Jump to content

User talk:Steve Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Allemandtando (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 17 July 2008 (→‎your message: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

re: Wikimedia Commons

Hey Steve, thanks for fixing the error on my user page. I must say, I'm a little creeped out. Good luck with your move! Nick.wiebe (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Ed Stelmach

Heh, it's definitely not a quick fail candidate. I grabbed it, as being from Alberta, I have enough knowledge of Stelmach's background to assist in determining the comprehensiveness of the article. It's not quite a pass yet, but it is close. I'll have my comments up shortly. Regards, Resolute 03:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left my review at Talk:Ed Stelmach/GA1 and watchlisted the article. Drop me a line when you believe it is ready for a second look, and I'll review again. Thanks, Resolute 04:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following your latest edits, I have passed this as a GA. Congratulations! Resolute 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that expansion of Stelmach's personal/family/pre-political section would be the most important thing to expand for a FA. The article is pretty good at what he does as a politician, but is lacking on who he is. More images of Stelmach would help. Some of the sections might benefit from a little more filling out. My two FA's are both sports teams, and I haven't a ton of experience with biographies, so I'd suggest looking at FAs of politicians for more ideas. FA reviewers are very strict about reference style. i.e.: ref's 3, 5 and 10 (and others) dont list the publisher. That would get picked up on. I'd recommend a Peer review as well. Good luck!

E-mail

Is always good to check it once in a while. Tasc0 It's a zero! 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened? Tasc0 It's a zero! 02:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you deal with this newbie? User talk:Y'b Pimp D. He just don't listen. He uploads non-free content and use it. Just check my messages I left on his talk page. He's also uploading images that already exists and the back cover of an album. Thank you. Tasc0 It's a zero! 02:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance at its best. Tasc0 It's a zero! 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped him a polite warning - non-free images are a fairly complicated area of policy, so it's possible he just needs some help. I agree that his uploads have been problematic, though, and that they can't continue; if they do, please let me know (and I'll get on it more quickly than I did this time). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now he's been removing the quotation marks from the songs titles. Of course, this goes against the MoS. I have left also a warning about this in his talk page. But I think I've had enough from him. I suggest a block. Tasc0 It's a zero! 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've echoed your warning and linked to the specific portion of the MOS he's violating. I'll block him if he repeats any behaviour after a warning, but as long as he corrects his behaviour when he's told too, I don't see anything blockable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He added unsourced content that needs verification: [1], [2]. Block? Tasc0 It's a zero! 22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him about this. So far he hasn't continued problematic behaviour after warnings, so I don't see a reason for a block at this time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You look like Steve Jobs

(I said it in the admins IRC channel, so it would only be right that I said it to your face.) MessedRocker (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing. :) Also, no logs are available (any logs that do exist are contraband). MessedRocker (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Equazcion

His talk pages are up for Speedy deletion under U1, as well... am I missing anything here? Is there a reason to (or not to) delete these pages? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is my thinking as well, but wanted to make sure there wasn't more to it before doing anything. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians

It hasn't always been added to all articles, but it generally seems to be accepted practice. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Accusations of vandalism

Hi, it seems like there has been a grave misunderstanding on your part. I am not unjustly accusing him of vandalism. I never accuse a person, if i have no evidence to back it up.

First of all, he removed the Italian American and Neapolitan-American categories from the Joseph Esposito, while the article clearly stated that Esposito was Italian American and born in Naples. Moreover, he reverted my edit and falsely claimed that "the article DOES NOT state he is either Italian or Neapolitan" in the article's history page, while there was evidence to the contrary. Is this working in Good faith? If he didnt even have sufficient time to even go through the article completely, then he should not have done the edit, in the first place.

Also, with the exception of a web link, the entire information about Esposito, including his ethnicity and place of birth, is derived from the books which are listed in the references section of the article. Well, correct me if i am wrong, but removing relevant information from the article, while it is properly sourced, and furthermore, lying about it, does appear to constitute Vandalism to me.

