User talk:Steven Walling

User:VanTucky/Navbar Template:Archive box collapsible Please add new messages at the bottom.

Vandana Shiva

Re: Vandana Shiva Article: Ah, gotcha. I don't edit wikipedia much. What would be an appropriate section to put mention the video interview in, then? We could leave it as just mentioning it. Cutting and pasting what I'm proposing below.

Shiva has expressed support for Marie Mason, a convicted arsonist, for destroying university buildings to protest against GMOs. In a video interview, Shiva paid tribute to Mason, she said "I think it is criminal that she's being treated like a criminal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.77.94 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Template_talk:Beef#Placement's talk page. 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You can haz

Thanks for answering all my stupid n00b questions! Accedie (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

report on off wiki

Hi Steven, just a short question. In m:Wikimedia Foundation Report, October 2010#Board of Trustees Meeting I have found in the chapter Community health a notice that you should develop something like a general meta policy on the topic "off wiki harassment" in late 2010. I would need some information about this for the arbitration commitee of the german Wikipedia where I am a member. Could you help me in this question? Thanks, -jkb- (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'd be happy to talk about it, though this is my personal account's talk page, FYI. My staff account is here. :) You can email me (swallingwikimedia.org) or we can chat in IRC or something. The short answer is that we did work on it, but as you can see there was not a public proposal of any specific policy, mostly because come November I began work on the 10th anniversary. Steven Walling 21:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail sent, thx. -jkb- (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - did you please got my email? Regards, -jkb- (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu categories

Just want to say you did well to revert my edit. While I was inspecting the categories, following the links to other distros, just making sure things were properly categorized, **somehow** I must have clicked the "remove category" with the "HotCat" thing. I only realized my edit after your reversion popped up on my watchlist... Anyway, my edit was, of course, nonsense, so you did OK. Just letting you know... Cheers --SF007 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

ENSCO, Inc.

Hello, Steven Walling. You have new messages at Talk:ENSCO, Inc.#What happens now.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you please kindly offer me some directions on how to improve my wordings on that (LibreOffice) page?

Hello Steven,

Thank you very much for your companionable 'reception', ... ... I'm much obliged!

By the way, on the 'LibreOffice' page, I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with the subject. Yet, I do hope that the readers of the page can grasp, through 1-2 sentences, the relation between the 2 document formats--Open Document Format and the OpenOffice.org XML format.

Since, in Microsoft Office, the newer file formats are called the Office Open XML format and the Microsoft Office XML formats; users of MS Office may be confused about, by the term 'XML', when they start using LibreOffice--It's probable, for some of them, to suppose that OOo XML is newer than ODF ... ....

This was the major reason why I added the sentences, 'OpenDocument Format (which is the default format for OOo v3.x & v2.x)' and 'OpenOffice.org XML (which is the default format for OOo v1.x)', onto the LibreOffice page.

I trust you have a better ground considering my 2 sentences 'unsatisfactory', but I still hope that you can comprehend my motivation ... .... Would you please kindly offer me some directions on how to improve my wordings on that page? Thanks in advance!

C. Jeremy Wong (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered obstacles in making the following arrangements using the tag #REDIRECT General Instrument (disambiguation) ... ...

Dear Steven,

Please be informed that I've spent the past few hours on creating the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. Yet, I've encountered obstacles in making the following arrangements using the tag #REDIRECT General Instrument (disambiguation) ... ...

1. When readers type 'General Instrument' in the 'Search Box', they will first be led to the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. 2. When readers type 'General Instruments', they will be redirected to the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. 3. The current automatic redirection from 'General Instruments' to General Instrument should be cut.

Please offer me so hints on the issues. Thanks!

By the way, if you think there are too many sentences on the page. I'll rewrite them tomorrow or later ... .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Jeremy Wong (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

C. Jeremy Wong (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

SCYHO

Hey - as requested; here are some things I'd like you to take a look at on the article I'm working on.

At the end of the theme section there is a quote of Noel Gallagher but I cannot find any references from newspapers or websites to back it up; would you mind taking a look? All I could find is Wikipedia mirrors. Also; at the end of the section Music and Structure; the last sentance isn't really worded well IMO. I can't find a way to word it differently :-P If you listen to the audio sample; do you think that's a good portion of the song to use as a sample? In the internet leak section - do you think anything could be reworded/added/removed from it?

