User talk:Steven Crossin

User Page User Talk Contribs E-mail Subpages Adoption Awards Mediation Steve's Status: Offline (verify) 9:21 pm, 12 August 2024 AEST Talk Archives Stuff to do

Your proposal

Strad and I are both on board. How do we proceed? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are both watching this. As I've worked with Xav today to brainstorm some ideas to improve MedCab, a few key areas need to be addressed, providing structure to cases as well as making it clear what is suitable for mediation and what is not. The other key point is recruiting mediators, as tney are in very short supply, and I think we could us DRN to find who could assist at MedCab. As I see it at present, there are three pending cases at MedCab, one I am addressing outside of a case (see up), one is pending closure, and one is being handled somewhat, but would better be addressed at the reliable sources noticeboard. That pretty much means there are no pending cases. Each of you should watchlist Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases (a bot updates that page when any new cases are filed, or when new cases are opened). As mediators are in short supply, and cases pile up fast, perhaps for the meantime we could work as a collective on new cases, that is, the three of us on a case, as opposed to one mediator. Pooling our skills may make for quicker resolution. Also, you should both join the IRC channel #wikipedia-medcab so we can chat more about ideas. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on Strad's talk page to take a look at this. I'm generally okay with all those ideas, but I've not participated in IRC because it reveals my IP address and I'm fairly jealous of my anonymity. I know there's a way to cloak it, but I've never used IRC and am at a loss as to even do the IRC basics at this point. For example, the signup wants my "IRC nick: What is your main IRC account name?" and I have no idea what that is, how to get one, or how to use it. Trying to figure that out defeated me on the one prior occasion I tried to do it, but I'll give it another shot. Sorry for the techno-stupidity, but before now I've just not ever had an important reason to puzzle that out. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Update: I've puzzled it out and am waiting for my cloak request to be approved. Duhhh. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I also have to get irc set up on my computer, but it shouldn't be too much trouble. Please excuse the delay in replying - I just started work after being off the whole summer and it's been a bit of a shock to the system! Living in Japan might make it hard for me to be online at the same time as you both (unless you live in Australia or New Zealand) but I'm sure we will overlap a little bit. I might be online later tonight. Also, working three people on one case sounds like a good way to start out while I learn the ropes. Talk to you later... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in Australia, so we should overlap quite a bit. I'm off to bed now, so I will speak later. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so I'm the outsider here, time-wise. Per our IRC conversation yesterday, Steven is (probably) +10, Snail (IRC nick, not sure of WP username) is +12, Strad is +9, and I'm -5. Now I'm all paranoid that y'all are a sub-cabal trying to contaminate our Americun precious bodily fluids through MedCab psychoillogical tricks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC) PS: Just to make the record complete, Xav appears to be from -5, too, according to one of his old talk page posts. — TM 14:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC) PPS: I've been thinking about putting up a user page banner with this personal motto: "Stating the bleeding obvious at excruciating length since 2007." What do you think? — TM

Heh, maybe not. Btw, probably no need to state that you are neutral, or request permission to mediate a dispute. Just go for it :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's hard sometimes to figure out where entrants to a dispute are coming from, when the first time they jump into a debate is during a DR process. Maybe they're there to act as a neutral or maybe they're there as partisans. I like to clarify my status in the discussion from the very beginning (and have been doing so ever since I began working at WP:3O), as it makes it clear to the participants what I'm doing there and, at the least, increases the chances that they'll listen to me rather than just devaluing my ideas as another combatant joining the fray. I know it's out of the ordinary, but that's why I do it. I don't, at least not at 3O or DRN, ask for the disputants' consent or acceptance due to the informality of those settings (I'm not sure about how I feel about it at MedCab yet). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuing with Huawei

Hello Steven, I hope you are well. I have not been able to work on the Huawei article for a little while, but I've recently returned to it to continue suggesting improvements to the Huawei#Criticisms_and_controversy section. If you have time and would not mind taking a look, I have posted a new draft for the Western security concerns sub-section on the Talk page. Thank you, Bouteloua (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your draft is well-written, neutral and reliably sourced. I think you'd be quite fine to proceed. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Steven, your feedback is much appreciated. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me...

...but may I bother you to ask how you added that closed template to the discussion at Talk:Super Mario 3D Land? Thanks! --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 23:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean me archiving it? Pretty simple, I did it with {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}}. Pretty easy :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Next....