Also, please note that i do not have any personal grudge or animosity against him, for i dont even know him. Regards, Joyson Noel (talk)

Look, I dont mean to say that any editor who justifies his edits is committing vandalism. Thats ridiculous! The fact that he removed relevant information of Esposito's ethnicity from the article, while it was properly sourced and mentioned in the article, and lied about it in the edit summary, led me to assume that his edits were not done in good faith. At least, not in any true sense of the word. Joyson Noel (talk)

The one link on the page made no mention of any Italian or Neapolitan ancestry. The above user then stated the source was named books which are NOT available online. I have accepted that for this specific case, although I think it is poor practice in general since, as you are well aware, other users have completely made up contents of an alleged newspaper article online and this can happen all too easily. In any event the Esposito matter is closed as far as I am concerned. John celona (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source is about the Unione Siciliana, not Joseph Esposito. Esposito is only mentioned once in the source. It just contains one line mentioning the presence of Esposito at Angelo Genna's funeral, which is as follows: Among the mourners were a state senator, two state representatives, 'Diamond Joe' Esposito, and Al Capone. I believe that this source was used in the article to back up the fact that Esposito was present at Genna's funeral. However, i totally agree with Celona that false references can be made to fictitious books. As far as the references to the books in the article are concerned, i cannot prove for a fact that the books do exist, neither can i disprove it. The edits which i have made to the article are only minor, and the references to those books were not added by me.Joyson Noel (talk)

Mark Hatfield GA review

Thanks for the review, I think I've addressed all the issues or explained my reasoning. Let me know if there is anything else, or if all the changes screwed anything up. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-- I think I addressed the remaining issues here (though I didn't understand one of them), and I think AM might be a little occupied off-wiki these days...hope this wraps it up! I'll keep an eye on the talk page though. -Pete (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the passage. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timeshift9

Regarding this edit it is obvious he has not learned to be civil to other users, despite your previous warnings and actions. Corey Temperature (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please let me know if he doesn't" (or "No kind offer goes unpunished")

Regretably he hasn't. David in DC (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think pointing out that you have repeatedly claimed "consensus" for your own viewpoints where such consensus clearly doesn't exist is in any way improprer. John celona (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't rush. Real life is more important. It's kind of you to monitor this at all. The behavior isn't going to change. David in DC (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting one. David in DC (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+ Points for hilarity

Added bonus for having to explain it. Antelantalk 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Please stop sending me links to articles I already know about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above comment was added, not by Jimbo, but by Pontorg (talk · contribs). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fern

Hi there -- would you mind taking another look at Fern Hobbs, which you placed on hold? I've done a fair amount of work. Would be good to know if you consider it good enough for GA, or think more work is needed on writing quality, etc. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, somehow missed those inline comments. Got it now, I think I addressed your concerns. thanks again! -Pete (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I addressed your concerns in the last few days. I'm sure there's still room for improvement, but for now I feel like I'm done, hopefully it's up to GA standards. -Pete (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Don't you see the messages I leave here? Tasc0 It's a zero! 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Testing... Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the e-mail. Okay. Tasc0 It's a zero! 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have anything better to do?

I mean really, you love to shove your opinion down other's throats and go around censoring completely relevant comments. Get off my dick. --Mista-X (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona‎

I would like to commend you for the work you did in compiling the evidence for the RfC. Excellent job. This was sorely needed. Enigma message 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the evidence you put together on AN. Also great work. Way more than enough to convince any unbiased third party that John celona is Tommypowell. It's just unfortunate that he was allowed to get away with abuse for this long. Enigma message 04:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what shall we do with the RfC? Enigma message 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John celona

