Jump to content

User talk:Stevertigo: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Notification: RFD posting of Template:Main2. (TW)
Stevertigo (talk | contribs)
43,174 edits
No edit summary
Line 25: Line 25:
__TOC__
__TOC__


{{service awards|year=2002|month=06|day=15|edits=40000}}
== [[American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2004)]] ==

nice work. [[User:Decora|Decora]] ([[User talk:Decora|talk]]) 21:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

== Expression (language) ==

Hello, Stevertigo. Thank you for creating [[Expression (language)]]. You did not cite any source for your definition of "expression," and (as I note at [[Talk:Sentence (linguistics)]]) I'm not aware of any technical definition of the term within linguistics. Might you be thinking of [[Utterance]]? The relationship between utterances (as acts of language performance) and sentences (as somewhat idealized linguistic forms) is much discussed. [[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

== Requested move: Manners of articulation to Manner of articulation ==

I have requested that [[Manners of articulation]] be moved back to [[Manner of articulation]]. Your comments are welcome at [[Talk:Manners of articulation#Requested move]]. [[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 18:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

== Minor edit default ==

Hi. Gentle nudge. Please be more careful to turn off your "all edits minor" setting, when you're adding or changing significant<sup>fuzzy!</sup> amounts of content, eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Essays_on_building_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=379300376] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plural&diff=prev&oldid=379306471]. Thanks! (Also, edit summaries are still handy for other editors, even when your edits are minor. Just a short "c/e" or "clarify" is often all that's needed! :) -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
:Please please turn OFF your preference. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Determinism&diff=prev&oldid=383140829 This is NOT minor]. It is far better to not label any minor edits, than to ever mislabel major edits as minor ones. Please turn it off! Thank you.
:Go to [[Special:Preferences]] -> Editing -> Mark all edits minor by default. -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 03:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

== [[General officer]] ==

a) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_officer&diff=prev&oldid=379519135 Why?] [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

b) Different and only vaguely related topic:
*I've noticed the use of this template quite a bit recently.<br>
*I've also noticed that the template users don't seem to either explain or justify their suggestions.<br>
*I've also noticed that in most cases NO-ONE, (not even the proposer), have contributed ANYTHING to ANY discussion.<br>
*I'm afraid I don't see the point. Can you enlighten me?
Thanks in advance, [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:List of popes (graphical)]] ==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|42px]]</div>I have nominated [[List of popes (graphical)]], an article that you created, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popes (graphical)]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> [[User:Sandman888|Sandman888]] ([[User talk:Sandman888|talk]]) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

== Human ==

{{talkback|User_talk:Cybercobra#Talk:Human}}

{{talkback|User_talk:Pfhorrest}}

== Move of floor to Floor (surface) ==

Please discuss moves like this before doing them. What was so all important that you had to change the name to something a silly as Floor (surface) which is simply wrong. Flooring is surfacing a floor and there is an article about it and it is different from a floor. Floor was perfectly okay as a main article rather than going direct to the disambiguation page but now there's all sorts of fixing and changing to get it back to a reasonable state. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 08:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

== Historical template ==
Hi there, you're invited to join the discussion at [[Template_talk:Historical#New_icon]]. thanks, [[User:OlEnglish|<font size="5">&oelig;</font>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo:<br />
Regarding the above, I see that you're still routinely labeling your major edits (including controversial ones) "[[Help:Minor edit|minor]]," usually without bothering to include an edit summary. This is disruptive and needs to cease. Please do so immediately. Thank you. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:RSWP ==

== Wikipedia:RSWP listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Wikipedia:RSWP]]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Wikipedia:RSWP'' redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 6#Wikipedia:RSWP|the redirect discussion]] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

== Re: Human ==

{{talkback|User_talk:Cybercobra#Human}}

==ANI thread==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 09:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:*Another thing, please ''read'' this → [[WP:SYN]] & [[WP:COS]] ←, its for your own good. Best. <small>--[[User:Dave1185|<font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:green"><i>Dave</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">[[user_talk:Dave1185|♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®]]</span></sup> 06:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)</small>

==Little edits vs big edits==
This is rather off-topic for the ANI discussion so I'm replying here instead.

