User talk:Sm8900

Welcome to my user talk page. Thanks for visiting. --Sm8900 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideas User:sm8900/links
User:sm8900/sonofilter
User:sm8900/Archive
User:sm8900/Archive2
User:sm8900/Archive3
user:sm8900/Abul Hussam
user:sm8900/play by mail list

User:Sm8900/watchlist

discussion pages

all discussed categories

Project USA discussion board

Battle of Jenin
Talk:Battle of Jenin
Talk:Palestinian people
Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Talk:House demolitions in Israeli Palestinian conflict
Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus‎

Hi Steve. You may not realise it, but its not a good idea to advertise you are Orthodox. Some individuals will go around around and 'edit' your articles until you give up in desperation because there is only so much time you can spend battling them. The Christian phishing is the worst.--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

HI MRG./ you're probably right. I really appreciate you writing me to let me know that. Howevr, the one thing is that actually I do not edit that many religious-themed articles. the closest I get is soime articles on Israeli culture. so thanks. i appreciate it. The only reason i mentioned that is that an editor, IZAK, one of the most experienced editors here, appeared to be accusing me of anti-Jewish sentiments, which is ridiculous; first of all you should not be accusing anyone of that, as we're supposed to assume good faith here. in regard to me, it only shows how much he strayed from that basic idea, as I am a aproud Jew, to top it all off. so that was why. but I really appreciate you writing to me. please feel free to write anytime. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mini watchlist; histories

General pages

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Departments

Wikipedia:Watch

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)

Wikipedia:Village_pump (proposals)

Wikipedia:Village_pump

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(all)

current categ discussions

Category:AfD debates (Games or sports)

current article for del discussions

Category:AfD_debates

Project pages

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Israel

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Jewish history

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Star Trek

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Star Wars

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Community

artilces to watch history and talk pages: Battle of Jenin
Talk:Battle of Jenin
Talk:Palestinian people
Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Talk:House demolitions in Israeli Palestinian conflict
Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus‎

---

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
House demolitions in Israeli Palestinian conflict
contributions Sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Artilces worked on:

U.S. Army Service Uniform
Robert Smalls

Interesting articles: SH-60 main us navy helicopter
World War II

main topics

current items in category (70 items):

A [+] Agriculture [+] Ancient history [+] Applied sciences [+] Archaeology [+] Architecture [+] Arts [+] Astronomy [+] Atoms B [+] Biology [+] Business C [+] Chemistry [+] Computing [+] Crafts [+] Culture D [+] Drama E [+] Earth [+] Earth sciences [+] Education [+] Energy [+] Environment [+] Events F [+] Film G [+] Geography [+] Geology H [+] Health [+] Historical eras [+] History [+] History by continent I [+] Industry J [+] Justice K [+] Knowledge L [+] Language [+] Law [+] Literature M [+] Manufacturing [+] Materials [+] Mathematics [+] Matter [+] Medicine [+] Mental health [+] Microorganisms [+] Military [+] Music N [+] Nature P [+] People P cont. [+] Performing arts [+] Philosophy [+] Physics [+] Politics [+] Psychology [+] Publishing R [+] Radio [+] Religion [+] Research S [+] Science [+] Society [+] Sociology T [+] Technical [+] Technology [+] Telephony [+] Television [+] Theatre [+] Thought [+] Tools U [+] Universe V [+] Virtues [+] Visual arts

Mideast article discussions

Schechtman

Dear Sm8900,
I would appreciate it if you would not describe Joseph Schechtman as a "hate source" and claim that "many zionists are hate sources" as you did in this edit. I don't believe Schechtman is a hate source or that very many Zionist historians are hate sources (at least no reliable Zionist historians are) and I doubt that you believe this too. Even User:JaapBoBo doesn't seem to use this ridiculous line of reasoning. The only person who says that Schechtman is User:PalestineRemembered. You may not know this because you entered the debate rather recently, but PalestineRemembered has repeatedly compared Schechtman's research to the pseudo-scholarship of David Irving, the infamous British Holocaust denier. I have told PalestineRemembered that his argument is weak and that his comparison is offensive, but he continues to do it to bait me, and I try hard not to fall for it. Your statement here makes things more difficult for me and for Wikipedia than I'm sure you intended. I understand and respect your spirit of compromise, but that doesn't mean compromising the truth by accepting lies. Thank you. --GHcool 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

When GHcool refers to Schechtman's research, he's thinking of his work for the Transfer Committee's, who surveyed Arab holdings in Palestine (which crops grew, which buildings useful etc) ready for the time when they could be seized. Some of the Zionists may have felt "them or us" after the Holocaust, but Schechtman was working on this earlier, and he seems to have specialised in preaching fear and hatred of the Arabs. His background in the transfer (now we know what he did) is such that nobody would treat him as a reliable historian any more, and Childers (apparently?) claims that many of his sources were completely invented. PR^talk 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Sm8900 is smart enough to look at Joseph Schechtman's life and bibliography on Wikipedia or any other source and decide for himself whether he is a hate source on the level of David Irving or not. --GHcool 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe your position is defendable. Schechtman's bio and other links suggest he's less of an historian than Irving. And the very clip we've been using suggests he's a hate-source worse than Irving. PR^talk 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I said it once and I'll say it again: Sm8900 is smart enough to look at Joseph Schechtman's life and bibliography on Wikipedia or any other source and decide for himself whether he is a hate source on the level of David Irving or not. PalestineRemembered is entitled to his own opinion just as Sm8900 is entitled to his own opinion. I am also entitled to criticize PalestineRemembered's opinion or ask Sm8900 to clarify his opinion before cricizing it. A 3rd party that tells me what Sm8900's opinion is (or worse, tells Sm8900 what his own opinion is) shows that he is desperate for approval and shows that he is fearful that he is incorrect. I trust Sm8900 and Sm8900 alone when it comes to matters of Sm8900's own opinion. --GHcool 04:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for the comments from both of you. I do appreciate it, and I enjoy a good exchange, whether on my own talk page or elsewhere. In answer let me say I actually have no idea whether Schectman is a hate source. In fact I am quite sure he is not. I do not know what relevance that label could have here, but it sounds like he is simply an extremist at the most, if anything. In this conflict, there are many credible sources who might have extreme views. What about the many Palestinians who believe that Israel is a colonialist imposition which should never have been created? In effect, aren't they saying that Israel has no right to exist? does that make them a hate source? If it doesn't, then they too are extremists.

