User talk:Steven Zhang

User Page User Talk Contribs E-mail Subpages Adoption Awards Steve's Status: Busy (verify) 10:00 pm, 12 February 2012 AEDST Talk Archives Stuff to do

Signpost

Sure! I'm always happy to do it. I find it a fun excuse to spend time on ArbCom pages. :-)

Best wishes that your break is relaxing! All the best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

whack!

Whack!

For this. sonia♫ 08:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Innapropriate edit?

While in another ongoing dispute at DR/N, User:Darkness Shines has taken it upon himself to return content from the OWS dispute. I don't know how these things work, but left a note asking him to self revert and weigh in on the discussion. At this point I am not sure that was appropriate and looks agrresive to me as interferring with an ongoing dispute, while in a dispute himself? Am I wrong or is this an innapropriate action?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link to the edit they made please, and I'll take a look. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[1]. I also started an ANI on this, but if you feel this should be handled strictly through DR mediation I can strike that report out and let you handle this in the manner you feel is appropriate if any such action is necessary.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, DRN is for the resolution of content disputes. In fact, the reason I created DRN was to shift content disputes away from ANI :-). It might be best to close off the discussion at ANI, I'll see what I can do on my tea break (in 10 minutes). Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother. I don't wish to take up your time with this. I no longer care. Thank you for your time and I am sorry to have bothered you with any of this.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I'll keep an eye on the DRN thread just in case anything changes. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to waste your time. I longer have faith in the process. Thank you for your efforts. I am no longer adding further input and the editor may freely add that portion back.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to add that you have been helpful and in no way are any of your actions anything that made me lose my faith. I thank you for your input.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution can be hard. Best of luck in future. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Selina's unblock request

Steve, if you look at Selina's answer to WereSpielChequers questions on her talk page [2] I think that will explain what happened with regard to this supposed canvassing.

Keep in mind that WP:CANVASS did not even exist (created October 2006) when this user left Wikipedia (April 2006) (in a twisted way, it's a testament to the fact that she, unlike your typical banned user, didn't sock puppet in the meantime and hence is now a bit clueless about WP policies). Given that, the fact that she emailed a bunch of people to bring their attention to her request is pretty innocent. Particularly since she emailed all sorts of editors - I think basically just people who she saw were "around" the topic/discussion (I didn't get mine till after I posted) - including, very obviously, ones which would and did turn out to very strongly oppose her (like this Elkman person). If the canvassing thing is your only concern then I think that can be addressed with mentorship. I hope that addresses your concern in regard to this matter and will lead you to change your statement (if I wasn't trying to influence you, I wouldn't bother to post here, ey?).

VolunteerMarek 00:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Already did. Initially I didn't realise that their block was over five years ago. I do think mentorship may be something that should be considered, but who would take them on? (Also, did you notice that the Holodomor MedCab case has been closed?) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I guess it died a natural death. Though those things are like zombies. They ALWAYS come back.VolunteerMarek 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Petr Mitrichev

Hi,

I noticed that you closed the AfD as keep. However, you seem to have closed it before anyone responded to my final comment, which was that it's not obvious that the Ogoniok article does not ensure that the article passes GNG. Could you clarify your views on this? SPat ^talk 05:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I'll have to do it in half an hour (I am currently at work and am unable to access anything except essential websites, which excludes Google, but includes Wikipedia. Awesome). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the delay in replying. My rationale for the close as keep, is because the main argument you made at the debate was that the article did not meet the general notability guidelines. The other users who commented felt that these two sources (1 2) meant that the article does meet the GNG, specifically, significant coverage in reliable sources. It's only two articles, but the coverage in them is extensive. It's a borderline one, but with no other dissenters (those favouring deletion) closing as keep seemed the way to go. I hope this answers your questions, if not, feel free to let me know. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

All right, Steve. Do you still want to try? Rumiton (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Y'all know where I hang out. I'm keeping an eye on the talk page and will let my fellow co-ordinators know, but at this stage it doesn't need intervention I think. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think I have reached an impasse. We have two editors who post literally nothing but insults towards the article subject and towards me, and a third who repeats them in a provocative way to make sure no change is made to the article. My comments are getting misquoted, then ignored, then requested again. Would you like diffs? The stated intention of this mini-cabal is to prevent new material which might "overshadow" the old stuff from the 70's from entering the article, and I believe that as they are unable to refute my new sources, they are stalling and obstructing now, hoping I will go away. Comments?