I agree about making several small edits when you're changing several different things, especially when the article is contentious; that way if someone disagrees with one of change but not others, they can undo just that one (or link to just that diff, etc). Editing section-by-section is a good example; I do that plenty myself, intentionally.

My complaints about your editing style is that it looks more like you forgot to use preview and upon reading your submission went back to revise/correct your edits several times (which I admittedly do myself now and again, but you seem to do it excessively). Or sometimes it seems like you had to stop in the middle of working on an edit, and so sent what you had written so far and then completed it later, instead of waiting until you had time to complete it and sending it all together.

Metaphorically put, your 'speech' (edits) here 'sounds' (looks) more like a disjointed "P. Er, that is, I mean, Q. ...ish. Except R." rather than a clean conjunction of several things, ala "P. Also Q. And not R".

No offense intended, it's just a little annoying :-)
--[[User:Pfhorrest|Pfhorrest]] ([[User talk:Pfhorrest|talk]]) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

:I'll make more of an effort in the future to use the preview button and comment more in the comment line. I've been gradually improving in these areas, but I admit I can do better. We all have certain styles of behaviour when editing, for example until just a couple weeks ago I marked my edits minor by default (I just turned this off). As always, I appreciate your criticism. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::*Hello Steve, just my observation here... when dealing with such problematic articles, I'd suggest that you might want to use the sandbox (or create one yourself!) to test out first before saving the page on the actual article page itself. Another thing, it could also save on a lot of frustration on your part when there's a lot of potential [[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]] involved. Best. <small>--[[User:Dave1185|<font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:green"><i>Dave</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">[[user_talk:Dave1185|♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®]]</span></sup> 06:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)</small>

:::I appreciate the advice. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 06:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::::*You're welcome. --[[User:Dave1185|<font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:green"><i>Dave</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">[[user_talk:Dave1185|♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®]]</span></sup> 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

==[[Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom]]==
I'm not being biased, I have discussed this in it's talk page. If you see the history of the page, the contraversies were part of the opening para when the page started off, which makes sense as the wiki home's
"in the news" section linked to this page mentioning contravery of the visit, also contraveries are the main discussion points in the news and media. So I'm just moving back the contraversies back to where it was. Don't you think it makes sense for contraveries to be in the second or third para of the page? -Abhishikt 07:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Abhishikt|Abhishikt]] ([[User talk:Abhishikt|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Abhishikt|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:First of all its "controversies" not "contraversies". Secondly we have a policy called [[WP:UNDUE]] which means 'don't give undue weight to information which is not high in importance.' I can understand that someone who has an eye for the controversies might say that the controversies are most prominent. But the critics are in the minority. The controversies need to be sequestered into their own section, and such sections typically are placed toward the end of articles. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
==Human being==
This article is a content fork [[WP:FORK]]. As you stated in the ANI, it was part of the discussion on the "Human" talk page. You stated that the group rejected your edits, regarding "Human being" or "Human". OK fine. Now the page has to be taken back to a redirect, if you don't mind. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:Before taking on new things, why don't we settle our issue at [[Talk:Punishment]]. Ive posted a critique of the current version. Do you have a problem with being responsive and civil, or do you want to take our issues to Arbcom? -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 04:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
::You are repeating the same errors, as before with your latest entry there (talk:Punishment). Why not make a statement over at ANI that you agree to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies from now on, that you will stop abruptly adding unsourced material to articles, and that any material that you do add will be based on reliable sources. If you make this statement the whole process over at ANI changes course, and will most likely, quickly, stop (as long as you are sincere). Also, I would reccomend working on skills dealing with other editors on the talk pages - listen to what other people are saying without critiquing their response. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 04:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