So my point here is that we cannot exclude the experts of one side based on criteria which are not applied to all sides. And PR, GHcool is clearly a credible good-faith editor. He is clearly not trying to finding a myriad of extreme issues to raise in order to disrupt the process; he is merely trying to include this one source. We need to start trying to give each other benefit of the doubt, and learning to compromise. i believe that Schectman should be included. I have little else to say on this matter, and will allow you and others to continue to offer most of the comments on this issue. thanks.

By the way, one final note, GHCool; I don't think PR was trying to imply that I couldn't make up my own mind. He was merely using this talk page as another forum to continue the discussion, since you were raising the issue here as well. I don't mind the use of my talk page as a discussion forum of a sort; I take it more as a kind of slight compliment, as it implies that at least you consider me an attentive audience. If I minded it, i would say so, but to this extent, I don't have a problem with it. Anyway, i appreciate the useful comments and input from both of you. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 12:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty, Sm8900. I hope that in the future, you will think twice before calling Schechtman or "many zionists ... hate sources." As you can see, PalestineRemembered has already taken advantage of your mistake saying that you "agreed with [him] that Schechtman is a hate-source." --GHcool 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Steve - when you see me filling encyclopedia articles with quotes from anti-semitic Palestinians (and there are bound to be a few), that will be the time to start quoting Arab-hating Israelis.

I've been told off by HG, apparently Holocaust Deniers are not banned from Wikipedia because of their hate-speech (as I assumed), but because of their falsification of history. Well, Schechtman is plainly guilty of falsification a lot more blatant than David Irving (and that just comes from the limited clips I've seen here). In the end, you may not agree with me over Schechtman being a hate-source (despite having told me you do), but you should not be quoting him because it's clear that some people could feel that way about him. You and GHcool have got to find something better, otherwise you'll have forever linked yourself to hatred. You may not be used to the idea of dealing with other lots of other nationalities, but I am - I can assure you that stuff like that goes down very, very badly. PR^talk 19:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Actually, it came from me accidentally misreading the following post:

User:Screen stalker - as best I can tell, the reason you're facing "pro-expulsion, anti-EoF" editors all the time is that you're simply wrong.

As I read this, I thought (for some reason) that the word "you're" was "you know you're". My apologies for misreading your post.

I still think that there is overwhelming evidence that a substantial portion of the exodus (just how large still remains to be determined, but probably a super majority) of the exodus was caused either by the tribulations of war or by the actions of Arab leaders. The unfortunate thing is that there are two authors who do not actively push to remove these sourced and are actively involved in editing Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, namely GHCool and me. Screen stalker 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I appreciate your reply. however that post was not from me. I can already tell, because I don't use terms like that. However I appreciate your helpful reply regrdless. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have to keep saying "massacre"?

why do we have to keep saying "massacre"? that seems especially offensive. Can't you simply say "allegations that major human rights abuses occurred"? that seems to me to be just as fair to your concerns. --Steve, Sm8900 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence seems to be that that we have credible information for at least one small massacre occuring. It's only "mass-shooting" allegations that were never confirmed. Furthermore, I see no reason to claim that the word "massacre" should be offensive - this lists 24 massacres from about the same time. And we don't have secondary sources saying "allegations that major human rights abuses occurred" - we have RS sources stating that war-crimes were committed. PR^talk 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for offering that thought. that sounds interesting. at this point I have little to express on or comment on regarding this issue, regarding any viewpoint or opinion. So I'm not sure about this issue, and do not have any plans at this time to add further to discuss this issue. I really do appreciate you taking the time to seek my opinion, as I do consider this a helpful gesture. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Many people don't wish to involve themselves in the gory business of documenting massacres, or arguing whether allegations of war-crimes really come from proper RS secondary sources. I'll quite understand if you're one of those people. However, if you're not prepared to look in detail at this stuff, it would be better if you didn't try and partake in discussions on the topic. PR^talk 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

at this point, you may feel free to make whatever edits you wish. also, i have no problem with you requesting my opinion or feedback here as you did. The one thing which i might tentatively add, though, is that i prefer to have these discussions at the article's talk page. I am not saying that i have any problem with you asking me questions here at my talk page. however, if I do have any problems at a later point, I still consider myself to have the ability to post a comment at the article talk page, at a later date. Of course, if you post a comment at the article talk page, and I don't reply, you can assume that for now i am willing to leave that issue alone for now.