Sinking of the Titanic has attracted a swarm of editors with suggestions, most of them good, for improvements for the FAC. Busy time ahead! Rumiton (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, if things are as you describe than that does seem problematic. Would you mind posting a few diffs for me? Been crazy busy today and I had to clean install Lion on my Mac..that was a pain in the ass. But all seems good now. I'll keep an eye on the Titanic page and chip in over the next few days. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, diffs coming up. Are you prepared for some long hours and hard thinking? That might be what it takes.

Thanks re Titanic. It might be helpful if you introduce yourself to Prioryman; he is fielding the suggestions and has done the bulk of the work to the article. He is very open to good copyediting, but I feel I have looked so long and hard at it now that I have gone a bit stale. Tx again. Rumiton (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To be blatantly honest, I'm bored. It's been a while since I've had a dispute with much meat to dig into. Most are pretty easy to solve. Argh, the curses of being a tenured mediator :p. All my projects are either in place or under development, but a good mediator keeps their skills honed. I'll give Prioryman a poke at some point tomorrow. Off to bed now. Important conference call tomorrow morning ;-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Unboringness coming up. And that's funny, I have a big conference call tomorrow morning, too. I wonder if...naah. Rumiton (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Momento just came back and is helping address some of these issues. I will keep you informed. Rumiton (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm keeping my eye on the talk page. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Clerk"?

From this edit, what do you mean by "clerk" in this context? Is it any different from a regular editor's comment? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have picked up TransporterMan's bad habit to add that note before my comment. It's apparently used to diffentiate one's comments from other users (to note that they're uninvolved) but it's generally unnecessary. Feel free to look at me with a puzzled look, I won't mind :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Welsh language

Howdy. I'm dipping my toe into this article, with the understanding that there's an editor there, whom I don't get along with. Just wondering, if you'd review my question on that articles talkpage, aswell as the revert I'm referring to. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, your edit seems fine. England and Wales falls under the bracket of the UK, so putting it in the infobox how you did looks fine. I can't see any revert though. Just make sure you discuss things on the talk page in a calm, civilized way and you'll be fine. If issues arise you know where I am. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep you informed. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

GRRR, dam passer-by IPs. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A passer-by IP, reverted my change to that article infobox, without any explanation. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I see you undid their edit. If it happens again, let me know. Either way, ensure you discuss it with them on their talk page, even an IP. I've added the page to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it, but remember, discussion is key. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to do the safer thing & walk away from that article, because already, I seem to be facing hostility there & at my talkpage. One can understand why I had past frustrations on those articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Take note of my revert here. Remember, be mindful of what you say. Sometimes, a cluebat is necessary, so I may whack you with one from time to time :-)Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Giggle Giggle, Ok. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Turin

I've made a revert of an edit at that article, and edit (done by Daicaregos) which disrupted the city, sovereign state format in that article. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, either go with Glasgow, Scotland or Glasgow, United Kingdom. Personally I'd prefer Scotland, the sole reason being it narrows down the geographic region where it is located (I know where Glasgow is, but some won't. Scotland narrows it down somewhat). But that's just my personal opinion, it's not really based on policy or anything. How'd you spot the edit? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Random search. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted my revert & then added the British flag, along side the Scottish flag. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I've adopted your suggestion of accuracy & added further info to the USA & Canada entries, in line with the UK entry. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, looks good. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steven Zhang. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Conciliation.
Message added 02:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ya, I saw. Just as a note, I check my watchlist at least 200 times a day, so more likely than not, if you've replied to something I said somewhere, I've probably seen it and am thinking of a reply before you even post a note here :-) Just FYI. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, that's what I do too, (high five). Sorry for the unnecessary notification, in that case. Sometimes, the functions I do manually on Wikipedia become so repetitive that it becomes almost automatic and I just leave a talkback message right after I reply somewhere like it's second nature. Whenaxis about | talk 22:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah. You seem to have a few good ideas in regards to dispute resolution. Shoot me an email, let's have a chat and see what we can come up with. (Reforming DR and getting more people involved is the primary reason I returned to active editing). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Chat

Re your email, are you available for GMail chat? — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I sent both of you an invite. If you just accept the invitation, we could group chat about some things, while we are all online. Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)'