I'm not sure if this is relevant, as there is no way to actually prove this, but I've been convinced sine first encountering John that he was the reincarnation of User:Tommypowell. Both user and talk page have been deleted, but as an admin you can see them. You'll notice that both were active in discussions about Brent Corrigan, a porn star who may or may not have been underage when he started doing films. [3] [4] They were both quite active in the discussions surround Michael J. Devlin's kidnapping of two young boys, both being quite angry about censorship. They both insert the exact same sentence about nudity into Tom Sawyer (1973 film). [5] [6] I'm fairly certain this isn't actionable or conclusive, but I'm also 100% sure that I'm right. Could any of the similarities between John and Tommypowell be beneficial to the RFC? AniMate 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice job. The evidence that John celona is Tommypowell is conclusive, for me, and we didn't even need a checkuser! Tommypowell was indefinitely blocked on February 7, 2007. The John celona account was created on February 11, 2007. They also edited some of the same pages. So basically, John celona is a block-evading sock that was never caught. And to think, John celona was responsible for derailing my RfA when he should've been indefinitely blocked! Am I a bit bitter? Yeah, you could say that... Enigma message 07:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, I've suspected this for over a year, and probably should've made more noise when things were fresh. AniMate 07:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. It greatly impacts things, because as soon as an admin became aware (I guess they didn't), John celona should've been blocked indefinitely. Enigma message 07:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This admin certainly wasn't aware (I've never even heard of Tommypowell). I agree that the evidence is overwhelming, but I'm in job interviews all morning. I'll take action this afternoon, when I have some time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona and mediation privilege

Hi Sarcasticidealist. I've had to remove a few diffs from the request for comment as you referenced a formal mediation case. Per Wikipedia:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation, mediations undertaken by the Mediation Committee are privileged and cannot be used as evidence in subsequent proceedings such as RfCs or ArbCom cases. Best wishes, WjBscribe 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shalom Yechiel

I'm going to go ahead with this, assuming your offer to nominate me stands. Please follow instructions at WP:RFA/N and we'll take it from there. Also see the "editor review" link in my signature. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Steve

I stumbled upon your page and had to comment. I was unaware that you had so much prominence here! I was aimlessly surfing around Edmonton/Alberta political articles and you kept popping up, then I saw your pitch at the board of governors election on Meta-Wiki. I am thoroughly impressed by your knowledge of Wikipedia technical mumbo-jumbo. --C civiero (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically "silent" on my account, but I have made occasional anonymous edits. Mostly to fix politically loaded terminology on articles, which is(in my experience, at least) a much greater problem on wikipedia than factual inaccuracy. It's something that people can easily get away with if they are even remotely sly about it, while factual errors are usually fixed pretty quickly on articles that receive decent traffic.
Anyways, I figured coming across your page was as good an excuse as any to see if I remembered my old password. Have a good one. --C civiero (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't feel silly you did good.

You are a good administrator. 1 good Eguor admin is worth 4 of the less tolerant variety.Here is what the admin who finally blocked John had to say. Be well and stay as neutal as you always have been. You did good. :Albion moonlight (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I meant every word of it. Albion moonlight (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. Darkspots (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did not intend to be mysterious. Reverting the edits of a banned user off my talk page a few minutes ago: [7]. Darkspots (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, figured that you had just rolled everything back, after I posted. Agree with your sentiment, but my spidey sense tells me 2 months is optimistic. Darkspots (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

We did not revert the same item for the fourth revert on Fastest with the Mostest. It was a simple edit explaining an action that was somehow removed by a bot. Andrewb1 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hello Sarcasticidealist! :) I guess you saw that I replied back to your comment on my talkpage. However, I am just wondering...How am I doing? Let me know. Hope to hear from you soon! Have a nice day! --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ta da!

a prize!