::Also, if you do decide to do this I would reccomend also saying that you will notify the editors of the article (on the respective talk pages) what you are proposing to add to the article, before you edit. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 04:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve - As an uninvolved administrator, reviewing the ANI case and your actions, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would explain what your thinking and reasoning was for turning [[Human being]] from a redirect to [[Human]] into a standalone article.
Thank you. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

:George, I appreciate your concern. I don't know who you heard about the [[human being]] article stub from, but I'm sure whomever it was was motivated by only the highest concerns. But the issue at the ANI and RFAR is the [[punishment]] article, not the [[human]] article, and I don't understand what good it will do to look beyond current matters to matters which are not relevant to the RFAR. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 22:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

::Actually, the issue at AN/I is '''''your overall behavior''''' not just what you did at one article, and presumably if ArbCom takes your case, they, too, will not be limited to looking at one specific instance. You need to stop trying to manipulate the discussion to suit yourself, and provide the community with answers to the various questions they have raised about your behavior. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Again, BMK, how is it that an uninvolved editor such as yourself, one with only half of my count in contributions, come to the conclusion that a total ban of me is justified? -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::[[WP:Editcountitis]] much?<p>Actually &ndash; not that edit counts have any bearing whatsoever on my ability to read complaints, evaluate evidence and make judgments &ndash; but if you're really interested, I've been here since 2005, and I have 65,000+ edits (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken/My_history this] for an explanation). And being uninvolved with you is '''''exactly''''' what one would want, is it not, a dispassionate judgment not based on previous prejudice? If you and I had past history, wouldn't you be here saying something like "How can you possibly make an impartial judgment about me when we've conflicted so often in the past", right?<p>Look, the only thing you need to worry about right now is making an explanation to the community's satisfaction of why people find you "problematic" and "controversial". Don't squander your energy on little attacks like this one, or on tactical maneouvres like filing a pre-emptive ArbCom complaint and so on, take the straight-forward and honorable course and clear things up. That's my advice, anyway. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Appreciated. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 03:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:Steve, I am attempting to work with you to determine whether your relationship with the community as a whole is irrevocably damaged and banning you or blocking you indefinitely is necessary.
:I would appreciate it if you would:
:A) Assume, please, that I read all sides of and the article history of the [[Human being]] article, before bringing it up, and did not take anyone else's word for anything relative to it.
:B) Understand, please, that every one of your actions to date is to some extent under extreme scrutiny at the moment. If we ask you about it, you can chose not to answer or explain, but if you don't or won't to uninvolved admins' satisfaction it is not going to reflect well on you in the final community sanction finding.
:Please take this seriously, and answer my question.
:Thank you. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 05:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::Do I hear a question in there Georgewilliamherbert? Perhaps you are referring to an older question - one which I did not see ATW? Note that the [[human being]] article history will show you nothing of the editorial debates at the [[human]] article. Hence focusing on that article is insubstantial to any claim of error on my part. If you are talking about the issues at the [[human]] article, please give me some indication that you have familiarized yourself with that article/talk history. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

::PS: George previously wrote: ''"I would sincerely appreciate it if you would explain what your thinking and reasoning was for turning Human being from a redirect to Human into a standalone article."'' - The article [[Human]] had such a detached anthropological tone that, ATT it didnt even contain a reference to "[[person]]." Note Maunus' comment on [[Talk:Human]]. Hence the concept of [[human being]], while discussions were ongoing at [[human]], seemed quite a different subject than the one they were dealing with at [[human]] (species). And, as I noted at the RFAR, (or ANI?) the changed redirect was not meant to endure as an article. I used it short-term to refer to as an example of a different, more philosophical perspective on the subject of humans - a perspective which the sterile, alien, skeptic perspective of self-anthropology apparently did not allow, and rejected outright. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 00:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::PS: If the issue is a matter of some kind of harm being caused by the changed redirect, certainly we can ask someone in the technical staff to give us a count of the times [[human being]] was accessed as a link, and of them how many found their way to the [[human]] (species) article via hatnotes anyway. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I also read (and am re-reading to refresh my memory) [[Talk:Human]].
:::The discussions there, along with your explanation above, appear to constitute you performing an end-run against consensus on [[Talk:Human]] that your ideas for that article, and for splitting that article, were not supported by the rest of the community.
:::Can you clarify, please, how you feel that creating that article fits into the discussions on [[Talk:Human]]? Do you believe that doing so was in alignment with, unrelated to, or against the consensus of discussions there?
:::Secondly, do you believe that creating free-form articles which substitute philosophical original research or synthesis for [[WP:PILLARS|Wikipedia's usual core values / pillars]] as a "placeholder experiment" (my words) is an acceptable way to engage in consensus-seeking of article contents here?
:::[[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

