User talk:Stevertigo

This editor is a Master Editor and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Edit warring on Campaign for "santorum" neologism

{{3RR|Campaign for "santorum" neologism}} - please back off dude. Youreallycan 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Your comment in Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#Lube and fecal matter is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Please withdraw it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

commons:File:Circaflier2.jpg needs verification

Hi Stevertigo, You had originally uploaded that image, which I transferred to the Commons. Would you be able to provide an OTRS verification for that? It is currently marked for deletion. Thanks LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 06:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Critics consider..."

Hi, Stevertigo. I'm hoping you can clear something up for me. Way back in 2005, you introduced content into the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article that said: critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign. (Please see your edits here and here.) I believe the content you introduced is valid, but I have recently improved that text based on existing reliable sources. I've removed the specific "critics consider" phrase, so that the text now reads: The group's tactics are considered an example of a successful political smear campaign. The "critics" designation has been removed because reliable sources indicate that not just critics consider it a smear campaign, but so do impartial journalists, academics and scholars, non-partisan fact checkers and investigators that don't have political motivations or biases.

Now I'm being told by another editor that you proposed the "Critics consider" wording in a consensus discussion, and that my changing of that wording is going against that consensus - and he reverted my edit. (See the other editor's comment about your wording here.) I've searched the Talk archives unsuccessfully for discussion of the "Critics consider" wording, and I was hoping you could point me to where you proposed those two words for discussion. I can't get this other editor to provide a specific diff. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

("Let's keep two-way conversations readable" - Nice.) Xeno, its been almost 7 years, so I can't recall there being much in the way of discussion on that point, maybe just a brief joust with another editor or something the like. I do recall using the "critics consider" language out of a kind of diplomacy - anticipating problems with all other general ways of writing it. So using your wording as a base, it would look like "The group's tactics are considered [by critics as] an example of a successful political smear campaign." This kind of language only makes sense as this view at the time was a rather partisan one, and "critics" nominally identifies who thinks such and why - "critics" serves to both differentiate and identify sufficiently. Now the partisan divide may have smeared out a bit in the years since - Republicans/conservatives may concede that the Swift boat campaign was indeed a smear campaign, and may themselves even use the term "Swiftboating" for their own uses. I haven't seen this myself, but its possible - what I have seen is rather widespread journalistic usage of the term "Swiftboating." This doesn't mean we can disqualify the usage of "critics" in this article - we should probably preserve it as a nominal identifier, and in any case as a way to preserve the historically accurate distinction noted above. I'm all for adding depth with regard to additional sources, etc., but we have to consider things from the historical point of view too. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Libel

The Flynt/Falwell affair is incredibly fascinating, and one of the most important Supreme Court decisons ever. Worth learning more about. Here's the necessary reading.

District Court on libel charge in Falwell v. Flynt: http://www.opengovva.org/foi-opinions/court-opinions-mainmenu-62/744-falwell-v-flynt

Supreme Court: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0485_0046_ZS.html

Analysis suppporting decision by Rodney Smolla: http://www.XXXXXX.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2023%26context%3Dfacpubs&ei=a8E-T7i0L8XLsga8k6TFBA&usg=AFQjCNEwef6WLQP8klFuyBBPtJ931K2AKA

Rebuttal of Smolla's analysis by Bruce Fein: http://www.XXXXXX.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2024%26context%3Dwmlr&ei=gMY-T7beCs_ysgacssngBA&usg=AFQjCNEBN6tpjj61zMyaWZ2Kp0s3kSJR3A

Replace the XXXXXX in the last two links with google.

Enjoy! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications

Hi Stevertigo,

Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

2nd amendment article

Yes, your edits are essentially corrupting the article. You are chopping blindly, not looking at what you are removing. Do you honestly intend to remove the reference section, see also section, categories, inter-wiki links, notes/citations and all external links? I hope not, but that's what you're doing. It's not a good thing. Ravensfire (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Timeline of pornography

Category:Timeline of pornography, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)