User talk:Steve3849

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your "merge request" for psychometry[edit]

What you have been discussing on the talk page is a multiple page move, not a merge request; wherever the articles end up, there will still be need for a disambiguation page, although it is possible it may need to move to psychometry (disambiguation). The proper way to propose such a move is using the process described at WP:Requested moves. Please can I suggest you remove the merge templates and make a move request, if that is your intention? Thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point; what threw me off is the explanation for Help:Move did not seem to address this particular situation. So what I should really be proposing is a double move: Psychometry to Psychometry (disambiguation) and then Token-object reading to Psychometry. Does this sound right? - Steve3849 11:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Done, I think. - Steve3849 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo Images[edit]

Just a quick FYI, I've removed the photo credits from the images on several of the articles you created, per Wikipedia:Captions#Credits--Jac16888Talk 07:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'll stop doing that. - Steve3849 09:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I just took care of all the rest; some were uploaded on Wikipedia Commons. - Steve3849 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you very much--Jac16888Talk 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Have I offended you in some way? If so, I apologise. Verbal chat 16:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree here ... 2 users with completely different grammar styles, with different time of day editing? What did Verbal or Enric ever do to you? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If they are genuinely two different users, then as Verbal says, "one more for the list." - Steve3849 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, it is the rather long list of people I've been accused of being. One SPI listed about 20 very active editors, several of which were involved in disputes with each other! Verbal chat 19:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Funny, though maybe not my place to say. - Steve3849 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
He means Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Verbal/Archive. The most hilarious thing: accusing Jack Merridew of being a sock of someone. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
...and seriously Steve, although it's your right to file this, do you hope to be taken seriously when there's an actual requirement in the future? One of the previous times that Verbal was accused of being a sock was because of an editing dispute, and the other editor has not been heard from since ... you do yourself a great disservice in reliability by filing one so obvious like this one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict with the closure of the case while uploading the following edit. So I'll post it here.

"User:Bwilkins has brought to my attention that this appears to be an obvious result of an editing dispute User_talk:Steve3849#SPI. It is implied that presenting this case jeopardizes my personal standing as an editor at wikipedia. In the past I have been the object of abuse in a much more dramatic example of sockpuppetry by User:JamesBurns. Fortunately, my involvement in his case was not necessary, but certainly I had edit disputes with that user and several of his sockpuppets. The level of suspected sockpuppetry presented as Enric Naval is dramatically less. User:Bwilkins appears to be turning this back towards me as a trangression on my part. If there is support among administrators regarding his statement to me then I will drop this as he suggests."

The timing of the edit conflict spared us all from this edit as a part of the case. The case is closed and hopefully you're association of myself with "not heard from since" users is done as well. My association with such a statement is similar to stories one hears about the Mafia and the CIA. ;-) - Steve3849 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Second vote on suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation[edit]

There is a second vote about a sentence in the lede of Meditation, this time to remove the sentence completely, taking place here:

Your vote would be appreciated! makeswell (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing :-) - Steve3849talk 09:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

American Stars 'n Bars[edit]

Huh? Now the same review is in the reference list twice--once properly templated, and once with incorrect punctuation. I have hopes of expanding this article and getting it up to GA status; you're not helping the cause. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly I did not read the entire article prior to reintroducing the reference which had just been deleted. I was responding only to the last edit which commented that it was removing the Rolling Stone article reference and didn't mention duplication. Sorry. I can stay away while you're working. - Steve3849talk 06:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read your revision fix. "Get it right." Thanks for the advice. - Steve3849talk 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I see also you've blanked a section on the talk page I introduced. Double-thanks now for helping me swallow my pride. - Steve3849talk 06:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Steve--I think I was grumpy last night. Please accept my apologies. Anyway--I think the article has potential. Are you good at digging up reviews from the music journals? Drmies (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Accepted. As for reference material I'm not an expert. When I have the time and interest there is a local University with a periodical archive; otherwise it's Google. - Steve3849talk 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perot Systems article title has been restored per your request[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Steve3849. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my comments at Dell Services VS Perot Systems. Thanks, DiverDave (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! - Steve3849talk 03:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Berkeley Psychic Institute (or however you spell that dratted name)[edit]

You seem to have this well-in-hand, and know what you're doing. Think I'm going to go off to articles that don't have highly capable editors watching over them =) If you want to discuss anything, I can, but main reason I edit Wikipedia is to try to cut down articles that might be dangerous or misleading - X treats cancer, Y shows evolution is wrong, that sort of thing - and there's nothing in this article remotely worrisome now. Only reason I proposed deletion was because of the sourcing, you've managed to find enough sources (which is rather good, actually - things that peaked before the internet really took off are much harder to document.) 86.** IP (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks - Steve3849talk 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Saxa (food product) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saxa (food product) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bot! - Steve3849talk 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GAT Mysteryfunk.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:GAT Mysteryfunk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)