User talk:Stevertigo

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

American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2004)

nice work. 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. 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. 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^fuzzy! amounts of content, eg [1] and [2]. 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! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please please turn OFF your preference. 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. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

General officer

a) Why? 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.
  
• I've also noticed that the template users don't seem to either explain or justify their suggestions.
  
• I've also noticed that in most cases NO-ONE, (not even the proposer), have contributed ANYTHING to ANY discussion.
  
• I'm afraid I don't see the point. Can you enlighten me?

Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of popes (graphical)

I have nominated List of popes (graphical), an article that you created, for 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. Sandman888 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Human

Hello, Stevertigo. You have new messages at Cybercobra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Stevertigo. You have new messages at Pfhorrest's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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. 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, œ^™ 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:RSWP listed at 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 the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Colin°^Talk 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Human

Hello, Stevertigo. You have new messages at Cybercobra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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. Thank you. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Another thing, please read this → WP:SYN & WP:COS ←, its for your own good. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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 :-) --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. -Stevertigo (t | log | 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 edit conflict involved. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

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. -Stevertigo (t | log | 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. ---- 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? -Stevertigo (t | log | 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. ---- 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. ---- 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. 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. -Stevertigo (t | log | 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. 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? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Editcountitis much?

Actually – not that edit counts have any bearing whatsoever on my ability to read complaints, evaluate evidence and make judgments – but if you're really interested, I've been here since 2005, and I have 65,000+ edits (see 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?

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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 26 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.) -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:20, 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. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)