Hows about that?! - A prize for you (don't worry, it's only a light beer......) - here's hoping you might join the 'improve PM' effort over there..... - now quick! say something wise and meaningful.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

something to go with

Your note

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wile E. cartoon deletion

So why have only two of the three cartoon summaries that I created under this controversy been redirected back to the main page, and the third one, plus the other 13 I have written, been untouched? Andrewb1 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Why would any of those guidelines apply to these two only, rather than all 16? Andrewb1 (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Please read my comments on her talk page. I am accusing her of meatpuppetry at the very least. She is not an editor of good standing - she is a single purpose editor with the same editing pattern as the other confirmed sockpuppets and found to be a possible sockpuppet by checkuser. The pattern of her editing gives rise at the very least to meat puppetry. The tag in my view is strongly justified. --Matilda talk 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen

Please stop forcing your opinion of Cohen NOT being controversial on the Leonard Cohen page. His actions are controversial, and its something all us fans have to face up to. We don't need to vandalise Wiki pages pretending that refusing the BBC the right to broadcast or record anything from his Glastonbury is anything other than controversial. Find me one other performer that has done so, because many of us have searched around and dug up nothing. Therefore it is a controversial move, to be the first to do this. Controversy does not have to be negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.238.215 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Xenocidic#Trolling

Check out JeanLatore's new sock and what he's said at my talk page. What (if any) action should be taken? I've already indef'ed the account - what I'm concerned about is if we should look into his subtle claim that he's been messing up articles? Am I just feeding the troll right now? –xenocidic (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I just noticed you got the message as well. –xenocidic (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let me know if you need any help; though my knowledge of the U.S. court system is slim to none. –xenocidic (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the same message as well, but my knowledge of court cases is best summed up as none... I think we would be best off asking an expert to fact check any of the articles that JL edited or created... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reblock of User:OfficeMax

Because the admin who imposed the original block was on Wikibreak, I went over to AN/I to report the user's violation of the terms of the unblock. There I found that you'd already reblocked. Nice work! JamesMLane t c 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your deleting of an article that recently survived AfD

Could you please explain why you saw fit to overrule the outcome of this deletion debate from less than a week ago? The fact that the article was contributed by a banned user has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the topic.and your action was blatantly out of process (CSD, PROD, AFD). Sincerely, Skomorokh 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at my talkpage. Regards, Skomorokh 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic tort law topics

It was pretty bad off when I started trying to rescue that. I was thinking that by putting an effort not to make it look like an outline of notes from a class on common law (which is what it looked like), he'd start to get a clue. It didn't seem to be the case; anyway, the article itself ended up as basically the beginning paragraph of the articles on each subject mentioned in the list. I think that it's mildly useful for navigational purposes, but with the air of being originally created by a user in bad standing, maybe it would be best to start the whole thing over again. Celarnor Talk to me 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Ken_allred.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ken_allred.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Boumediene v. Bush

was not the creation of a banned user. It was a section of Boumediene v. Bush that s/he just spun off into a seperate article. If you don't want to recreate it, maybe you'd like to reinsert it into Boumediene v. Bush . Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to deletion discussions

I was looking through some broken redirects, and came across List of property concepts in common law. You said it was recreation of stuff deleted by a deletion discussion, but in the edit summary you haven't linked to the deletion discussion. Normally, "what links here" would take me to the deletion discussion, but that doesn't work here. Do you think you could: (a) point me to the deletion discussion; and (b) link to the deletion discussion in the deletion logs? I know it can be a pain to do so, but it saves a lot of time if someone like me is trying to work out what happened. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request email of deleted stub Davide Marocco

stub was speedy deleted under section A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Apparently there's some question of his notability. Davide Marocco and another researcher Stefano Nolfi are currently doing research in AI, from a unique angle dealing with language development. I had added some material to the main AI article in which I referenced work done by Marocco... which you can find here [8].


The material was later deleted from the main AI article because of it's specific nature and the fact that the AI article is already very long and needs to be cut back. The research is important and if I find a good place for it, I will reintroduce the research.. in which case I will want the Davide Marocco stub again.... So right now the stub is not really important but I would like a copy of it, if in case, I find a good place to add how language evolution is currently being tested in AI cognisance.--Sparkygravity (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request

I don't think calling someone else's comments "ludicrous"[9] is polite or professional behavior from someone running for the Board of Trustees. Seriously...request you tone it down.--MONGO 02:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't badgering

This is badgering ;) Sceptre (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination)

