User talk:Steve Smith

thanks for your help man, i got what i needed from the restored croydon click article. go ahead and delete it. thanks again Robfranx (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Archive 1 (May 2007 - May 2008)
• Archive 2 (May 2008 - present)

User talk:Timeshift9#Blocked

FYI, Rebecca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to unblock Timeshift9 (talk · contribs). Her justification suggests she was under the incorrect impression that it was for removing the warnings that had been "sanctimoniously added back". Despite my requests that she discuss it with you (the blocking admin), despite Timseshift9's persistent incivility (I have been watching it for months) and despite her obvious familiarity with Timseshift9 (from their similar contributions), Rebecca considered it prudent to unilaterally counter another administrator's action then go offline. Therefore I reinstated the original block length until it is properly discussed. Rockpocket 08:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-blocked him again for the original period to reinstate the status quo. Consider it your block, so if you wish to unblock at any time feel free to do so without consulting me. Rockpocket 08:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret the reason for the block, as I explained on Rockpocket's talk page. Rather, it's about dispute resolution.

Here, you had a good user who was angry after some pretty sanctimonious warnings had been re-added to their talk page a number of times. In the circumstances, what could possibly be hoped to be achieved by blocking them for incivility, apart from creating a load of drama and potentially causing them to get so furious they quit? It sure isn't going to calm them down, and it isn't going to make them any less abrasive, so what's the point? There are better ways of dealing with these things.

Thank you for unblocking the reblock, and letting the matter die. However, it's worth thinking, especially when you're dealing with established users, "will a block here actually help things, or will it just generate drama?" Rebecca (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that Timeshift has been making those sorts of poisonous comments for, literally, months. I have had two editors, independently, request my assistance in dealing with his attacks. So, what do you suggest one does to make him less abrasive, because that sort of behaviour is not really acceptable when it is driving other editors away? (and that is not a rhetorical question, if you have a better solution, I would like to hear it). Rockpocket 08:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think a better way could have been found to deal with it, I don't strongly object to the block and wouldn't have done it myself - although I agree with the reasons for unblock.

However I just wanted to respond to the above points by Rockpocket. Being a user of 2 years and more standing on the relevant projects and having watched the intractable dispute between various parties along with other admins for some time, I'm confused as to how he has come to this conclusion - although I could almost bet on which two users it was, and point to examples where their behaviour has been as bad or worse. It should be noted the dispute being referred to is limited to at most four articles (of which Timeshift is involved in two), that there are two very definite "camps" each with a mix of tendentious users intent on rewriting history and good faith users who are unfortunately prone to react to the excesses of others in a manner not entirely consistent with Wikipedia expectations of behaviour. I would classify Timeshift in the latter category. Each side has for as long as I can remember been trying to get the other wiped from Wikipedia in order that they can "win". I don't even think anyone who could be driven away is still there - previous disputes were remarkably efficient at removing such from the scene, which is one of the articles' biggest problems. Some of the worst disputants who got the battle started aren't even with us any more - one was effectively community banned and another is serving a three-month block for stalking one of the others (his second for the same offence). I've talked privately to individuals of all sides and good faith doesn't even remotely exist between the parties. There has been occasional discussions between admins who watch the area - especially around December last year when it was hitting AN/I every 4-8 hours - regarding what to do in this area, but in my view it must be approached as a whole-of-area problem, involving ArbCom if we're not able to resolve by other means.

I'd also note that outside these 2-4 articles I have seen Timeshift edit very well and interact well with other users. Orderinchaos 17:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Idiot" is hardly the most incendiary attack in the English language. I've had reason to call others that on a few occasions, and it hasn't led to cataclysmic things. There's plenty of users around who are really good editors, who do a lot of terrific work, and generally work fine with others, but are a bit abrasive and sometimes need to be handled a bit carefully.

