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)

Appreciated. -Stevertigo (t | log | 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. 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. -Stevertigo (t | log | 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. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:27, 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.) -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Fair enough. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps take a look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as well. 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. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nonce

Template:Nonce has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Casliber (talk · 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. Casliber (talk · 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 here. It's apparent that your editing interests have changed a fair amount over the years. 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 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 sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). 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. →ROUX ₪ 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. 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? -Stevertigo (t | log | 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. 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.-Stevertigo (t | log | 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. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 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. -Stevertigo (t | log | 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. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)