::::George, the only thing that went on was that I used a little-used redirect as a parking space while contentious edits were going on. It was a redirect of little traffic, and the stub served a short-lived purpose in helping align consensus at the human article. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Steve, could you take as a new principle "mainspace is not a sandbox"? I've seen several instances of this exact same dispute over the past couple days, over various edits you've made, where you've said "well, I just put something there with no expectation of having it stand". Wikidemon put it to you pretty well: this isn't 2002 any more. These days it's not good to add substantive material to a well-developed article like [[human]], unless you're proposing that your addition is in essentially final form. Others can then of course respond to the proposal and modify the text. But you shouldn't add something with the idea that it's a mere placeholder. Use the talk page or your user space for that. [[Special:Contributions/67.119.2.101|67.119.2.101]] ([[User talk:67.119.2.101|talk]]) 04:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

== RFAR ==
Response to [[User:Newyorkbrad]] and other Arbs.

I appreciate the time you and the other Arbs put into your work. Note that I did not make any complaints about the other editors, not because there wasn't anything to complain about, but because that's not what I do. What I do is I go around improving articles in various ways and, in the few cases where I face opposition, I argue forcefully for certain changes to be made.

In this case, at the [[punishment]] article, Steve Quinn and JimWae claim that their poor writing is supported by V, and that my writing is OR. Hence starting at the punishment article would seem to be more sensible than some general referendum in accord with some vague behavioural standard, steered by various disgruntled editors whom Ive soundly defeated in past debates (SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, etc.) -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 02:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:"Soundly defeated"? Please read [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::Fair enough. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:::And perhaps take a look at [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] as well. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

== [[Talk:Pedophilia#Proposals for new lead]] ==

Care to make a comment in the Oppose or Support section, since you created the current lead as well? We definitely need consensus on the matter. Not sure how long it will take, though. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

== Sorry Steve... ==

== [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|Nomination for deletion]] of [[Template:Nonce]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px]][[Template:Nonce]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Nonce|the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You ''can't'' seriously link mainspace article leads to the essay [[Wikipedia:Nonce introductions]]. I reckon the template has to go. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

== edit counter ==

Steve, for purposes of understanding your overall edit history, it might be helpful to others if you were to enable the toolserver edit counter as described [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Stevertigo&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia here]. It's apparent that your editing interests have changed a fair amount over the years. [[Special:Contributions/67.119.2.101|67.119.2.101]] ([[User talk:67.119.2.101|talk]]) 07:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

==MfD nomination of [[Wikipedia:Nonce introductions]]==
[[Wikipedia:Nonce introductions]], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for [[WP:MfD|deletion]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nonce introductions ]] and please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of [[Wikipedia:Nonce introductions]] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> →[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;">'''₪'''</span>]] 18:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

==A request==
Please do not put any more talkbacks on my talk page directing me to the AN/I discussion about your editing behavior. I will see what's posted there in my own time, and, in any case, you seem intent on focusing the discussion on me and my thought processes, and that's not what it's about. As I've said repeatedly, these tactics of yours are wasting your energy, which should be directed to answering the questions that have been raised about you, and not to ancilliary issues. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:I appreciate the good advice, and the fact that, at least on appearances, you have moderated your views toward me somewhat. You still have yet to justify why you support an "indef block or community ban" on the basis of zero direct experience? -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::In all honesty, I cannot say that my view of you has improved at all; in fact, your evasiveness and failure to be straight reflect quitre badly on you. You are heading for a sanction, of that I'm certain. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 23:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::What kind of sanction? Note that its quite common and natural to be a bit evasive when someone is trying to hit you with something.-[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