Obviously, in doing so I have as much freedom to do so as any other editor might to add my comments at some later point, if I feel it is appropriate. however, right now I have little comment to add on this issue, whether here or at the article talk page. thanks very much. i do appreciate you seeking out my input on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's "fair" of me to pull out examples of things you've said, go to your Talk and post questions/comments on them. I could equally well do it at the article - the reason I didn't do so is that starting a new section tends to obscure the main discussion going on. Thanks for your understanding - if I do this again and it bothers you, please feel free to transfer it to my page or back to the article. One solution that is "fair" is for you to transfer my most recent comment, and your reply, to my UserTalk, and apparently hold two identical conversations. PR^talk 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ok. thanks for your reply. that makes sense. please feel free to do so anytime in the future, when the discussion appears to be more easy to carry out here. bear in mind though, that i may not be all that interested in delving further into certain comments of mine. I may simply have been reacting to the overall topic. so if you see me saying that I understand your point, but do not wish to comment further, it should never be taken as any reflection on my willingness to be in open discussion of something with another editor. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed "Back to Jenin" - Ha'aretz 17th July 2002, Ze'ev Schiff "None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled." My heart could warm to some sections of the Israeli media and Israeli people, who advertise the fact that the Jenin massacre deniers are completely isolated and more or less entirely discredited by everyone. PR^talk 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. It sounds like Schiff is sayinbg the claims themselves are "mendacious", in other words, false. So he would probably assert that various individuals' non-withdrawal of those claims is due to their malice towards Israel, not towards any attachement by them to truth or to the facts. --Steve, Sm8900 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for disputed articles

Steve, Hi. Thanks so much commenting at Jenin. I like your tone and much of what you say, but I suppose it's more interesting/useful for me to say where I disagree: (1) Your point about sources at Causes48 is not very relevant for Jenin. Whereas Causes is about competing theories and viewpoints, at Jenin -- for the most part -- we aren't (or shouldn't) be trying to describe different viewpoints on the topic. (2) So we need to rely on the most reliable sources in a fairly std WP way. Choosing sources shouldn't be about negotiating betw POV-sided editors, you get yours and I get mine. That's unstable, since editors change, and not good for the encyclopedia and our conception of our work. (Maybe Jenin looks a bit like a POV story when it deals with Isr and Palestinian reporting of the incident(s), but even here it would be preferable if we could rely on good secondary sources etc.) (3) In short, I think it's essential that we -- including you -- should still hold out the belief that peer-reviewed journals and major news media are better than, say self-published journals and newsy blogs. Sure, I suppose there is some tension betw the slants of the best journals and media, but I urge you to back down from the "Let's simply start accepting others' sources" quid pro quo approach. Therefore, I really think you should reconsider that part of your comment at Jenin. (I'd suggest the same for Causes48, but I haven't looked at the context of the Talk there.) Hopefully you'll taking this as a constructive criticism, per your usual good mood and optimism. Anyways, I appreciate our intermittent conversations. Ciao, HG | Talk 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

what you say is true, and makes a lot of sense. Still in spite of your persuasiveness, i return to my original point (with a small rewording): if there are two versions of a specific event, each advocated by different sides in an ideological dispute, and each unwilling to yield t the other, the best option for Wikipedia to achieve balance is to use sources from both sides which are well-established in their own communities or ideologies. I know it sounds contentious, but in the end, it seems liek the best way to me to achieve balabnce and consensus. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your revision sounds much better, if I'm reading it right, because it is (implicitly?) limited to cases where there are only two POV versions and there aren't neutral reliable sources. Right? Otherwise, we still need to challenge the parties to (find and) yield to the neutral sources. Sure, it's a hard challenge because POV-advocates tend to dispute the neutrality of all sources -- so that's why we have 3PO, RfC and the Source inquiry pages. // Ok, if you've followed me this far, then let's ask... In what situations are we writing about something that doesn't have any neutral sources? Hmmm. Thanks for discussing this! HG | Talk 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

PS fyi. You've been called to the carpet on another part of your comment. Maybe you could strikeout or delete as necessary? Even while you mull over the section we're discussing. At a min, isn't it off topic? HG | Talk 22:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, thanks for your comments. Basically, i fel there is not a single neutral source on the planet on this. how's that for a moderate answer? here's why i feel that way: Is Israel a legitimate country, with a legitimate right to defend itself? The United States, the new York Times, and pro-Israel allies say it is. Or is it a criminal intrusion on local peoples? Most Arab governments say it is. Did the Palestinians do everything possible for peace? Some sources say they did. Or did their own leaders carry out criminal diversion of money and resources meant for peaceful development, choosing instead to incite divisiveness and hatred? many iother sources they did.

i am not saying these are the ONLY sources, but they are the main sources. if we keep looking for some mythical neutral objective view, we will only have more and more edit-wars. the only way to achieve balance and compromise, is to give both points of view some genuine respect; and in fact to make clear that any resolution or depiction of these issues means respecting, hearing and balancing the views, issues, concerns, goals, experiences, and legitimate grievances of both sides. --Steve, Sm8900 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to be a skeptic philosophically, but I don't think what you are expressing is helpful for collaborative work in a project whose vision and policy -- mythmaking or not -- is centered on neutrality. ("mainstream" views, etc. Not "objective.") You strike me as a very likable guy, but if I can be blunt, if you're not with the program then you're fueling disruption. Plus, again bluntly, you/we don't have another way to negotiate, or compromise. Your ideal is nice but it wouldn't put an end to edit wars. If you can't appeal to folks' mutual interest in WP principles and vision, then you're left with some kind of ad hoc bargaining. It won't work, it's unstable. Wikipedia is already unstable enough, but the forces of good (?) here are struggling for a particular kind of principled collaboration. Well, you are welcome to disagree. But really, Steve, you shouldn't be pursuing this idea on an article-by-article basis -- that really is disruptive -- but at the level of WP policies and guidelines. Propose changes. Propose to experiment with a given article or set of articles. Whatever. But otherwise I think you'll be feeding some "negative tendencies" (shall we say) here, rather than creating the kind of mutual respect I know you believe in. HG | Talk 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. i appreciate your reply. I enjoy hearing your input. However:

• i do not agree with you that these ideas are disruptive.

• i do not agree with you that my approach is counter-productive.