I'm at the very tail end of being sick. So nice to feel human again! :-) After you check the deletion assignment I'm thinking Wikimarkup, Copyright, then Templates if that's ok with you. I have a feeling I'm going to feel the same way about the vandalism assignment that I did about deletion, so I thought I'd do lighter subjects before tackling that. (I probably need to see if Twinkle works on my iPad too before taking on vandalism.) Cloveapple (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism assignment is probably the best one to tackle first. Let me know how you go. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got all the Twinkly little tabs on my iPad now and I've started to look at the vandalism assignment. I'm confused as it looks like I'm supposed to edit the assignment page directly and not just in my little Cloveapple subsection? Is this correct? It looks like I'd be changing your main copy so I'm double checking.

I'm also confused about the deletion assignment. I'm not sure what to make of the archiving. Does that mean you feel they were correct? I didn't think we were done talking about it? Some I'm sure I did correctly, but as I said on IRC I'm really unsure about the one I userified. Was that correct? Or should I be leaving that sort of move to an admin? It seemed kinder, but I wasn't sure rule-wise. Cloveapple (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these questions and my last assignment just got overlooked or if I should take the lack of reply as a sort of reply? Is it a matter of you being overloaded? Me needing to adapt my communication style? (I was raised in a culture where too direct=pushy=bad so I may be being too quiet or indirect about waiting for feedback. Should I prompt you more directly when I want feedback??) Something else? I'm very frustrated and have no idea how to find a way foreward.Cloveapple (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been overloaded but I thought that we discussed this one on IRC and I thought I explained it. The archive was procedural, I still need an administrator to look over them and give them the all OK, as I can't see deleted contributions (no mop). In regards to editing the main assignment page, I am a little confused. The questions for the Vandalism 1.1 assignment are on your adoption subpage, and can be answered there. Also, I sometimes see posts, think about replying and then forget, so if I do, ping me on IRC or send me a reminder email, as I can be a bit forgetful at times :) Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• IRC. Ahhh, I can see why you didn't answer further if you thought we'd gone over some of it on IRC. As far as I remember you'd said to do vandalism and I'd threatened to whine my way though it  ;-P followed by your explanation of why vandalism mattered, but that's all I remember. I have started to think that sometimes our IRC conversations may be getting slightly chopped off at the end. I'm pretty sure that I once asked a question on IRC you didn't see. (At first I figured work had interrupted, but then I noticed that when I pinged you I got a pretty high number.) Perhaps this happened in that discussion, with you making a last comment I didn't see?

• I'll try to explain my question about editing the main assignment page. If I go to my little Cloveapple adoption section at User:Steven Zhang/Adoption/Cloveapple and click on Vandalism 1.1 that takes me to User:Steven_Zhang/Adoption/Vandalism_1.1 where I get told "I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below" and also "Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:" This seems to be asking me to directly edit that subpage instead of typing something into the Cloveapple subpage.

• Thanks for the response on the speedy deletions. There's a couple of the most recent batch that I think I'd still get wrong if I redid them, though I may be remembering the contents wrong a month later. Josie Roberts and Transfer cart both surprised me. Sorry you couldn't read about Katy Perry and the wild space rhinos! ;-D Cloveapple (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Assignment graded. With AFDs, just make sure you research the article a fair bit before commenting (though I note you've done this in later discussions). All is good. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this one still needing an answer, I can't tell if I've answered it or not. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see... I think you answered the part about where to do the assignment (saying User:Steven Zhang/Adoption/Cloveapple/Lessons), and the part about IRC cutting off isn't really a question. So the only thing left is that I don't quite get the rationale on two of the speedies (Josie Roberts and Transfer cart).Cloveapple (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Josie Roberts was tagged as no context. I use no context when I look at an article, and from reading only the content of the article, not the title, I think "wtf??" as it makes no sense what the article is about. The article itself did make sense what it was saying, however it didn't meet the notability requirements for articles. Personally, I tag the article according to which CSD criterion it meets best. In this case, no context doesn't really fit however notability fits better, hence A7 fitting better. As for the other one, same applies. It wasn't blatant advertising enough so to meet the criterion required for G11, but it does meet A7 as the article didn't assert notability or importance. I hope that clarifies it a bit better for you. Best. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see how A7 might apply to Josie Roberts since a name was the title. I think maybe I'm getting the wrong idea of what A1 covers from the example currently used on the speedy deletion page. It's also possible I'm remembering it wrong. I'm more sure that I remember Transfer cart because I spent at least 30 minutes figuring it out, checking out the involved websites, and Google translating (part of the website was in English, part in Chinese). I still can't see A7 for Transfer cart since it was about a product or products and didn't talk about the company beyond listing product models. If it wasn't blatant advertising enough to be G11 then I would have had to go with Afd. (Or possibly G12 since I see that some of the other cart articles by this editor had copyright issues so maybe this one did too.)Cloveapple (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to ask: Does it matter if all the rationales for the speedies make sense to me? Is it a let it go thing? A mostly-getting-it is fine thing? A different admins split the hairs in slightly different places thing? Cloveapple (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I keep forgetting to reply to this. It's a mostly-getting-it is fine thing. You'll learn over time :) It's no big deal at the moment. Admins will split the hairs a bit differently depending on the user. :) How's the vandalism assignment going? Perhaps start off with the questions first? :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, formally moving on then... :-D