(Already replied to these elsewhere). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey Steve. Quick question about your request for amendment on the Abortion case—do you think we can put bRfC through trial with this and (hopefully) when it's successful, we can repropose it to the community? Whenaxis talk · contribs 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so, no. It will likely be me setting up the discussion (I've discussed this with a few arbitrators) but we'll have to do it on their terms though. But tbh, in this case it's really the case of tomato, tomato. There's really no difference between what they're proposing and what I'm proposing. Which baffles me even more that they said no.... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you speaking with the arbiters on their talk pages, or by e-mail? Do you mind if I join the conversations—because binding content discussions are really a good idea. I've been preparing a request on User:Whenaxis/DR myself to ask ArbCom to reconsider the idea, and since you are already in talks with them, it would be easier to discuss with them directly rather than file another amendment. Whenaxis talk · contribs 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mostly through Google Chat. I might just categorise it under Requests for comment or something. Dunno what to do, tbh. They really didn't provide much direction, did they? We could always just frame it like a binding RFC anyways and just have three admins close it. A regular admin, someone from WikiProject Medicine, and I'm sure I can find a sysop who has experience in DR. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, then when we repropose to the community, it will be easier to show the success (hopefully) of the bRfC format. Do you mind if you and I "co-chair" the discussion like ArbCom suggested on your amendment? Whenaxis talk · contribs 19:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, discuss over email. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

You okay taking over the Thanksgiving thread on DRN again? (check your e-mail on bRfCs) Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I might move it to mediation, it's becoming overly large and I don't think a quick fix is likely. Didn't see any email... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw your note on the thread. Anywho, I guess Gmail is failing on me once again. I'll try resending it sometime. Whenaxis talk · contribs 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wales

Hello Steven. Do you know how to restore a post? Daicaregos erroneously (but I believe innocently), thought a response I made to another editors, was to him & he thus moved my post. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, I've fixed things up. PS - I must be loosing my mind, I'm actually advising editors to walk away from that article discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good-o. Remember that sometimes it's wise to take your own advice (and walk away). It takes two (or more editors) to have an argument. That said, I have seen someone arguing and replying with themself once. Very funny to watch. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay's latest mania: dashes are the new diacritics

Firstly, let me express my profound comisserations. I really cannot think of what possessed you to be GoodDay's mentor. I have witnessed his behaviour on Wikipedia for years, and I'm afraid that nothing indicates that he will ever be an asset to the project. It is actually GoodDay himself who suggested I speak to you about his edit yesterday to the Robert Burns article. I objected to him changing "(b. 1762)" to "(1762–??)" etc. Now, most sentient beings would realise that the reason it says "(b. 1762)" is that we do not know the person's date of death (in this they are far from alone, see Category:Date of death unknown). But not GoodDay. He seems to think that the DoB is just an oversight by the people who have written the article, and that bunging in a couple of question marks he will stimulate the lazy oafs to provide the missing info. When reverted, he re-reverted, instead of taking it to Talk, yet we all know he is well aware of WP:BRD. I also find it worrying that he was at the Burns article at all, considering that it was the scene of one of his thousands of crimes. Finally, can you get him to use Edit summaries? We know who he is, but most Wikipedians do not, so when they see one of his summariless edits they have to click through to see what he is up to. A total waste of everybody's time. As usual. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is classic GoodDay: he then looked at my contributions and goes straight into his classic pattern of behaviour. He doesn't give a fig about our official policy WP:VERIFY and how things are referred to in the real world, nor does he consider that the folk who wrote the article might know more about the topic than he does. He thinks that Wikipedia is just a forum for him to play tit for tat. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask you to watch your tone. You can't just come here and say "zomg GoodDay is evil" if you act make comments like you have here. Now, I am assuming you are referring to this edit. No comment on the ndashes, I'm not personally familiar with them, but as for the dates, GoodDay is technically correct. The manual of style states that the format such as (b. 1762) is to be used when the subject is still living, this is clearly not the case here. It states that when the date of death is completely unknown, it should be extrapolated from the last known period of activity, eg (1762 - after 1827). If you can't find even that, I'd suggest removing the date completely. (b. 1762) is completely incorrect. As for GoodDay, he seems to be making a genuine effort to improve, and has been using edit summaries for the large part of his recent editing. But users reverting his edits with flawed arguments isn't really helping, nor does baiting him. Have a nice day. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mais, may I ask why I wasn't alerted of this discussion, let alone invited? ✝DBD 23:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, DBD, but I've removed the reply. I felt it was full of sarcasm and unnecessary. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 :) GoodDay (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I see my task as one of your mentors is to advise you on how to proceed when you get stuck, whack you on the head when you lack clue and explain to you how to improve when you stuff up. I also am here to tell you off when you do the wrong thing, but at the same time stick up for you when you're unfairly criticized, like above. There's definitely an element of "as you sow, so shall ye reap" here, but I can see you're making an effort to improve. Just remember to take it slowly and if it gets too heated, edit somewhere else for a while. It's not like we have a shortage of articles or anything :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Steven Zhang. You have new messages at GoodDay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

He's an irresponsible editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay is now just referring me straight to his mentors, without addressing the issues raised