• i do not agree with you that there is any need for me to stop trying this approach. i am absolutely not doing this in any dogmatic, partisan or philosophical style. i truly believe it to be the best and most benefical way to approach this. I will continue to use this on a case-by-case basis, where I feel it is appropriate and helpful to all editors involved. I am always open to your ideas, and you are always free to disagree as you see fit. However, one small suggestion; I think it might be better if you could please not judge my ideas as being part of any partisan or dogmatic ideology (by the way, I don't feel that you in fact have ever done so in the past, so it's not a big deal or big issue). you are free to simply disgaree or agree as you wish, based on the facts of each case. i do appreciate all your ideas and input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you don't strike me as dogmatic. I'd add that it may be hard to say when a quid pro quo arrangement on POV sources would work for all editors, since future editors may prefer come along & seek a different deal or even the Noble quest for neutrality. Anyway, let me know of any results you come up with. Ciao. HG | Talk 18:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. truthfully, I find you to be a very positive editor, and even the concerns which i expressed above were not things which i was really concerned about. I also agree with the ideas which you stated in your message immediately above. So I appreciate all your good input, as usual. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

hi there.

Category:Diplomatic conferences,
Category:Political charters,
Category:United States national commissions.
Sono filter Category:Akiba Hebrew Academy alumni
Sono,
Advanced Destroyer Simulator,
Aegis: Guardian of the Fleet, user:sm8900/glw
User:sm8900/mike
Hohoho
User:sm8900/idea
Major ww2 revisions: 3/20/07, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&oldid=115799022 User:sm8900/photo idea

15:13, 17 March 2007 Jack Naven Rulez (Talk | contribs) (→Cause of war in Europe) (cur) (last) 14:28, 17 March 2007 Oberiko (Talk | contribs) m (→Cause of war in Europe - - There was no Soviet Union during World War I) (cur) (last) 13:40, 17 March 2007 Haber (Talk | contribs) (→Causes - major removals and more stating of elementary facts)

|}}} | style="text-align: center"|

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Sm8900! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  ►  08:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

need help

Why does it seem impossible to find any wikiprojects through regular searches???? How would I find these? I tried and tried everything I could think of. thanks very much. --Sm8900 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory and Category:WikiProjects. —P^urpleRA^IN 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I found this by typing "WikiProject" into the search box and then following a couple of links. If that didn't work for you, it may be that your default search preferences aren't searching in the Wikipedia: namespace. You can check this by clicking my preferences at the top right of any Wikipedia page, then clicking the Search tab. You can also set namespace preferences on a per-search basis by checking the appropriate namespaces at the bottom of the Wikipedia search page. —P^urpleRA^IN 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

finding things

{{help me}} I am having a lotof trouble finding things. First of all, how does one access the advanced search page? Whenever I do a search, i get a whole bunch of checkboxes with the search results. Is there a way to access these checkboxes easilyin general?

Also, why can't I find the page on "user boxes"? I know there is one, but I was totally unable to find it, either by searching or using the index. hope this can be clarified. thanks.

1. Under My Preferences, click on the "search" box, and you can specify which search boxes will be clicked by default when you do a search.

2. You may find Category:Wikipedia userboxes to be helpful.

In the future, feel free to ask questions at the Help desk, as responses may be quicker. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

This user is a participant in
WikiProject
United States.

This user is a participant in WikiProject History.

This user is a member of
WikiProject Judaism

This user participates in
WikiProject Israel.

This user is a participant in the
Star Trek WikiProject.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Video games.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

The Wikipedia Corps tag

   

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Well, you seem to have been here a while, but I haven't welcomed you yet. Regarding contentious articles, as you say, just follow my contributions and you'll find them soon enough. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For setting an example of what consensus building, neutrality, and fairness might look like and helping defend the edits of those who don't necessarily share your POV Tiamat 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiamat 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tiamat! I really appreciate your kind and encouraging gesture. it means a lot to be appreciated. thanks. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your CfD nomination - a suggestion

Hi there - as you yourself created the category that you've nominated for deletion, you can just add {{db-author}} to the category and an admin will happily delete it for you. No need for the drama of a CfD nomination if you've made a mistake (we've all been there...) Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GW

Replied at GW about what misleading means. --BozMo talk 10:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the thoughtful note. I'm doing much better now (I haven't taken antibiotics in years, so when they went to work pretty fast). The house is also coming along slowly but surely. We'll probably move in with it half finished before the end of the month to avoid paying another month's rent. The rest will take some time anyway. I want to try to get artisanal tiles and do some mosaics on the floors and walls. It will be a lifetime work in progress. Great fun. Hope you're doing well too. Tiamut 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

user page deleted

Simply because I wonder how to leave wikipedia and this is a first good step :-) Alithien 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

oh, ok. I hear you. however, I think right now your efforts are needed here at Wikipedia. :-) Hope you'll stick around for a bit, or at least be here every so often. I don;'t edit so much myself anymore, so i sort of undersatand. Thanks for writing. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Steve,

I have speedy deleted Category:Alliances, per your request at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 16#Category:Alliances. Since you asked, the way to this more easily is to use the tag {{db-author}}. For the full story on speedy deletion, see WP:CSD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Using CategoryTree - fayenatic

Hi, I note that you added CategoryTree to a couple of head categories today. I wasn't aware of that feature before, and am really pleased to have learned it -- see e.g. Category:Hebrew Bible people, an example of a sub-category page that includes template text, so I only had to add CategoryTree to the template for all the relevant sub-cats to show it.

However, it seems a bit pointless to add the tree on the head category page Category:Star Trek, as its contents are compact enough for all the sub-cats to be visible there, and one can use + and - to explore the tree. It would make more sense to add it to some or all of the sub-cats. What do you think? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I guess you're right. I really just put it up there to see what people thought, and maybe to get a few positive and/or interesting comments. So you fit the bill on both counts. so I appreciate it. Please feel free to make any changes you want, or just remove it entirely.