It's the nature of working on a broad project like this. You can barge in and chase them off - but you'd be losing a huge amount of great content for not a whole lot of gain - or you can deal with issues with a bit of care as they come up. I've worked with the guy for a couple of years, and I don't recall ever seeing him drive anyone else off, so the fact that he's a bit terse? It really ain't doing any harm. Several of the best editors I've worked with on Wikipedia have been similar. Rebecca (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is far to much defense of abusive communication going on here. I think this sort of apologist attitude towards personal attacks, and the idea that established users should be given more freedom towards personal attacks contrary to the well being of Wikipedia. _{1 != 2} 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Who would you vote for?

Re your board vote ranking: I agree with your 1, 2, and last, but I don't understand your 3rd position for Kohs - did you read his Wikispecies answer? Even worse, his wikipedia edits and the things he's posted on dozens of other sites? -- Jeandré, 2008-06-04t21:58z

Thanks for your help.

I will likely start working on it later on tonight. I will likely be moving at a snails pace. Albion moonlight (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any Ideas about how to go about including the others in the expansion.? Should we wait a bit or do it right away ?  :Albion moonlight (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then I will do it sometime before they all wake up, Also do feel free to go ahead and tell them yourself. It may go over better if you tell them. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

I heard you mention it as a possible solution for the Yarrow article conflict. Do you see any hope for the mediation ? Can the mediation continue during a probation period ? And or are you willing to back an Rfc against Jkp aimed at an article ban against him ? : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

See here. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  10:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Freebutchers Updated Sources

There is now a source of information for the freebutchers. www.freebutchery.com The page should continue to exist.Crimsondeath4 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsondeath4 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The group is underground trying not to get attention, but they would like to be known as true group. Freebutchery is a small religion and is growing with time, what does it take to create a religion? I am not sure how many people it takes, or what is the correct measures, but this group is a small group believing in the god of Meatzus.Crimsondeath4 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsondeath4 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

meta: board election - question regarding Wikiversity

Hello Steve, since there are only a few days left until end of election I personally hope I still can see your response about this question regarding Wikiversity. Thank you very much in advance, ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response. Have a nice time, ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

re:Ed Stelmach

Heh, it's definitely not a quick fail candidate. I grabbed it, as being from Alberta, I have enough knowledge of Stelmach's background to assist in determining the comprehensiveness of the article. It's not quite a pass yet, but it is close. I'll have my comments up shortly. Regards, Resolute 03:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left my review at Talk:Ed Stelmach/GA1 and watchlisted the article. Drop me a line when you believe it is ready for a second look, and I'll review again. Thanks, Resolute 04:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Following your latest edits, I have passed this as a GA. Congratulations! Resolute 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that expansion of Stelmach's personal/family/pre-political section would be the most important thing to expand for a FA. The article is pretty good at what he does as a politician, but is lacking on who he is. More images of Stelmach would help. Some of the sections might benefit from a little more filling out. My two FA's are both sports teams, and I haven't a ton of experience with biographies, so I'd suggest looking at FAs of politicians for more ideas. FA reviewers are very strict about reference style. i.e.: ref's 3, 5 and 10 (and others) dont list the publisher. That would get picked up on. I'd recommend a Peer review as well. Good luck!

Indiana General Assembly

Hi, thanks for you review. I have addressed most of the issues you pointed out in the GA review. I am going to continue adding more inline citation today, beyond what you suggested. If you would be so kind as to reassess and follow up with a couple of the questions I asked it would be appreciated. Thanks Charles Edward 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the heads up. And good luck! MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statusbot is dead.

The category only exists because people are using it, but the purpose of it was shut down, and I believe there are more informative tools. Perhaps you know someone who can address all of the relevant user talk pages with a message like this.BrewJay (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Is always good to check it once in a while. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you deal with this newbie? User talk:Y'b Pimp D. He just don't listen. He uploads non-free content and use it. Just check my messages I left on his talk page. He's also uploading images that already exists and the back cover of an album. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 02:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance at its best. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped him a polite warning - non-free images are a fairly complicated area of policy, so it's possible he just needs some help. I agree that his uploads have been problematic, though, and that they can't continue; if they do, please let me know (and I'll get on it more quickly than I did this time). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You look like Steve Jobs