Sorry to bother you again, but GoodDay now refers me straight to you. What exactly are you meant to do about it? It is not your editing that is problematic.--Mais oui! (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fed up with Mais oui!'s antagonizing/baiting conduct. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Now he wants me to take ALL concerns direct to you! How do you feel about that then? --Mais oui! (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'm beginning to believe that Mais oui! also has ownership issues with Scottish related articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

PPS: Very well, Mais oui! isn't barred from my talkpage (per agreement at my Rfc/U), but it would help if he would contact you & Dan, when he chooses to contact me. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Defending oneself

You know something Steven. It's tough enough having to defend onself against an editor on another editors talkpage [not your talkpage ;)]. But, it's even tougher, when that talkpage owner deletes your defence posts. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Then stop jumping in when another editor asks for advice. Also this edit on your talk page is in poor taste. We have just lost an editor who made more detailed content contributions and created more articles then you are ever likely to. Your own conduct as at least a part of their decision to retire. You should be apologising, not seeing it as a vindication. Its that sort of petty minded comment that gets you into trouble. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't accept blame for another editor's choice to retire. The editor-in-question made that choice on his own. GoodDay (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Which editor are we talking about here? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 07:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming Snowded means this bloke. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Daicaregos, GoodDay has a long running issue with him. GoodDay, its the idea that you are vindicated that is really irritating. Just redact it and apologise. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree here. If your comment about being vindicated referred to Daicaregos retiring, then I am personally disgusted. Dancing on one's grave is probably one of the worst acts you could do here. At the very least an apology is necessary here, but if this is indeed the case, I am not impressed. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, it wasn't about Daicaregos' retirement. But, I did redact anyways, as a curtesy to Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What was it about? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was about Mais oui! & his failed attempt to provoke/harass me, around the British articles. GoodDay (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. Just please don't make me upgrade my cluebat. Some things are better left not said. I think you'd be in a lot less trouble if you thought about saying stuff before you actually post it. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly trying to concentrate on gnome editing, but it gets difficult when one's constantly getting sh-t upon. GoodDay (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to the outing issue comments have been redacted on my talk page, but GoodDay was very definitely grave dancing (or at least standing outside the cemetery conducting a celebratory square dance.). If he has understood the foolishness of that sort of edit then all well and good. I'll leave it at that. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I did see that, but not the actual edits. Can't really comment there, I dunno what happened. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 09:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You could always go back to working on the M*A*S*H article :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Someday, I will. GoodDay (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Even stuff like copyediting has been causing issues lately :/. When I want to maintain a low profile, I fix dead links. Immensely useful task. Wanna know more? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've not good with external links. GoodDay (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you don't do it manually. You use interiot's tool to do it. It's easy, trust me. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll consider it, 'after' I putter around the M*A*S*H articles some more. GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, keep your nose clean for a few days. I've got a rather ugly RFC to draft over the next day or two *groans*. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll practice more restraint. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you do, for both our sakes. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 ;-) GoodDay (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Burns

Did you have to continue the edit warring on Robert Burns? Please revert your change and discuss the matter on the talk page. This change is disputed, and the interpretation of guidelines to justify it appears to be open to question. I still do not see what it is claimed to say, but maybe the guideline needs clarified. Either way, continuing to impose this edit on the article while it is disputed is not helpful. The best place to clear the matter up is on the talk page, something that has been requested a number of times, but hasn't happened so far. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems like several users have been ganging up on GoodDay recently, and it's not really fair. He's been trying to improve and keep his head low. I personally think the policy is pretty clear, but happy to self revert and discuss it. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, an awful lot of us think that "it's not really fair" that GoodDay persistently disrupts Wikipedia.

I'm going to level with you: I genuinely think that your "mentorship" of GoodDay is, on current evidence, doing both him and the Wikipedia project more harm than good. Please take a few days to consider my point of view. Of course, there is the possibility that I am incorrect, and that GoodDay is a reformed character due to your influence, and is now an asset to the Wikipedia project, but I fear that an overly quick response from youself may simply exacerbate an already poor situation. I look forward to hearing from you when you have had a few days to mull this over. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that based on policy, GoodDay is indeed correct here, and I am prepared to stand up for him in situations like that. Take note that I am equally open to whacking him on the head when he stuffs up (see this and this for two examples). In this situation, I think seeking clarification from the community on this at the Village Pump (policy). I am pretty sure precedent is for putting "unknown" as the date of birth, but will find out at the VP. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)re

Sinking of the RMS Titanic FAC

Thanks very much for your help! Could you possibly take a look at the Broad reference (#39)? I can't seem to get it to work... Prioryman (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)