By the way you seem to be pretty consistent in terms of your involvement. What are you up to generally? Do you have any favorite Trek series? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a compulsive daily habit here! You may have noticed I've joined my first WikiProject, and not an obvious one. I've wikified various name pages since Zechariah, and watch them for vandalism; one thing often leads to another, and I do enjoy improving messy ones. I'm pretty unfocussed on Wikipedia, but also try to keep up with WP:PROD, because valid stuff can be deleted by that route with less scrutiny than AFD.

My favourite Trek series is New Frontier! I set up a userbox & category for its Wikipedian fans, but as nobody joined me in it -- not even users who named themselves after its characters -- I recently deleted it. For more info see my page at Memory Alpha (not that I am an active user there).

Thanks for your message; I must have "unwatched" you inadvertently. I looked at your new categories, and suggest there should be a navigational link between Category:Diplomatic conferences and Category:Treaties. If one should not be within the other hierarchically, then I suggest adding a "See also" link on both Category pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

that sounds good. I may give that a try. thanks so much! Star trek Frontiers has been doing plenty, from what I hear. good for you for starting that. --Steve, Sm8900 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, or any other fanfic, but New Frontier, Peter David's awesome novel series! - Fayenatic (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

Steve, thanks for your kind note -- but, by all means, you are welcome to yourself write or comment on the review page itself. Feel free to speak your mind, I welcome your constructive feedback, criticisms, advice for improvement, etc. Here's the link. Best wishes, HG | Talk 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome! thanks for writing. i will add my comment right now. thanks for your help. --19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't bite the hand that feed you. Oops, wrong cliche, because here I'm going to give you a hard time. Your last comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Proposed decision seems ill-advised and unhelpful. Esp since you're an involved party. Maybe it was fun to write it. Don't spend it all in one place, but my 2 cents is that you would be better off with a self-revert. Whatever you decide, I remain, yours truly, HG | Talk 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. however in this case, I feel a little humor is not always such a bad thing. appreciate the suggestion though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Well done Sm8900 (Steve) you have made number 1 on my top 5 of Wikipedians! Rick-Levitt ^{Talk Contribs} 08:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I came into contact with you with the Green Service Uniform. Very recently. Rick-Levitt ^{Talk Contribs} 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

oh sure. i realzie that. i just didn't know if that was the idea which got your attention, or something else. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate your noticing me. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg edits

Sm, Let me make a few comments about the recent editing disputes in which we have been engaged. I would prefer to have a cooperative, courteous, and productive relationship on Wikipedia with all users. It is true that I do not "own" the many American Civil War articles I have written, but you can understand that when someone creates an article, writes all of the content, provides all of the footnotes, and draws all of the maps, he has some ongoing concern for the editorial direction of the article, how it fits with related articles, how facts and opinions are cited, and the overall correctness of the contents. Furthermore, when someone comes out of the blue and makes modifications, my opinions about those modifications carry equal weight to the person who is proposing those modifications, regardless of whether I "own" the article are not. I would say that about 95% of the time when I revert something, the average user -- particularly those who are anonymous -- does not challenge that judgment and goes on to other things. You are now in the 5% case where I need to discuss and negotiate with you about changes.

Little Round Top: My primary concern here is not that you are adding incorrect information, but that it is more appropriately included in the article on Little Round Top, not this two sentence summary of the battle. One of the problems in Wikipedia is that summaries of topics that are covered adequately in other places began to blow up and up as people want to add all of their key details to the summary. That's why the American Civil War article, for instance, which is essentially a large summary, is so chock-full of details. It grew over time because everyone wanted to ensure their key claim was included. I am concerned that if we expand the two sentences in this article, it will start a process in which all the pent-up details of Little Round Top seep back in -- Oates, Thomas Chamberlain, Melcher, Killer Angels, The Movie. However, if you strongly feel that doubling the size of the summary to include the doubts of historians about the importance of this engagement is necessary, we can discuss specific language.

Cavalry: It is important for me to say that the dispute is not about the correctness of the alternative theories (although I personally believe they are incorrect); it is about how they are described. In my personal style guide, I touch on this issue: User:Hlj/CWediting#Editing footnoted paragraphs. In this case, I think the historical record warrants a treatment that is flavored something like "These two authors have the following theory about Lee's intentions, and if they are true, the results at East Cavalry Field can be seen as historically critical to the outcome of the battle. However, no other prominent historians who have written about Gettysburg or cavalry matters in general have found any evidence that these claims are justified." Let me know if you would like to proceed with editing on that basis.

Hal Jespersen 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I appreciate your reply. I think that your reply and the time you took to write it here show a lot of helpfulness and open attitude. thanks. I will take some more time to read what you wrote, and then perhaps come up with some better ideas. By the way, I do appreciate these articles, and all the effort you took on them, especially if you wrote most of these yourself. they are very helpful. thanks again. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BEGIN screen.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:BEGIN screen.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Steve, nice to meet you too. Did you serve in the military? Tomorrow (Tuesday) is actually my last day in the Army, actually. So that's pretty exciting. Your edits at the Service Uniform article look pretty good. The only thing I could suggest is that articles can always use more sources. I'd look for a source for more specific statements, like that in 1947, Bronze Stars were given to those with CIBs. Regards, Parsecboy 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Congratulations on your completion of service! Great job. No, i actually didn't serve in the US military. I'm proud to be mistaken for one though! thanks. I have a feeing a that some other editors may think so too, given the trend in my recent edits. I'm glad just as long as my edits meet some standard of credibility for active members of the military. thanks for writing. Appreciate your input. By the way, appreciate your suggestion re Bronze Star. the only reason i didn't cite the source is because that information is in the smaller articles on those topics. But if I know people want those details, that may give me a reason to put that in. Appreciate those ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ironseed1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ironseed1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Georgian demonstrations