(I said it in the admins IRC channel, so it would only be right that I said it to your face.) MessedRocker (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing. :) Also, no logs are available (any logs that do exist are contraband). MessedRocker (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Equazcion

His talk pages are up for Speedy deletion under U1, as well... am I missing anything here? Is there a reason to (or not to) delete these pages? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That is my thinking as well, but wanted to make sure there wasn't more to it before doing anything. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Politicians

It hasn't always been added to all articles, but it generally seems to be accepted practice. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Accusations of vandalism

Hi, it seems like there has been a grave misunderstanding on your part. I am not unjustly accusing him of vandalism. I never accuse a person, if i have no evidence to back it up.

First of all, he removed the Italian American and Neapolitan-American categories from the Joseph Esposito, while the article clearly stated that Esposito was Italian American and born in Naples. Moreover, he reverted my edit and falsely claimed that "the article DOES NOT state he is either Italian or Neapolitan" in the article's history page, while there was evidence to the contrary. Is this working in Good faith? If he didnt even have sufficient time to even go through the article completely, then he should not have done the edit, in the first place.

Also, with the exception of a web link, the entire information about Esposito, including his ethnicity and place of birth, is derived from the books which are listed in the references section of the article. Well, correct me if i am wrong, but removing relevant information from the article, while it is properly sourced, and furthermore, lying about it, does appear to constitute Vandalism to me.

Also, please note that i do not have any personal grudge or animosity against him, for i dont even know him. Regards, Joyson Noel (talk)

Look, I dont mean to say that any editor who justifies his edits is committing vandalism. Thats ridiculous! The fact that he removed relevant information of Esposito's ethnicity from the article, while it was properly sourced and mentioned in the article, and lied about it in the edit summary, led me to assume that his edits were not done in good faith. At least, not in any true sense of the word. Joyson Noel (talk)

The one link on the page made no mention of any Italian or Neapolitan ancestry. The above user then stated the source was named books which are NOT available online. I have accepted that for this specific case, although I think it is poor practice in general since, as you are well aware, other users have completely made up contents of an alleged newspaper article online and this can happen all too easily. In any event the Esposito matter is closed as far as I am concerned. John celona (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source is about the Unione Siciliana, not Joseph Esposito. Esposito is only mentioned once in the source. It just contains one line mentioning the presence of Esposito at Angelo Genna's funeral, which is as follows: Among the mourners were a state senator, two state representatives, 'Diamond Joe' Esposito, and Al Capone. I believe that this source was used in the article to back up the fact that Esposito was present at Genna's funeral. However, i totally agree with Celona that false references can be made to fictitious books. As far as the references to the books in the article are concerned, i cannot prove for a fact that the books do exist, neither can i disprove it. The edits which i have made to the article are only minor, and the references to those books were not added by me.Joyson Noel (talk)

Mark Hatfield GA review

Thanks for the review, I think I've addressed all the issues or explained my reasoning. Let me know if there is anything else, or if all the changes screwed anything up. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi-- I think I addressed the remaining issues here (though I didn't understand one of them), and I think AM might be a little occupied off-wiki these days...hope this wraps it up! I'll keep an eye on the talk page though. -Pete (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the passage. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9

Regarding this edit it is obvious he has not learned to be civil to other users, despite your previous warnings and actions. Corey Temperature (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Please let me know if he doesn't" (or "No kind offer goes unpunished")

Regretably he hasn't. David in DC (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think pointing out that you have repeatedly claimed "consensus" for your own viewpoints where such consensus clearly doesn't exist is in any way improprer. John celona (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't rush. Real life is more important. It's kind of you to monitor this at all. The behavior isn't going to change. David in DC (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one. David in DC (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

+ Points for hilarity

Added bonus for having to explain it. Antelan^talk 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Please stop sending me links to articles I already know about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

_{Please note that the above comment was added, not by Jimbo, but by Pontorg (talk · contribs). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)}

Fern

Hi there -- would you mind taking another look at Fern Hobbs, which you placed on hold? I've done a fair amount of work. Would be good to know if you consider it good enough for GA, or think more work is needed on writing quality, etc. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow missed those inline comments. Got it now, I think I addressed your concerns. thanks again! -Pete (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

Don't you see the messages I leave here? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Testing... Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the e-mail. Okay. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do?