== Email about use of undisclosed user accounts ==

Please look for an email from about your use of undisclosed accounts. Please respond to let me know that you've received it and will follow up with ArbCom. IMO, an user with a history of editing warring and ArbCom sanction should not be using undisclosed accounts without a very good reason, and then the accounts should be disclosed to ArbCom. So, please follow up to answer my concerns. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

:Please list the accounts you have found in an email. I can state unequivocally that I have not used any sockpuppet accounts in any adversarial or otherwise improper way. A thorough check will show this. If there is some technical matter with Arbcom and its past rulings, I will deal with it. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

::I have not used any other accounts in a long time, and even when I did, such usage was rare and well within the guidelines at [[WP:SOCK]]. Note that the Arbcom ruling was largely topical in scope, and does not cover articles not within that scope. At no time have I used socks while under the sanctions listed at the previous Arbcom ruling, as I am sure you may already know from the history. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 00:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

== Stop reinserting content on Arbcom cases page ==

AGK is one of the Arbitration Committee clerks. It is explicitly his job to remove extraneous material from case filings.

Please stop reinserting it. It's not appropriate, please drop the issue. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:Fine, but why the shouting? Note that I reinserted the content in as hidden text, rather than shown. Hidden text is preferable as it preserves the history inline. What then is the issue? And why remove my comment and not SlimVirgin's? -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 04:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

::I didn't post that comment; you added it from an edit summary of mine, and I've now removed it. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 05:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:::OK. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 05:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time]] ==

I am willing to mediate this dispute, if all participants find me acceptable, and the dispute is still live. Thanks! [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:I made that request a month ago. There is current no dispute at time. Parties on both sides agreed to a single new lead sentence that deals with "a continuum." -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 19:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

==Anonymous tip==
I came by to give you an anonymous tip. Pleas, go here: [[User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Communication |Communication]].
(Of course if view the edit history this will not be so anonymous :>)
--- The anonymous tipster -- September 27, 2010

==Truth==
Please stop editing the lede on the Truth article. We have a consensus lede. See the talk page. You appear to be repeating the same pattern. Leave this lede alone, please ---- [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

:Did you know the ANI is still open? Did you know there is still a discussion going on? Yes, it was still active within the last few hours. You might be interested in what they were discussing. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 06:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

== A friendly comment ==

Hi Steve,

I've been watching the ANI/ArbCom involving you as it has unfolded, and various related things I've stumbled across while wikiwandering from them. I just noticed [[User:Beyond My Ken]]'s comment on the MfD for your essay on vague/"nonce" introductions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3ANonce_introductions&action=historysubmit&diff=387678788&oldid=387666657 this one]), and I feel like I need to make a similar comment. I do not mean to attack you, merely to state my (IMO impartial) observations of what I've seen happening; both for your benefit, and also for the consideration of your (if I may frame it thus) adversaries and judges, who are undoubtedly watching your talk page here.

When I first encountered you at [[Rights]] I was, as you know, not especially happy with the edits you made; but I voiced my objections, and you replied civilly, and things worked out pretty well, in my opinion. I was left with no hard feelings toward you, and the incident felt like a good example of how Wikipedia's consensus process can work out disagreements between editors. When you requested I comment in the debate at [[Human]], I observed that your behavior there seemed to me slightly more antagonistic or aggressive; even as I wrote qualified agreements with you or criticisms of your critics, you seemed to behave as though I was attacking you (or your position at least), until I explained otherwise. But then, the other parties in that dispute were likewise much more aggressive and blunt than I feel I was in our discussion at Rights, and I could easily see how their behavior could put you on the defensive. Nobody is ever at their best when they are on the defensive.