Hey. Thanks! Not often I get encouraging comments, appreciate it. If you want to do something very wiki-gnomey then you could format the references in the page as per {{cite news}}, I think some of them may be broken links already as well. Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 23:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Klingon acad3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Klingon acad3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More Star Trek fayenaticism

Hi Steve, I thought you might be interested in these AFDs: Dabo, Kadis-kot and Parrises Squares. Blink and they'll be gone! and even a List may not be allowed. Regards, - Fayenatic (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks! I'll be sure to take a look. it's great to hear from you! see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:United States popular history

Category:United States popular history, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. – Cgingold (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Popular history

Category:Popular history, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. – Cgingold (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ironseed1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ironseed1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done this one for you. CountingPine 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you SO much. i really appreciate it. it's a real pleasure to get some real help here. thanks again. feel free to write anytime. --Steve, Sm8900 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

pop histroy contents

2007 Boston Mooninite scare A Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters C Cartoon Network Invaded G The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door Guitar Hero (series) I Imaginationland Imaginationland Episode II Imaginationland Episode III

popular history category

Hi Sm8900 - To follow up on my comments on the CFD discussion about Category:Popular history, I think the best thing for you to do is really think closely and carefully about the things you are trying to group together, and come up with what is defining about that grouping; and then see whether it is, in fact, also defining about those articles. If so, then it could be a good category. If not, then perhaps a list. But a list has to be on a notable topic -- so the thing that is in common needs to be something that is independently written about, as a topic. Does this make sense? See categories, lists, and series infoboxes for more info. --Lquilter (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

that sounds good. thanks for the ideas. will think about these. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category discussion

My interest in SF games is specifically in the retro ones (notably ZX Spectrum). The SF categories are one of those I periodically go through and spellcheck/cleanup, as they tend to be edited a lot so a lot of errors accumulate. If you want to give the details of the category that's up for deletion, I can certainly have a look. — iridescent 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Although it had already closed by the time I got there, in this case I actually agree with the deletion - while it's a valid category under a different title (I can't think of one), "Star Trek style" didn't seem appropriate - Elite, for example, was virtually the antithesis of Star Trek, given that the way to succeed fastest was to kill anything weaker than you and run away from anything stronger. Han Solo would be a better comparator. — iridescent 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, that's a valid point. I udnerstand the concerns, and I do realize the category title was a bit unusual. So I will try to come up with a better title. Maybe "Category: Exploratione-themed starship simulators", to group any games which create a setting of a universe with various interactions and interrelationships? As you say, the category itself is a valid, so maybe this is abetter form for it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Klingon acad3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Klingon acad3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

re: New categories

Hi Steve! I modified a few of your changes (see contribution list, I left a short rationale for most.) I think this due to a slightly different view on Category:Fundamental and Category:Main topic classifications. While Category:Contents is the starting point for the categorization of both article and non-article categories, Category:Fundamental and Category:Main topic classifications embody two different philosophies on the categorization of just articles; Category:Fundamental starting with more abstract concepts and Category:Main topic classifications with more conventional subjects.

Some things I'm still thinking about is whether Category:Lists and Category:Glossaries should be directly under Category:Contents or under Category:Articles. I've put them in the former for now, because while they are in article space, they can be considered a different kind of article than the regular encyclopaedic articles and it left Category:Contents less empty. I would also like to rename Category:Main topic classifications to Category:Articles by topic or Category:Articles by subject and Category:Fundamental to Category:Articles by ..., to better indicate their function, but haven't found a good name of that form for the latter.

My next project will probably a complete redesign of Wikipedia:Contents, which while linked directly from every page on Wikipedia is currently in a pretty sad shape. Cheers, —Ruud 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I think that all sounds really good. I really appreciate your reply and your ideas. Please feel free of course, to do anything you may wish. i am open to any ideas which you may have. thanks. (I may reply more specifically, once I have a little more time to look over your edits, ideas, etc.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

re your second para, actually I think most of those things are fine the way they are (not because i resist change, just because i happen to like the existing set-up on each). re the contents categroy, i agree with your having placed glossaries and lists there. it makes sense.

re renaming "category:fundamental" and "category:main topic classifications", I sort of disagree. sorry, but once we make them categories of "articles by...", they cease to be root categories, and become just another accretion category. furthermore, they would then have to include everything under the sun, not just notable sub-categories. so i like them the way they are now. perhaps they are a little abstract, but I think they are an elegant and intriguing way for a reader to start their research here. of course, if you want to change the contents, I'm always open to that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

here's another thought. we already have Category:Categories by topic. So Category:Articles by topic might sound like it might be a bit redundant. besides, some editors might say that alomost every category here is a grouping of something by topic. that's kind of frequent here. :-) but anyway, thanks so much for your help on this. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

re:article protection

To be honest, I'm not sure what the dispute was about, but it involved more than one good editor on each side and reverting of someones reverted edit. The Placebo Effect 18:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Soil science as a natural material

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soil#Soil_Directory_Structure. I think your input would be very helpful.

Earlier today, you placed Category:soil science as a subcategory of category:natural materials. You habitually don't leave an edit summary or indicate your thinking on the category/article talk pages. Using the edit summary feature for future edits will be most appreciated.

I am reverting your categorization of category:soil science for several reasons, but chief among them is based on this statement in the article natural material:

A natural material is any product or physical matter that comes from plants and animals used to make other objects or products. Minerals and the metals that can be extracted from them (without further modification) are also considered to belong into this category.