I mean really, you love to shove your opinion down other's throats and go around censoring completely relevant comments. Get off my dick. --Mista-X (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona‎

I would like to commend you for the work you did in compiling the evidence for the RfC. Excellent job. This was sorely needed. Enigma ^message 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the evidence you put together on AN. Also great work. Way more than enough to convince any unbiased third party that John celona is Tommypowell. It's just unfortunate that he was allowed to get away with abuse for this long. Enigma ^message 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So what shall we do with the RfC? Enigma ^message 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

John celona

I'm not sure if this is relevant, as there is no way to actually prove this, but I've been convinced sine first encountering John that he was the reincarnation of User:Tommypowell. Both user and talk page have been deleted, but as an admin you can see them. You'll notice that both were active in discussions about Brent Corrigan, a porn star who may or may not have been underage when he started doing films. [1] [2] They were both quite active in the discussions surround Michael J. Devlin's kidnapping of two young boys, both being quite angry about censorship. They both insert the exact same sentence about nudity into Tom Sawyer (1973 film). [3] [4] I'm fairly certain this isn't actionable or conclusive, but I'm also 100% sure that I'm right. Could any of the similarities between John and Tommypowell be beneficial to the RFC? AniMate 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice job. The evidence that John celona is Tommypowell is conclusive, for me, and we didn't even need a checkuser! Tommypowell was indefinitely blocked on February 7, 2007. The John celona account was created on February 11, 2007. They also edited some of the same pages. So basically, John celona is a block-evading sock that was never caught. And to think, John celona was responsible for derailing my RfA when he should've been indefinitely blocked! Am I a bit bitter? Yeah, you could say that... Enigma ^message 07:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I've suspected this for over a year, and probably should've made more noise when things were fresh. AniMate 07:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It greatly impacts things, because as soon as an admin became aware (I guess they didn't), John celona should've been blocked indefinitely. Enigma ^message 07:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This admin certainly wasn't aware (I've never even heard of Tommypowell). I agree that the evidence is overwhelming, but I'm in job interviews all morning. I'll take action this afternoon, when I have some time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona and mediation privilege

Hi Sarcasticidealist. I've had to remove a few diffs from the request for comment as you referenced a formal mediation case. Per Wikipedia:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation, mediations undertaken by the Mediation Committee are privileged and cannot be used as evidence in subsequent proceedings such as RfCs or ArbCom cases. Best wishes, WjBscribe 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel

I'm going to go ahead with this, assuming your offer to nominate me stands. Please follow instructions at WP:RFA/N and we'll take it from there. Also see the "editor review" link in my signature. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Howdy Steve

I stumbled upon your page and had to comment. I was unaware that you had so much prominence here! I was aimlessly surfing around Edmonton/Alberta political articles and you kept popping up, then I saw your pitch at the board of governors election on Meta-Wiki. I am thoroughly impressed by your knowledge of Wikipedia technical mumbo-jumbo. --C civiero (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically "silent" on my account, but I have made occasional anonymous edits. Mostly to fix politically loaded terminology on articles, which is(in my experience, at least) a much greater problem on wikipedia than factual inaccuracy. It's something that people can easily get away with if they are even remotely sly about it, while factual errors are usually fixed pretty quickly on articles that receive decent traffic.

Anyways, I figured coming across your page was as good an excuse as any to see if I remembered my old password. Have a good one. --C civiero (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

don't feel silly you did good.

You are a good administrator. 1 good Eguor admin is worth 4 of the less tolerant variety.Here is what the admin who finally blocked John had to say. Be well and stay as neutal as you always have been. You did good. :Albion moonlight (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)