Other than that; if you could just skim the rest of the article and tell me if anything pops up that'd be great. Thanks! --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for putting yourself in disposition to answer questions Jemartinezt (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian

Just a comment,

Re. Neutral but will support if you can just unequivocally say that you're not going to delete things like schools under A7

Nothing is quite so black-and-white, and personally I object to the concept of inherent notability for things (inc schools and geo places). The examples I often quote being "Chzz's School of Wikipedia" (3 students, in my living room) and "My Kitchen" (a geographical place, but hardly worthy of an entry). Both of which could, obviously, have websites.

That's it...just a quick comment, to point out that there are dangers in assuming N just due to a subject.  Chzz  ►  12:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Schools are inherently notable. Unlike your kitchen, they are public spaces used by thousands of people for among the core functions of a modern society, and there are tons of local news stories and public records which are available as sources for even elementary or middle schools. There is already way too much willy-nilly speedy deletion happening under A7, which often boils down to one admin's judgement about what is and isn't notable. For me to trust someone with that tool, I need to know they don't think the mop is license to go around deleting articles about schools, public parks, and other really basic encyclopedic content. Steven Walling 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested article;

Chzz's Wiki School is based in Chzz's living room, and started in 2011. It has an enrolment of 2 (one of which is a cat).

Imagine it had a website.

Of course, I'm playing Devil's advocate, but...I just wanted to show that nothing is as black-and-white as is implied by the term "unequivocal".

I suppose it might have to skip CSD - and perhaps that is the "cost", as it were, of our blanket ruling; for the tiny number of potential cases, I'm sure it is best to have a blanket statement that "Schools cannot be CSD'd" - but, I wouldn't object to an IAR deletion of the above either.

Please believe me that I, too, expect a high level of potential admins - but I firmly believe that a high degree of common sense is far more important than misguided trust in rules that do not, and cannot, cover everything.

Also, please note that I am not appealing on behalf of that specific candidate; my point was unrelated to that RfA - I have not even evaluated the person sufficiently to !vote yet (and don't know if I will).

I merely wished to make a small point that there is danger in claiming 'inherent notability', and common sense is the only way to cover such things.

I suspect we're actually very close to agreement on things, and the point is a quite pedantic one - in as much as, asking an admin to unequivocally say that you're not going to delete things like schools is, IMHO, unfair on the candidate as it all depends on our definition of "things like schools".

I'm very cautious in use of CSD. I didn't used to be, but after my own first RfA (when a small % of my CSD-tags were brought into question), I've been much more circumspect in its use - and in my own terms, I only use CSD for "blatant crap". If I need to ask anyone 'should this be CSD?' then I always answer the question for myself - no, it shouldn't, because I have some doubt.

In the case of the "Montydoodle" (Q8 on the RfA), I wouldn't use CSD - I'd PROD it.

Anyway - as I said, it was a small pedantic point, and I'm sure we're in agreement on the key principle.

If perchance you have spare time, I'd be grateful if you could scan over articles I've tagged for CSD, and let me know if you can spot any problems; they're in User:Chzz/CSDlog, with the most recent at the end.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My friend, we're getting away from the point here. The policy explicitly says that schools are exempt from A7. That's the end of the story for me. Steven Walling 21:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which policy? Do you mean the guideline?stricken; see following comment

Semi-related, just a 'current example' of why we can't define CSD in concrete terms - what about Uriel "roch" winfree? Should that, in your opinion, be CSD'd?  Chzz  ►  22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Post script; It was deleted as "Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible" - which is not actually correct  Chzz  ►  02:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I take that back; I'm sure you meant WP:CSD which is, of course, policy - and does indeed make specific mention of schools. Quite so. I know it's in there, and I of course accept it (it's policy). I find the footnote interesting, and I think it might be time to re-open that particular can-of-worms, but that isn't the point here-and-now; you're right, schools are exempted from CSD; I accept that is consensus (with caveats that I question its value, but I mean, I accept it is The Law right now). The only reason I queried your response was, so many people wrongly assume WP:N is a policy, instead of WP:V.