Using that metric, the articles under category:soil science don't qualify as natural material articles. Of course the natural materials article could be rewritten to accommodate a soil-related category (as well as accommodate some of the other materials-related categories curiously categorized as natural materials), but that wouldn't be my first choice. I favor starting a category:soil and placing it within the category:natural resources structure.

I encourage you in your efforts to improve the categorization of the Wikipedia's soil-related content. I myself considered doing something similar to what you did. Earlier this month, I was going to start a category:soil under category:natural materials, and proceed to tag a number of soil articles that are more resource oriented than science oriented. As you can see in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soil#Soil_Directory_Structure, I am still mulling over the best choice. -- Paleorthid 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: I reconsidered your basic point and agree it is valid. Accordingly, I have rewritten natural materials (or more accurately, reverted it) to accommodate soil as a natural material. I have placed a fairly new category:soil under category:natural materials. Not so category:soil science, but i think its better that way. I will be categorizing soil material topics under category:soil. -- Paleorthid 17:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

sounds great! thanks so much for your help. look forward to further group efforts. feel free to write anytime, about anything at all. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve!

Thanks for your note. I'm doing really well. Renovations on the house are coming along slowly but surely. It's so satisfying to work with your hands to build the place you live in. It gives a whole new meaning to home ownership. One day, if you are ever in Nazareth, you should drop by and check out our progress. I'm glad to hear you are doing well. Take good care of yourself. Tiamut 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Main topics category

Please stop adding things indiscriminately to this category. You should not add anything without considering whether the category structure in that field leads up to that category, which you are plainly not doing. In the cases that came up on my watchlist they certainly did not. In addition you are not using an edit summary, even though each edit is the same so you could easily copy it. Johnbod 04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. i appreciate your input. I will try to follow your suggestion. In response to your concerns, I think we need to ask what is the function of this category. Is it strictly hierarchical? I think we already have Category:Fundamental for that. So i think the point of this category was to include a variety of major categories which are topics in their own right, and which seem to stand on their own, regardless of where they appear in the hierarchy. For example, due to our hierarchical categories, "medicine" might appear in several places at once. yet no one would deny that it is an entire field in its own right, which some readers might frquently be looking for. similarly for painting, etc. how about sculpture, biology, etc?

one main point of a "main topics" category, it seems to me is to make thing easier for newcomers; since, obviously a topic with a vague title like "main topics" is not itself defined clearly with any specific topic, and is obviously open to some interpretation. the title itself does not imply any intrinsic category whatsoever. So i tried to make some edits which i felt were in keeping with the basic idea here. Obviously, all my edits are subject to change, and the very nature of my effort means it will be seen almost immediately by a wide variety of people. So whatever you may think of my efforts and work, whether you agree or disagree, I hope you can at least try to respect the good-faith nature of my efforts, and my willingness to do it in the open (as I myself frequently try to respect in others, when I find myself in disagreement sometime here and there). thanks again for your useful input and feedback. --Steve, Sm8900 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't work - there is in fact relatively little in the painting & sculpture categories, because the whole structure centres on other categories. The same for plants and animals. Just going along mechanically adding things that seem to you to be significant topics is worse than useless, because it confuses people as to what the main categories actually are. Actually I doubt that anyone much watches this area, & I can't be bothered to revert all your edits, though I would feel justified in doing so, so many will probably remain. Johnbod 05:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

but that's the point; this is not for main categories in the hierarchical sense, it is for main topics. from that point of view, any category which is a self-contained topic of major signifcance does belong there. viewed from that point of view, it is almost obvious that some things do belong there, such as "Biology," "Law","Politics", etc. I agree with you; that this is, of course, all subject to discussion. I expect and am happy to have my content "mercilessly edited " by others, as the saying goes. Maybe these are a lot of edits, but there are an awful lot of people watching these categories. So I expect any differences of opinion are quite addressable. I do appreciate all your feedback and input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

License

Please cite your sources for the edits you made to License. This will help in verifying the article's text. Thanks! -- • • • Blue Pixel 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Yahoo! Green

A tag has been placed on Yahoo! Green requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Yavoh 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Hello, I have created an article about the UN Parliamentary Assembly, a world body that would be similar to Europarl. Please review and vote on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring.

You are engaging in disruptive behavior. Please do not get in an edit war with me. I do not appreciate that. WP:CON reads, "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." It would be most appropriate of you if you started a new section in the talk page to discuss your thoughts before you revert someone who is acting in good faith. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war. please do not subject me to critiques of my behavior. you made a change; I changed some of it back. so far no one has backed the deletion which you made. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

by the way, another point: an "edit war" is when one user makes a variety of positive, constructive edits, and then another user comes along and simply deletes them or reverts them all without any discussion. In this case, however, i accepted almost all of your edits, and simply re-added a sentence to indicate my thoughts on a slight adjustement which i felt was worth making; however, you simply deleted my sentence repeatedly. I'm not saying what you did was anything so severe, however that is why i simply added it again, with a request in the edit summary to discuss this further; also, in a general sense, I could conceivably use the term "edit war" for your action, but I don't feel the need to use that term . I am glad this could be brought to the talk page, and could reach some resolution. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In an already long article - this information is "one click away". I can't really see that it provides any important detail in the context of this article. The global warming article is about the science - not the trivia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn! I must have been pretty tired when i wrote this... I was sure that i'd written it on the talk page of global warming. It seems a bit out of context here - since i was actually replying to the talk on global warming. (i just spent a confused couple of minutes searching for my comment :-)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

no problem! always happy to have some input. your point is valid. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note/debt-based editing