Vandalism questions are done. Cloveapple (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

^^whenever you want to check them Cloveapple (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nathantheawesomeguy

Why did you remove my valid (I think) report to AVI without a response first? --14:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

AIV was cluttered with stale reports, and the report you filed was about 6 hours old, so I removed it as stale, a bit moot as they were later blocked over copyright issues. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your input on a recent Huawei edit would be appreciated

Hi there, Steven. Perhaps I should have expected that trying to improve the "Criticisms and controversy" section of the Huawei article would result in some disagreement, however what's happened today is different. Somebody (an IP editor with no edit history) has partly undone and partly altered the changes I made in the "Security concerns" section.

The editor complains about someone "deleting properly referenced material" but I don't think is a fair description of what I've done. I had used exactly the same number of sources for the material retained, and I explained what changes I made on the Huawei Talk page. Meanwhile, this editor has italicized entire paragraphs and added a new final sentence about concerns related to the PLA which doesn't add any information that isn't in the very first sentence of the section.

I could explain all of this point-by-point on the Talk page again, although I wonder if you wouldn't mind having a look and intervening. (If you want to add this comment to the Huawei Talk page, that is fine, too.) Although I do think a simple reversion makes sense, I think it might be better if I'm not be the one to do it. Let me know when you have a moment. Thank you --Bouteloua (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at it and give you my thoughts. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Steven. If you are busy, I certainly understand. You've been gracious enough with your time in the past. If you do have the time this week to look at it, obviously I'd like that very much. But if you can't, I'm working on an explanation for COI/N, and will ask for input there if you are occupied. Thank you --Bouteloua (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven, I see that since last weekend, Ckt2packet has undone your revert and now added more information that is IMO problematic, although I would have to explain that at length. It certainly appears to be a more complicated situation than it seemed last week. I wonder if you have advice on how best to proceed. I'm willing to continue assuming good faith with Ckt2packet (although I have my doubts) and explain my specific objections on the Talk page. If he disagrees or responds in a confusing manner, then maybe it would be time to seek a Request for Comment or Third opinion. If you have a recommendation which is better, please let me know. Thank you, Bouteloua (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A requests for comment on this one might be for the best. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What I've done now is posted a note to the Huawei discussion page asking to see if he'll agree to partially revert to my version, and then discuss how to include new material. And I've left a note with Ckt2packet as well, although I see that he hasn't been active since September 10. As always, your input is welcome. Thanks, Bouteloua (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here Lies the Difference

Sorry about that AIV report, it was not intentional. I had reported him to UAA, so it showed up as reported on Huggle (correctly), but when I reverted his removal of the speedy deletion template it apparently reported him at AIV too. It seems to have problems with that. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it happens. :) Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominating you for mediation

Hello, Steven

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 July 2011/Games for Windows is reopened. I would like to ask you to mediate the case.

User:Wesley Mouse nominated himself for mediation but I politely declined. Unfortunately, has taken it as a serious insult and as accusing of me of a lot of bad things. If you step up immediately, we might avoid this chasm from getting deeper. You do seem to be able to keep a cool head under fire.

Please, I implore you, act quickly. I smell trouble. Fleet Command (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I would like to thank you for watching over us while the discussion came to a close. Your mere presence gave the case credit. I managed to keep our mutual friend engaged elsewhere, so he could not interfere with the case. (I am sure you know about it and perhaps do not have a good opinion of me for doing it.) But the truth is that you give the consensus credit, not me. After all, the consensus achieved by a black sheep like me alone is worthless.