Whether or not Wikipedia:V#Notability 'trumps' the CSD policy re. schools is a matter for debate; we could certainly accept that common sense/IAR over-rides both.  Chzz  ►  22:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Some WikiLove for you

	The prototype patroller barnstar
	Because HerpDerp is a genius and I deserve his reverts DarTar (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Hey man, Howie said to create test accounts on WP:VPT. ;) Steven Walling 04:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

About Qwyrxian

I also think Qwyrxian has a speedy-deletion flaw, among others. I say this even though you might ultimately--well, I don't know for sure, to be honest--disagree with me about my contributions in the creation of the Cheney Mason article. Suffice it to say, as the creator of the article, I strongly believe the infamous incident discussed therein should have remained, and, if you agree, I would surely appreciate any support you can give. I really feel that Qwyrxian just corralled / circled his wagons of support (of a select-few colleagues) around me in an effort to oust--deny real discussion about the topic. Diligent007 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The concern with that article is probably related to the policy of WP:BLP1E. You should probably familiarize yourself with it. Steven Walling 18:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me while I jump in: Diligent007, as I've told you several times, you're welcome to continue the discussion--no one stopped the discussion at all. If you don't feel like you're getting a fair shake, then we can ask somewhere else; of course, the BLP noticeboard already argued the info doesn't belong; but if you insist we can start a Request for comment which can draw all sorts of uninvolved editors to comment. At no point did I ever try to stop the discussion--in fact, I encouraged it. That is different than removal of the info from the article, which I still hold is completely necessary. If the consensus of the community eventually says I'm wrong, I will happily re-insert the information myself, and apologize. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Qwryxian is being fairly reasonable here... Steven Walling 04:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, those (and I) who created the article don't think Qwyrxian was fairly reasonable, Steven. I guess you must come to appreciate the full nature of why the subject of the article came to be so prevalent in the news recently (and his alleged obscene gesture has created a lasting impression on the conduct of officers of the court, etc., but I digress here--he is known for that). In any event, Steven, be advised that Qwyrxian has misled you, and that, my friend, should offend you or at least cause you to second guess him: Because of what Qwyrxian wrote, Steven you were misled to believe that I "canvass[ed] for support for a particular point of view in a discussion," when, in fact, that was NOT the case: To the contrary, I just made it known that an opportunity arose for others to voice their opinion--to either vote in favor or opposition of Qwyrxian: See my message on the talk page of talk ("you either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator..."). It is disgusting to me, suffice it to say. Whereas others on behalf of Qwyrxian speak on the same talk pages of the opportunity for Qwyrxian to become an administrator, Qwyrxian takes the position of manipulating my mere reciprocal informative message that there exists an opportunity for one to voice their opinion (one way or the other) on the nomination of Qwyrxian. So, that's my stance. I appreciate your input, Steven. Diligent007 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Oregon in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Oregon for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While we generally try to avoid interviewing projects multiple times, WP:ORE was interviewed two years ago and that interview only scratched the surface on this unique project. There was a request for an interview posted by one of your members at the WikiProject Desk in January and we held off until now in order to distance the two interviews a bit. You guys are one of the most active state projects and certainly the most active off the Wiki, so I'm excited to see how things are going two years later. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your participation
	Thank you for your participation on my RfA. I have noted your concerns regarding CSD tagging, and absolutely intend to take them to heart and review all related policies before taking any admin actions in this field. If you ever have any concerns about my actions, or even any advice, feel free to come let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

English Wikipedia issue

Hi, thanks for leaving message for me. I've checked the article Jamia Islamia Darul Uloom Madania. It is legitimate enough to be an encyclopedic article. Though this institute is not regulated by any of the education board in Bangladesh but this is one of the renown institute in the category Qawmi madrassa in Bangladesh.--Bellayet (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bellayet. :) Steven Walling • talk 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DevExpress

Hi Steven, I was wondering what is the notability requirements for a company to have an article in wikipedia. I was browsing our beloved encyclopaedia when I've just typed DevExpress in the search box to see what the article for the top-selling, largest, and most awarded .NET component suite vendor looks like and it has been deleted because it was not notable :-) Then I've just tried to find their biggest competitor: Telerik, the #2 in the .NET world... Not notable enough too :-) This really got me wondering if the requirements aren't too stringent, or were the articles themselves too poor? Best wishes Loudenvier (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC) (hey, It's been SOOOOOO long the last time I've signed a post on wikipedia... it feels good! :-)