Thanks for your note. And apologies if I had deleted after your edits, hadn't noticed that. That particular section just appeared to be particularly redundant and egregious in its place in the article. I think a substantial amount of cutting needs to be done to this article; I'll try to go slow, however.--Gregalton (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

no problem. i understand now. thanks for writing to say that. i appreciate your considerate note. that sounds good. thanks for your note. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I'd also appreciate if you could keep an eye on the quality of the references. Many are just blogs.--Gregalton (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

netrek

Hi! Netrek costs no money to play, and is also almost entirely open source. Clients can be downloaded from netrek.org. When killed, a player drops back to the ship and team selection page; generally you just grab a new ship and go right back in in a matter of seconds. The main costs to getting killed are that you lose any kills you have achieved (meaning you must kill again to carry armies) and that any armies you were carrying are lost, and that your new ship comes in at your homeworld, while the battle front may be halfway across the galaxy. Do feel free to let me know if you have other questions. -- Akb4 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

awesome! sounds good. it's really nice to have a fellow editor to communicate with so easily, and on a subject which is enjoyable and amicable in the first place. usually, i get one or the other, but not both. :-) :-) thanks very much. hope to be in touch again. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Foundation (french wikipedia)

In fact, an article about this game was created few month ago. The community decided to delete this article due to his lack of notability. 62.161.46.1 (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. thanks very much for your reply, my friend. i appreciate your help. And it's nice to see some cooperation between our two great languages and cultures, even for a small item. thanks for your help. feel free to write any time.

Répondant à une autre en ce qui concerne la réponse de l'éditeur de jeux fondation. . Ok. Merci beaucoup de votre réponse, mon ami. J'apprécie votre aide. Et c'est bien de voir certains de coopération entre nos deux grandes langues et des cultures, même pour un petit point. Merci pour votre aide. N'hésitez pas à écrire tout moment.

{{helpme}} where is a template for notifying users of a requ8est for mediation? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it, off-hand, although I believe someone from the Mediation Committee typically takes care of notifying people. I'll keep looking a bit and let you know if I find it. If nothing else, just linking to the request and asking them to take a look may work fine. Hope that helps. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I got it. feel free to view my contribs list, if you want. I used the search function and checked off"templates." thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Requests for Mediation guide, a member of the Mediation Committee will notify involved parties for you - there's no need to do it yourself. At any rate, I'll remove the helpme for now, but feel free to add it back up if you need to. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Whoops. Sorry about that. I should have written "Abstain," but the instructions said to write either "Agree" or "Disagree" because all comments would be removed. I apologize for stopping the process. That was not my intention. I just didn't care enough about the issue to get involved in a formal mediation. If you try again to get a request for mediation accepted, I will not stop it a second time. Again, I sincerely apologize for inadvertently causing the mediation to be declined.

I wrote the following on my own user talk page. If you wish to respond, please respond there. I just posted it here to make sure you read it and no that I meant no harm. --GHcool (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I totallty understand. don't worry about it at all. it's totally ok. In fact, it's more than ok, because as it turns out, we reached a resolution and the article is now ok again. thanks so much for writing. it's totally not a big deal at all. thanks again. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-19 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi, I want to try and help, therefore I offer to take this case, and have contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

excellent! thanks so much. by the way, if you look over some of my posts in the last fifteen minutes, we are already trying to make some progress towards some resolution. However, if you could also get involved, that might be exactly the kind of help we need to reach resolution. By the way, are you also able to see to it that some admin somewhere will finally remove the edit protection, once this is all resolved? thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal templates

Just to let you know your question has been answered. Hope it helps! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Jewish political status

Hi Sm8900: Category:Jewish political status has been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Jewish political status. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues

Hi again Sm8900: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Flash Wars

A tag has been placed on Flash Wars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

IP conflict overview articles

Hi Steve. You apparently want a list of key articles on IP conflict, articles that give overviews of abstract topics. It's a worthy goal. But: (1) we don't use categories to identify key articles. (2) even if you don't like how I've redescribed your effort as "key" articles, my core point is that "overview" and "abstract" do not work as sufficiently sharp criteria to select articles for the category. "Abstract" can be interpreted to apply to nearly any article. Overview is in the eyes of the viewer. Catch my drift? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could look into some library or bibliographic classification schemes on this topic. Perhaps this would give you an idea of how to define your goal more narrowly. HG | Talk 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but sorry, i disagree. How is it a false or subjective distinction to say that an article like Six Day War, Sinai peninsula, Golda Meir, Battle of Jenin is fundamentally different than Palestinian textbook controversy?

besides, regardless of what one individual editor may think, clearly some people do find this useful. And i feel it does have a coherent idea behind it. So I do feel that in my opinion that it defeinitely seems worth keeping. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea you have, it would indeed be very useful. You realise all these articles will have to be extensively re-written presently, when Israelis suddenly realise that preaching hatred of the natives is not really very clever and no longer tolerable? PR^talk 21:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

that's your opinion. it is an extreme one. Articles at Wikipedia are based on consensus, not on thwe opinion of any one person, whether me or anyone else. Kindly do not act like I possess any power of decision over the general nature of Wikipedia. If you wish to propose general changes to articles, please do so at the article pages. I don't think gratuitous crticism of Israel is helpful, any more than gratuitous criticism of Palestininas woiuld be. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Other editors

Woulpd like to express my interest in this mediation. I have frequently edited articles on current developments in this conflict. I don't claim to have any decisive knowledge on this specific topic or this meditation, though. Just wanted to briefly state intesrest, and hopefully contribute something positive as things go on. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This mediation is presumably coming to an end, if you think either party has missed something, it would be best to contact them on their TalkPage. PR^talk 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your interest! Please, if you have further thoughts, share them on my or GHcools talk page. Thx. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Debt-based monetary system

I issued a redirect as part of being bold. There was extensive discussion in the talk page, where it was clear that the creators of the article were POV-pushing. The article title is a term used by conspiracy theorists, in order to push a POV about fractional reserve banking. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)