Similarly, as I've watched the ANI/ArbCom/etc unfold, even as I've commented in mild defense of you, your behavior in these various proceedings has seemed, to paraphrase Ken's comment referenced above, less than straightforward. However, also like at the Human debate, I can easily see how this difference in behavior is due to a difference in the type of opposition you are facing. The impression I get, if I may paint a picture with words here (and at the risk of sounding like your psychoanalyst), is of someone facing a serious threat, feeling inside themselves fearful of that threat, and wanting to fight or flee; but knowing that that will only exacerbate the problem, and instead desperately trying to diffuse the threat while presenting the calm, outward appearance of one who does not feel threatened; trying to appear neither vulnerable nor belligerent, even though he might truthfully feel either or both of those.

That is an honorable type of response, remaining calm while under attack, and certainly better than acting on a fight-of-flight response. However, the resulting behavior appears, for lack of better terms, "slippery" or "fidgety", certainly not calm, straightforward, and honest. It puts you in a bad light; even I am beginning to feel suspicious of the faithfulness and quality of your edits (though I am not, yet, granting those intuitive feelings conscious validation; I'm just voicing the emotional impression I am getting), and I can certainly see how others like Ken would get a similar impression. I suppose one of the reasons I am making this comment here is to name the feelings that I think I am observing, in the hope that it might help diffuse them, to help bring you genuine calm, which should not only be more pleasant for you but also, more practically, a useful attitude in navigating the challenges you face. (Of course if what I think I am observing is incorrect, then I hope I have not made any offense in suggesting that you feel thus).

I sincerely hope that the proceedings you are involved in work out for the best, that you are not banned or blocked, but can continue contributing here, in a manner that is satisfactory to all editors. If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to reference or copy these comments of mine anywhere in those proceedings, please feel free to do so; I'm not comfortable enough with the higher-level dispute resolution processes to know whether my comments there would be appropriate, nor am I involved enough to feel the need to interject them despite that uncertainty.

Best of luck,
--[[User:Pfhorrest|Pfhorrest]] ([[User talk:Pfhorrest|talk]]) 10:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

:I appreciate this. In a certain respect I agree with your criticism about calmness, or lack thereof. In another respect I think it just comes with the territory - its generally unthinkable that the threat of a severe action might come as a result of merely a tally on an ANI page. In that context, I don't think I've done myself any disservice by answering any charges, particularly those that come from left field or from old ghosts, looking to avenge old battles. That said, I do accept the general criticism that I take the source-first approach to editing, just as I put for the prognosis that some sourced editing suffers from an assumption of coherence. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 08:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

::Hi Steve. I don't hold a view on you or the allegations made about you/your-editing or others/their-editing in relation to this. That said, I am of the general view that a consensus should be enacted in one form or another if it has emerged. Some users would prefer if you voluntarily accepted a binding revert restriction instead of having it imposed involuntarily. If not as anything else, it would be a step towards resolving some of the concerns (including those of Pfhorrest, who was among editors who opposed harsher measures but consented to a revert restriction being imposed on you). I've left a note and question for you [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September_2010#Revert_restriction|here]] in relation to that - I invite your response to it. Regards, [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 06:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2]] ==

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2|here]]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence]]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Workshop]].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:I noticed that you have been editing your statement on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2|main case]] page, whereas all new evidence or statements should be made on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence|evidence page]]. The main case page should not be altered once a case has been opened. Please could you either move your statement to the evidence page, or alternatively, if you prefer, I can do so for you. Regards [[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 08:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

==Truth redux==
Apparently I jumped the gun while you were editing the "Truth" article. One admin in particular thinks that your edits improved the lead. I agree that most all of them did. I hope you don't mind me saying that I was surprised. In any case, if you want to continue what you started I won't stand in the way. Also, I am curious to see what the finished product will be. Also, I guess I owe you an apology for jumping the gun in this particular instance. ---- [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 05:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject namespace]] ==