I hope I do not have to bother you again.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My talk page is always open to requests for assistance or input. I didn't do much, but you are welcome as always. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User22

Template:User22 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your admirable performance in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 July 2011/Games for Windows, I am honored to present you The Civility Barnstar. Fleet Command (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Help on ruling

I believe the admin "Kuru" is made a very serious mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LardoBalsamico_reported_by_User:Sillystuff84_.28Result:_page_protected.29 He has all but admitted his mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuru#3RR_or_4RR.3F Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sillystuff84, I'm one of Steven Zhang's helpful talkpage watchers. I have had no involvement at all in this matter before now, and I thought I would check it myself to see if you were right. I'm afraid it does appear that you broke the 3RR rule on the page - the first time you removed material that LardoBalsamico had added the week before, and then you reverted three more times, bringing you to four reverts total in the 24-hour period. It sucks, I know, but that's how it is. Luckily, though, you weren't blocked, so now you have a good opportunity to talk it out on the talk page until the page protection expires. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please realize that this is a school, and that some students are being harassed by complaints about other students. We appoligize for any other students, and ask to be edit-banned so students do not edit and other students are harrassed by talk message notifications. Thanks, Anne Trow(Administrator for NCSD computers)

Robert Zoellick bio

You seem to think that Stradivarius is "pretty good at finding solutions to tricky disputes," so I suggest you read my reaction to Stradivarius' "tricky" solution on the Robert Zoellick bio dispute.Currency1 (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read the relevant discussions at BLP/N and DRN as well as the respective user talk pages but have little to say about it apart from that fact that I agree with the conclusions that they have come to. Editing Wikipedia should not case problems, and in this case, it has for you, so I, like the others, suggest editing something of a diffrent subject. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not find backroom solutions to revert knowledgeable editors whose contributions are supported by reliable primary and secondary sources.Currency1 (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

MedCab case

I've disqualified myself from clerking in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 September 2011/Sri Lanka due to initially being listed as an interested party (I've subsequently removed myself), but two of the three remaining interested parties have rejected mediation by Micheal faraday (whose only WP edit has been to accept this case). Under the circumstances, it probably needs to be reverted back to "New" status and his name removed as mediator, but that's your call. Frankly, I think that this is one that will (and, perhaps, should) go stale and die on the vine for no one taking it but it needs to be given the chance to be accepted by someone. Whatever you think. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an issue. Nothing against the new guy, but yeah. I'll revert the case back to new status, but I think it might be wise for us to keep discussing changes to MedCab (minimum req for mediators and making medcab a more intermediate option). As we've discussed its a bit redundant to DRN at present so making it a little more formal while not nuts like MedCom might steer it into a new direction. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

About the Sri Lanka case - the filer, Distributor108, has been blocked for a month. Note that I can't make any recommendations on the case either, as I was also named as a party initially, but I thought I should tell you in case you missed it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting this to be the inevitable result after he wouldn't read the writing on the wall in this exchange before the DRN listing and then the MedCab listing were made. Nonetheless, I was trying to remain neutral and was considering giving him a WikiGift. Cookies or kittens didn't seem quite right so I was considering giving him one of these. Would that have been appropriate, do you think? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC) PS: Did y'all happen to look at my draft re MedCab prerequisites and experience? TM

(←) I'm not a massive fan of Wikilove/templates messages. I prefer hand written personalized messages :-) . As for the draft, I hadn't seen it until now, no. I think the requirements are a bit steep at present but we can play with them and come up with something that works. I'll weigh in at WT:MEDCAB. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MedCab

I'm a little sloshed here... but despite your past degressions, I need you to know that I believe in you. I trust that what you do at MedCab will be good.

So I'm basically handing it over to you. Regardless of my past email, you're a good a mediator and a good person. :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I apologise for overreaching the other day, I saw it more as an alternative way to get the changes to MedCab done, without really considering the better option which is discussing the changes and making them together. I think that's the best way forward here. I've taken your comments from the email on board, and will do my best to not let it happen again. I am interested as to what you think of TransporterMan's draft. As i said on IRC, implementing some guidelines/requirements for new mediators might be of some benefit if MedCab is to be more of an intermediate option, but this needs to be balanced with ensuring MedCab doesn't become a cabal (ooh the irony). What do you think? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I had to look up what sloshed meant. You've committed a WP:EUI :P Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I lol'd looking at that page. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 12:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe another User:Dewan357 block-evading IP