Just wanted to say, I was very impressed with your closing of this AFD. I expected it to be closed as 'no consensus', and argued on the Talk page that it should be as such - but your comments convinced me otherwise. That was a very logical and well-thought-through conclusion to a heated debate over a highly controversial article. I'm sure other users will disagree, but I just wanted to say, nicely done! Terraxos (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would just like to say that I concur with Terraxos here. I've participated in a couple of very diffult to close AfDs lately, and each time the administrator performing the close has done admirably well. Keep up the good work. S. Dean Jameson 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant closure. I'd give you a wiki-defender barnstar but I don't want to clog up your talk :) Sceptre (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A useful and well thought through close, the argument may rumble on but I think you comments will diffuse a lot of initial anger for those who wanted it kept and lead to more constructive editing. (Anyone else; more like this on contested ones please) --Nate1481(t/c) 10:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to congratulate you for writing a tome for a closure. While there are no guarantees, your detailed explanation of why you made your decision is less likely to be disruptive than would a simple Consensus was Delete, which I've seen in the past with contentious AfDs, and which I found appalling. And practically an incitement to DRV, i.e., more fuss. I'm not convinced that Merge wouldn't have been a better closure, since it would leave the content more generally available for possible merge where appropriate, but anyone who wants to Merge can get a copy of the content, you're one of the admins who will do that! Good work, even spectacular work! --Abd (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort and candor (and think it was entirely appropriate to write about your reasoning at length), but you misused the term "average." To identify those votes that are either unsubstantiated or substantiated in irrelevant factors is fine; and to take them out of the "count" as it were, is also fine. But what you're left with isn't a reduced average - what you're left with is a smaller number of votes on one side. And I think you'd agree that "punishing" one side because a few of the votes were poorly reasoned, doesn't make any sense. It's obviously a judgment call whether a vote along the lines of "Delete per User:xxx" is of much higher quality than a rambling, somewhat incoherent vote on one side or another. And while I appreciate the effort that it would take to prove whether ChrisO engaged in votestacking by picking who he solicited to vote or not, I think there is an ample possibility that he did this that a consensus of any kind is hard to ascertain. So, while I certainly admire your courage and decisiveness in this messy matter, the decision was poorly reasoned. I'm not going to launch a DRV, as I'm sick and tired of the whole topic in general and the futility of actually reasoning more specifically. --Leifern (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have one or two minor quibbles with the decision, but overall I think this is one of the best, most closely-reasoned closes I have seen recently. Congratulations. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Relata's comments - your thoroughness in this close does you great credit. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add me to the crowd thanking you for thoroughness. Every time some Wikipedia editor explains his or her thinking it lets the rest of us confirm (in the only way possible) that the editor was taking the matter seriously and sincerely, and you just did that. (I guess it also lets us confirm lack of seriousness and sincerity, but you didn't do that.) I take issue with a few points though: The UN convention on apartheid is actually so broad in scope that it encompasses everything I can think of as racial discrimination, even by individuals and not states (just look down the definitions in Articles 1 & 2; particularly Article 1 (2) and Article 2 (a) and (c) -- definitions broad as the Great Plains). The more informal allegations of apartheid would be covered by this broad definition, and even if they weren't formal complaints presented to a legal authority, that shouldn't matter -- they're a list of examples connected to the central concept "crime of apartheid". I think the UN Convention definition or any treatment of racial discrimination worldwide would give you the encompassing source you were looking for (I don't think you could have meant a single source that encompassed all individaul allegations). This article really worked like a list, and I think all items on the list were linked through the broad definition in the UN convention. (I also think this overcomes arguments that WP:OR or WP:SYNTH were going on here.) If there were a really limited number of murders in the world and we had an article about "Worldwide allegations of murder" we'd have a similar situation (minus the BLP violations). Nor would it matter if the allegations were formal or informal if they were adequately sourced. Anyway, I think it should be merged, so I'm not interested in appealing it to DRV. I really just wanted to get this off my chest. Thanks for thinking about it and showing us your reasoning. Noroton (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syncrude Picture

