view on the subject. – Quadell (talk) (help)  23:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Palo Alto this friday?
Apropos of nothing; I will be randomly in town... it would be cool to meet WPans in the area. +sj + 21:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

cultural and historical background of Jesus
I am engaged in an argument with CheeseDream on this talk page. I have just accused him off a personal attack and I suspect racism. I am not sure whether this is a banable offense. I am concerned too that I am making too much of something. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the relevant material and give me your take -- tell me if you think I am misreading the situation or responding to it inappropriately. Please look at this article's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Saducees_vs._Pharisees and look at the section on "Saducees vs. Pharisees" and "CheeseDream Verges on racism" to get the salient facts. Thanks, Slrubenstein
 * I appreciate your thoughtful comment. Needless to say, if you have any more thoughts or constructive suggestions they will be appreciated, Slrubenstein
 * :) -SV 20:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On your grid, I suspect that literality and theocracy run orthoganal to your other variables (e.g. supernatural, material reality). The real test: do you think you can apply this to any of the conflicts between me and CheeseDreams (or, conceivably, to me and anyone els,e or between him and anyone else, although I'd be happy if you'd just look at he and I for now) and see if your graph allows you to bring any clarity to what is blocking our communication? You may not feel you can constructively intervene in any of othe talk pages at issue, but perhaps you could help, Slrubenstein


 * It also refers to something less than serious - but note that the believer section is rather open: the atheist section is open too, but the non-believer section is somewhat oppository. Not my data, but its like any other way of judging opinion - there are paradozes-SV

Arafat
Actually, you should tell HistoryBuffEr to knock it off with the deletions and refusal to enter Talk:. Thanks. Jayjg 19:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it's protected now too. The matter is in arbitration. Jayjg 19:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with you. The country officially changed its name to Côte d'Ivoire a few years ago, even in English. That shoudl be the name we use. Danny 02:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The name of the country is Côte d'Ivoire, not Ivory Coast. I think that we should always use that name. Danny 03:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)