User talk:Stfg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I no longer accept requests to carry out copy edits, though I may make very rare exceptions for classical music, sacred music and music theory articles that interest me. For topics other than these, I recommend using the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page.

GOCE February blitz wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

GOCE July 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Saybrook University. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


It didn't surprise me that an admin would have come to a "no Consensus" conclusion, despite the strong evidence in favor of MDY. Admins usually try and play it safe, and despite the policy stating that consensus is not a vote, it usually comes down to numbers. Despite this, since the admin declared "no Consensus" and not in favor of one way or the other, there is still the option of formal mediation via the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Another option that has already been opened at MOS:DATE, is to rewrite, or at least amend WP:STRONGNAT and make it clear that "Citizenship to an English speaking country denotes a strong national tie over a non-English speaking country". That basically gets rid of the confusion and wikilawyering that some people had in the past discussion. Either way, there are still options and as always, consensus can change. My only regret is that we didn't get a chance to nip this in the bud several years ago. I am also planning on getting a bit more clarification from the closing admin, because some of what was written was a bit vague and I'm curious to see how that admin interprets STRONGNAT.--JOJ Hutton 18:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi JOJ. It didn't surprise me either, and I agree with his "no consensus" close, because quite obviously there isn't a consensus there. I have to say that I cannot feel as strongly about this queestion as you seem to. I commented there on the basis of my reading of the current policies and guidelines, but I said right from the start that I wasn't sure about that reading, and I'm certainly not going to push it further. Frankly, I think this whole thing is basically a childish squabble over who owns more of Einstein, and a massive waste of time. What I really believe is that STRONGNAT is garbage. We shouldn't say anything about tying date formats to country, and AlanM1's example of the Belgian Congo shows rather well why limiting it to English-speaking is silly, and a recipe for confusion. In my view, STRONGNAT would be better ditched and replaced by something that says that either date format is acceptable in any article, and edit warring over it is not allowed. Like we do for serial commas. This whole thing about "strong" ties is a semantic quibble, as I've said right from the start, and prolonging it by taking it to the Mediation Committee or trying to get STRONGNAT amended to emphasise English-speaking only would just waste more time of more people and probably still fail to achieve consensus. I certainly don't intend to take any further part in this. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I see your point and understand why you feel the way you do. The problem is that unlike other Wikipedia projects, such as the French, Spanish, Ect, the English Wikipedia is the only "shared" project that has this "date format" issue. As such, there really needed to be some basic standard criteria as to when and where to use one date format over another. Most of the time its fairly clear cut, but this is one of those times when the subject of a biography lived in multiple countries. But only one of those countries was an English speaking country, which is what the "Strong ties to a particular English Speaking country" was to suppose to address. Unfortunately some people don't read it STRONGNAT the way that it was intended. And I don't fall for the argument that since a none English speaking countries date format should trump an English speaking countries date format as in the Congo example. If that was the case then every other Wikipedia project would use MDY for American biographies, which they do not. We use both MDY and DMY on the English Wikipedia because the prevalent number of readers from English speaking countries use both date formats, not because those other countries do. I literally feel that this is a slippery slope and the problem can and will get worse, especially using the non policy based arguments that the DMY proponents were using. In addition, I have a hunch that the closing admin may have had a bias, based on some of the information that OI was reading on that users page.JOJ Hutton 21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
What?! If you want to accuse the closing admin of bias, you'd better have evidence. I see nothing to make me suspect anything of the sort.
I see how your premise that "there really needed to be some basic standard criteria as to when and where to use one date format over another" might seem to lead to some conclusions such as you draw, but I dispute the premise. Anyway, look, I'm not going to rerun the whole RFC on my talk page. The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. --Stfg (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Well that wasn't a full "accusal", but there are certain things written on the users page that at least begs the question.
Otherwise, thanks for trying anyway. Since, according to the closing admin, there wasn't any consensus, there's no harm in continuing to discuss and trying to achieve consensus. JOJ Hutton 23:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thank you for showing endless patience with teaching others Wikipedia process. You corrected three mistakes I made and I really should have known better for all of them. Your kindness is appreciated and makes this a better place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Bluerasberry. It's kind of you to say that. Face-smile.svg --Stfg (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thanks for your input and assistance at Saybrook University. I hope you don't mind me jumping in and helping to sort things out. Cheers! KeithbobTalk 23:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Keithbob, thanks for joining in, it's most welcome. You're improving it, and many cooks makes better consensus. Face-smile.svg --Stfg (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


I'd like to apologize for coming off as hostile in the oil spill talk page. Looking over your user page and talk page, I see that you've done your best to provide advice and guidance for difficult situations. I hope you don't consider my arguments illogical or unduly partisan. I'm merely frustrated over the length of an ongoing debate that I was already exhausted by a month ago, and which I thought was over. I appreciate your effort to resolve the matter, even though I doubt things will work out in my favour should the argument drag out long enough. I've been through enough long debates to realize that there comes a time when my resources and patience won't stretch far enough to continue. But I'm glad that there are editors who do what they can to mediate disputes and suggest productive ways of dealing with difficult issues. Thank you for your participation. P Aculeius (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that very kind message, P Aculeius. I do understand the frustration these long-drawn-out debates can have. Very often it's mainly a question of personal perspective. The oil spill page has 158 watchers, so maybe an RfC would get to a broader consensus on the issue. Or if there proves to be no consensus, at least that gets recorded and reduces the scope for future tendentiousness. Best,

There is a mop reserved in your name[edit]

Mop.png You are an exemplary editor—indeed remarkable.
You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified!
You personify an Administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!
  • Hello Stfg. I have often noticed that whenever you comment at a discussion, yours is timely, thoughtful, and rather complete regarding the issue at hand. I have wondered on several occasions why you were not an administrator yourself. I am certain your reasons are sound, but equally certain that I wanted to tell you myself; that I believe you would be well suited for the role, and that I think you are quite remarkable. We are very fortunate as a community to have a benefactor like you. Thank you for selflessly giving the finest of your gifts, and for bettering this encyclopedia with every edit you have so kindly saved. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
John, thank you!! I really appreciate the encouragement. I've thought carefully about this since you wrote, and I feel it probably isn't right for me to ask for a mop, at least not right now. Maybe in future, if Wikipedia became desperately in need of more admins, I might step up. For now, there are several admin areas where I have no experience at all, and several more where I have some, but not really as much as many people are looking for at RfA these days. I don't have any of the noticeboards on my watch list, for example. So there's quite a good chance I might fail anyway. Last but not least, I can do most of what I want to do (writing, copy editing, giving third opinions, commenting on community matters) without those tools, and I probably wouldn't use them very often at all. But sincerely, thank you for suggesting it and for the wonderfully encouraging feedback. Best wishes, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)