Hello, Stevertigo. This is to inform you that I have closed this Wikipedia proposal as failed, as it has not gained enough consensus on the talkpage to support it. If you have any objections, feel free to contact me on my talkpage. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TCNSV|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]][[User:TCNSV/PMD|<font face="Showcard Gothic" color="blue">Ve :|</font>]] 19:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

==Relativity==
This kind of edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relativism&action=historysubmit&diff=388396549&oldid=387679276] are the kind that people are trying to explain to you are problematic. You change a key word to explain the concept of relativity namely "relative" into "inequal" a word that has a specialised meaning within a very specific field, namely math. In doing so you change a statement that was backed by two citations into a statement which is no longer supported by a citation, but appears to have two citations that someone will eventually discover no longer support what they claim to be supporting. When you change key terminology please make sure to use terminology that is both clearly intelligible to lay readers (i.e. not specialised or jargon) and also base your changes with sources. If you alter the wording of a sourced passage, check the original sources and see if they also support your new wording - if they don't make sure to evaluate whether your source or the sources given are more authoritative or represent a more widespread usage. Most important:back up changes, also small changes in terminology with sources. [[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 03:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
:I appreciate you catching that. I had mixed feelings about touching that article, I did so to work in the various types of relativism mentioned in the hatnote. Inequality is not strictly a mathematical concept. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
::In social sciences you can talk about inequality, e.g. "gender inequality" but you never encounter a statement such as "the genders are inequal".(google search: "are inequal" gets 3.390 hits mostly about math oron blogs written by non-native speakers - "are unequal" gets 425,000 hits)[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 03:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
::: OK. -[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] ([[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] | [[User:Stevertigo/Log|log]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevertigo|c]]) 03:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

== Stevertigo ANI: Administrator close ==

(original on ANI sub-page / copy to [[User talk:Stevertigo]] + log to edit restrictions page)

This has been hanging open too long. There is community consensus for - at the very least - a community edit restriction of 1RR per week per article on Stevertigo, as noted above and described by Ncmvocalist. This is the least of the restrictions which had significant community support (a 0RR restriction and a moderate length ban also had more support than oppose, but due to poll respondee selection issues and the also-active Arbcom case I am inclined not to impose those).

Pursuant to that - As an uninvolved administrator, I am closing this discussion with a community imposed 1RR/week/article edit restriction on Stevertigo, without stated end date / duration as none was mentioned in the consensus discussions (though, obviously, Steve can request reconsideration at future time(s) reasonably not less than say six months from now).

I additionally and personally would like to add a cautionary note - Steve, you have contributed greatly to Wikipedia over these many years. It is evident that large parts of the community have now lost faith in your positive contributions and lost patience dealing with you, regardless of who is "at fault" in terms of policy and process. I urge you to consider your behavior and work to mitigate that loss of patience and faith. This cannot help but end badly if you continue down the path that brought you to this time and place. Administrators and Arbcom cannot help you if you drive a wedge in between yourself and the community writ large. I have no wish to be back here in another three or six months with a larger angry community who will not be satisfied by anything short of an actual ban. Even if others' behavior is entangled in the current dispute, Steve, you have to admit you've made a lot of enemies. Consider reaching out and trying to make them friends again.

[[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

:I added a clarifying note with a more precise version of the edit restriction:
:: [[User talk:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] is subject to a community imposed edit restriction of 1 revert per article per week, with indefinite duration.
:[[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Network neutrality (disambiguation)]]==
[[Image:Icon delete.svg|60px|left]] Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0|Article Wizard]].

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of [[:Network neutrality (disambiguation)|the page that has been nominated for deletion]]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on '''[[Talk:Network neutrality (disambiguation)|the talk page]]''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these administrators]] to request that they [[Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content|userfy]] the page or have a copy emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-test-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|Otters want attention]])</sup> 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

== Template:Main2 listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Template:Main2]]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Template:Main2'' redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 10#Template:Main2|the redirect discussion]] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 01:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:16, 11 October 2010

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

This editor is a Senior Editor III and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevertigo&oldid=390162509"