Hi there, I took the picture during my coop job at Syncrude and originally uploaded it a couple years ago. I was (and remain) pretty fuzzy on all the licensing stuff, I just wanted to release it for whatever. I'm not sure what Jamitzky did to it... TastyCakes (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-Ji Sales v. New York

Hi, I see you deleted this article as a CSD G4. It's been recreated, but I'm not sure if by the same banned user. Might be worth your attention. Thanks- L'Aquatique[review] 00:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you nailed it with this. In the first AN/I diff, Homotlfqa83 says Why does wikipedia have like a vendetta agaisnt this fine actor? Is it because he's French. And I know at some point JeanLatore said something like "don't worry, they don't like me because I'm French". Damifino where, I've looked, but I know he said it. And he identifed as French in RfA #2. Darkspots (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification

I was confused. Now if we can just dump the ridiculous Israel and the apartheid analogy or whatever that bit of anti-Israeli propaganda now calls itself I will be happy. Anyway, thanks for jumping in. How did you do that so fast, lol? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I don't know how you found the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier but I think the tag should read something like 'editors required to re-work the information', removing peacock terms and ensuring a NPOV so some of it could be restored to the article. As a newbie to Wikipedia I didn't understand what those terms meant before becoming a member. I was told the purpose of the tag is to list it in the RFCbio list so editors might take up the challenge. In reading your user page you may be the ideal editor for the task. The bio is on me. It's been here for over two years, and I just discovered it April 19. I have recused myself from editing it, rightly so, waiting for others to come forward. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a newbie so I don't know all the rules and procedures. You must know more about the purpose of the bio list than I do. As you can see, except for the editors who removed 95% of the information to the dustbin of history, nothing has changed since I recused myself. What are you doing up so early in Alberta? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh!

I didn't see you appended the case (people usually write at the bottom when they are lazy, or create a new subsection). I fixed the mess, sorry ;) -- lucasbfr talk 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed Stelmach: Your first FA! —Giggy 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: RFCU archiving

Hey Sarcasticidealist, sorry you missed you, you dropped me a note right as I was logging off. It looks like someone else already got to it, but for future reference you simply add {{subst:rfcua}} to the top and {{subst:rfcub}} to the bottom achieving your goal of having the previous case no longer transculde onto the RFCU mainpage, the thing is that is only the first step in archiving the request and the other steps are not so easy seeing as they must all be done by hand. I would be happy to walk you through the other steps or you are more than welcome to just drop me a note when you have used the archiving templates and I will just archive the request for you (I really do not mind). Oh, and "Who's there?" Tiptoety talk 01:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done.

Re your closure of Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination): I was thinking of voting "weak keep" but returned too late, after the discussion was closed. I read your closure and have not read the whole discussion. Nevertheless, I would like to congratulate you for doing a good job on the closure. You clearly did a lot of thinking and expended effort to try to arrive at a fair result. Thank you for braving one of the more difficult Wikipedian tasks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Josh Hamilton

Hello Sarcasticidealist. Thank you for blocking the user. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the comment you posted on User talk:Josh Hamilton was impressive. He could be innocent. We have to assume good faith. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick day back?

I finally filed a new SSP report, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd), you might be interested, since you have some experience with Fredrick day. I'd been noticing that it's been quite quiet on the Fredrick day front, but also that a certain "returned vanished user" who won't reveal his prior account (at least in no way that has been confirmed publicly as far as I know) seemed an awfully lot like him. Strong deletionist, uncivil, etc. Since CU evidence was about to expire, I was finally pushed by events (and goaded and taunted by the user, who may expect that the CU will exonerate him, that's certainly possible) into filing the report, which was actually suggested almost a month ago in AN/I. This user came out swinging and was on AN/I twice within two days, as I recall, of registration. --Abd (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your message

I have responded to the email you sent me with the information you requested. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steve_Smith&oldid=226316396"