User talk:Stevertigo

This editor is a Master Editor and is entitled to display this Platinum Editor Star.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Edit warring on Campaign for "santorum" neologism

{{3RR|Campaign for "santorum" neologism}} - please back off dude. Youreallycan 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Your comment in Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#Lube and fecal matter is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Please withdraw it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

commons:File:Circaflier2.jpg needs verification

Hi Stevertigo, You had originally uploaded that image, which I transferred to the Commons. Would you be able to provide an OTRS verification for that? It is currently marked for deletion. Thanks LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 06:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Critics consider..."

Hi, Stevertigo. I'm hoping you can clear something up for me. Way back in 2005, you introduced content into the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article that said: critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign. (Please see your edits here and here.) I believe the content you introduced is valid, but I have recently improved that text based on existing reliable sources. I've removed the specific "critics consider" phrase, so that the text now reads: The group's tactics are considered an example of a successful political smear campaign. The "critics" designation has been removed because reliable sources indicate that not just critics consider it a smear campaign, but so do impartial journalists, academics and scholars, non-partisan fact checkers and investigators that don't have political motivations or biases.

Now I'm being told by another editor that you proposed the "Critics consider" wording in a consensus discussion, and that my changing of that wording is going against that consensus - and he reverted my edit. (See the other editor's comment about your wording here.) I've searched the Talk archives unsuccessfully for discussion of the "Critics consider" wording, and I was hoping you could point me to where you proposed those two words for discussion. I can't get this other editor to provide a specific diff. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

("Let's keep two-way conversations readable" - Nice.) Xeno, its been almost 7 years, so I can't recall there being much in the way of discussion on that point, maybe just a brief joust with another editor or something the like. I do recall using the "critics consider" language out of a kind of diplomacy - anticipating problems with all other general ways of writing it. So using your wording as a base, it would look like "The group's tactics are considered [by critics as] an example of a successful political smear campaign." This kind of language only makes sense as this view at the time was a rather partisan one, and "critics" nominally identifies who thinks such and why - "critics" serves to both differentiate and identify sufficiently. Now the partisan divide may have smeared out a bit in the years since - Republicans/conservatives may concede that the Swift boat campaign was indeed a smear campaign, and may themselves even use the term "Swiftboating" for their own uses. I haven't seen this myself, but its possible - what I have seen is rather widespread journalistic usage of the term "Swiftboating." This doesn't mean we can disqualify the usage of "critics" in this article - we should probably preserve it as a nominal identifier, and in any case as a way to preserve the historically accurate distinction noted above. I'm all for adding depth with regard to additional sources, etc., but we have to consider things from the historical point of view too. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Libel

The Flynt/Falwell affair is incredibly fascinating, and one of the most important Supreme Court decisons ever. Worth learning more about. Here's the necessary reading.

District Court on libel charge in Falwell v. Flynt: http://www.opengovva.org/foi-opinions/court-opinions-mainmenu-62/744-falwell-v-flynt

Supreme Court: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0485_0046_ZS.html

Analysis suppporting decision by Rodney Smolla: http://www.XXXXXX.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2023%26context%3Dfacpubs&ei=a8E-T7i0L8XLsga8k6TFBA&usg=AFQjCNEwef6WLQP8klFuyBBPtJ931K2AKA

Rebuttal of Smolla's analysis by Bruce Fein: http://www.XXXXXX.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2024%26context%3Dwmlr&ei=gMY-T7beCs_ysgacssngBA&usg=AFQjCNEBN6tpjj61zMyaWZ2Kp0s3kSJR3A

Replace the XXXXXX in the last two links with google.

Enjoy! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications

Hi Stevertigo,

Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

2nd amendment article

Yes, your edits are essentially corrupting the article. You are chopping blindly, not looking at what you are removing. Do you honestly intend to remove the reference section, see also section, categories, inter-wiki links, notes/citations and all external links? I hope not, but that's what you're doing. It's not a good thing. Ravensfire (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Timeline of pornography

Category:Timeline of pornography, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dennis Miller Live

The article Dennis Miller Live has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for over five years, fails WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Basdiv

Template:Basdiv 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) 11:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Stevertigo. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of PBS idents for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PBS idents is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (5th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. When you recently edited Immortality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:WPint.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WPint.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

salvation

Your reversion of the last four months of work has been noted. Your claim that the existing tags have no corresponding discussion on the talk page is false. please look more carefully before you destroy other people's work. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Soul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immortal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stevertigo. You have new messages at Template talk:Specify.
Message added 05:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chealer (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations

But check out the linked Harvref inline citations - I've used them in one article Totonacan languages and I liked it alot. I think I will use those in the future.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sufi (disambiguation) unneeded

The Al Suf entry was unsourced and not discussed at the Rumi article, so I deleted it as unverifiable. The page is now a 2-term DAB and I've proposed it for deletion, with time to discuss it and expand it with valid entries. See further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Revised_proposal. Diego (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Awarded for the very long but ultimately fruitful discussion culminating at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#New proposal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

BitTorrent

Hi, Steve. I noticed your changes regarding the "BitTorrent" articles (reflecting the term's primary usage). Please note that it's improper to redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)", so I've moved BitTorrent (protocol) to BitTorrent. I realize that this required a page deletion, which I'd be glad perform at your request in uncontroversial cases such as this. —David Levy 13:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (2)

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

—David Levy 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unsolved

Template:Unsolved has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2!

San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited!

The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all! EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC) · Unsubscribe

Talk Back

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

San Francisco Wiknic 2012

	San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. —Max Klein {chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite.

Talk Back

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

Article rework

Thank you for paying attention to it. I would also mention this and this as things to think about. But in any case, I will leave it in your hands. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

You restored my removal of the PET scan image, I've started a discussion here (per BRD), Talk:Soul#PET_scan, cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones

Hello, Stevertigo. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 09:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• In view of your recent posting on the Talk:The Godfather, I thought you would like to see that I have taken action – on all three articles, and copied the full current strand to all three Discussion pages.
• Please click on my name in the blue box to take you directly to the relevant part of a much too long Talk page!

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Lin Jun

Replacing a redirect with a subst template is decidedly odd, as is creating a [[WP:FORK]] WP:CONTENTFORK of an article in the middle of a WP:RM to the very title you created the fork at. I have reverted, I think you should reconsider this sort of thing. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You should at least have waited for the WP:RM to run its course, I can see you've been around Wikipedia long enough to realize that was unconventional. My first inclination was to just take it to WP:ANI and then wash my hands of it. I think those edits were unwise. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In reply to your message at on my talk page, it's not just POV forks that are listed as "unacceptable types of forking" at WP:CONTENTFORK, but also "redundant content forks". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BRD

I noticed you reverting an editors changes without giving a notice but instead mentioning BRD, note this from WP:BRD: Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work, also note: The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I notice that jess has already specifically told you this exact same thing: Talk:Criticism_of_atheism#Recent_reverts. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

comments on hatnotes

Hi - would welcome your further thoughts on a compromise proposal now evolving here: Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#New_proposal. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Go

Hello. You have a new message at Coastside's talk page.

Your perspective would be valuable: Anti Christian Sentiment (Israel)

Hi there. I've noticed your collaborative work on the Christianity article and was impressed by your spirit of cooperation, sensibility and knowledge of the subject. I'm currently trying to resolve issues on another article: Anti-Christian sentiment particularly pertaining to incidents in Israel. I have opened a RfC and outlined the problem here. I would be grateful to have your input should you feel so inclined and think it worth your time. Regards, Veritycheck (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)