Greetings, please note the style and the areas of interest: Special:Contributions/99.54.13.17. Parts of it seen Dewan357 to a T (even in the very short term), and this IP (and another that just arrived and might be the same person, Special:Contributions/67.118.115.66 are really cluttering up Talk:Yadav with incredibly repetitive complaints, which if I recall right is also one of Dewan's hallmarks. How to proceed? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Best to file a case at Sockpuppetry investigations and we will look over it. I can do little, as I'm not an admin, but post the details over there and we will look into it. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA

We have a large project at WP:RFA2011 to bring about some reforms to the process. We now have a dangerous dearth in nominations for adminship, and I do belive that the recent events could be a good moment to boost the various initiatives there to introduce some new firm rules. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The current RfA climate prevents many good candidates from running (myself included). I, like many, would probably run but have unfavourable thoughts about our chances. As for proposals, my current focus is reforming dispute resolution (see WP:VPR#Content dispute resolution). Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been several attempts in the past at noticeboards to do something about various people's trolling but unfortunately no consensus was reached because other commentators think trolling is funny. RfA is a serious process and although some comic relief may occasionally be appropriate, voting against people because they don't answer silly questions, , or because they openly describe themselves as gay or atheist etc, or simply voting 'oppose' without a supporting rationale, are things which now need to be stopped. If something concrete were to be done about the present case in hand, it would send a clear message to the RfA trolls. Neverthelss, I do believe the ultimate solution is make some policy reforms to RfA so that things are clear for everyone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Most issues with changing most processes on Wikipedia is that people will say things like "its too bureaucratic" or similar. Is change needed? Of course it is. I see many proposals within RFA reform but nothing at the Village Pump to actually get something done about it (unless I've missed it). I did that when I created the dispute resolution noticeboard. I created an idea in my head, noted down what I wanted to achieve, and proposed it on the village pump. DR and RFA are chalk and cheese, but the process to get it done is pretty similar, I would think. We could in theory develop a formal proposal (as in a summary of changes to implement to RFA gathered from the RFA reforms) and send it to the village pump to be ratified by the community. What do you think? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

VP content dispute resolution thread

Hi Steven, I saw Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Content dispute resolution, and this is just to let you know you typed "reland" instead of "Ireland". I was going to correct it myself, but I thought that was probably a little cheeky... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice pick up, but I am disappointed that you didn't actually comment on the thread...actually disappointed that no-one has yet. Obviously not many people care about DR as much as I do. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a look

Follow the link to What MedCab is not from Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/request and see my edits. (And we'll see if they stick.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Now it will just be about making these stick, through enforcing them when a new case is filed. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Check Medcab IRC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I had to go last night. I see you brought in reinforcements on the lede. Everything looks great. As we said above, let's hope it sticks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reminder

This is your reminder speaking. Please write up a list of tasks to do for the MedCab bot. Have a nice day :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Email

You've got email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it. Fwiw, any email you send me I will get quicker than a talk page message (and will generally reply to it sooner than a talk page message) :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox character

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox character. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation

I have limited my activity on the Wikipedia due to the real life reasons. As a result I might not be very active at the mediation. So I would like you to know that unless I say otherwise (i.e, by default) I support Paul Siebert's position with regard to the mediation. I would still follow the case and if time permits I would add my own comments sometime in future. I have high hopes for this case success because some kind of consensus was achieved there in the past (in June). (Igny (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for letting me know. Feel free to comment and participate as time allows. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

TLAM

Hi there, I see that you are a mediator, and are going to try and mediate a dispute on Holodomor. One of the users, The Angry Last Man (talk · contribs), is currently under discussion at Arbitration Clarification. There is good reason, based upon behavioural evidence, that this is a sockpuppet of Marknutley (talk · contribs). I am not the only editor who believes this is a sockpuppet, but it is backed up by numerous admins with long experience in SPI. I don't think it is a good idea to request an amendment to allow a disruptive sockpuppet participate in an area which caused them to be all but expelled from the community, because to do so only rewards them. I don't know if you are aware of the other discussion, but you may like to check it out for your info. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Russavia. I did indeed investigate the prior SPI case and the fallout after that. While they were unblocked by ArbCom without conditions, this led me to believe that they had either given him a pardon of sorts or found him not guilty of wrongdoing. Either way, I have requested further comment at RFAR/Clarification. Also noticed you're from Perth. We need more aussies around here on WP :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

about holodomor

Hi. I'm new to wikipedia, I don't even know if it's the right way to contact you... I'd like to know if I could participate at the debate about Holodomor and if yes, how would I go about doing it? Thanks. BesterRus (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)