User talk:SteveO1951
Welcome!
Hello, SteveO1951, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for The Third Man. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Steven Walling 04:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Costa Concordia Disaster
[edit]Steve, I’ve come here because I tried to be understated in the BrainyGirl conversation and let this die but the message isn’t getting through. Here’s the way your words would have come out if I had used them to speak: ....please do not continue to support rudeness for a WP style editor’s dealings with a content editor. As you know, I appreciate the follow up work style editors do but you are wrong in challenging a WP content editor who has been subjected to an overbearing style editor. Yes, there is time later for those with style expertise to input their contributions in total conformity to WP but there is no need for them to persistently lecture others about the minutiae of formatting and footnotes instead of just contributing a fix. Please join me in soliciting that common respect for others and minimizing of a superior attitude in cooperating with them...... That’s what your words sound like with the pivotal facts inputted. I tried to let this go 2 days ago, it was finally doing that but you reopened it. Please delete all of it, this too. PhaseBreak (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Phase. Thanks for discussing. I may not have seen all of any posts by you or BrainyBabe, so I am not aware of whether she might have been rude to you or others. I do know that writers of comments or emails can often seem rude when they do not intend to be. That is one reason why my comments are so very lengthy - I try to be highly specific and anticipate how others might misread what I am writing. I've seen in the Article History that she has made some contributions. I had also visited her User page to see her own self-statement (she is no engineer but has other talents) and I had left her a "thank you" note for supporting work on the Article. When I later saw her post about style work (or whatever) and your response, I did not sense that she was being rude. Neither did I sense that your response was one being against rudeness; your response was, as I pointed out, a rant against the WP rules. Because of my cataract and retina damage, it is hard for me to read and write and so I can't always be "as alert" to senses as others might expect me to be; so I apologize if I missed anything. That said, I think you went too far in commenting to BrainyBabe and did so in a way that discourages the continuing participation (in "our" article and in WP in general) of volunteers who have some necessary skills and knowledge that you and I lack. My post was intended to be read more as support for her than as a knock on you but I certainly meant it to say, as I did, that your tone was inappropriate and that the WP rules are more important than you have written of them. In the end, if you and I want to (as we do) participate in the WP community to do good for the world community, then we must comply with the WP rules, either by learning them all (!) or by doing our best and then appreciating the work of others who help improve/correct/guide us, often with references to WP policy and rules for us to be guided by. I stand by my reply. I don't want to drive you off, either, but you can write a blog anywhere, or make comments in your local news outlet webpages, or participate in 100 others ways outside of WP. However, WP is not our private sandbox. I would live to have more color and style than an encyclopedia has but that's what WP is, an encyclopedia. I have to constrain my own preferences and style in order to support the greater good that is WP. That's OK,that's life. I do honesty hope that you will see WP the same way and find your way to accept what it is (or participate to change the rules, if you like). Finally, it is a WP rule (somewhere!) not to erase posts; I understand that one can "strikethrough" text (though I don't know how) but in any case, WP rule or not, I don't want to withdraw my comment or this exchange. It can be instructive to others. Maybe I'm wrong on something here; I will listen to anyone who can help me be a better WP participant.--SteveO1951 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 09:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Goodvac (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Here too. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Right whale edit
[edit]Hi. Could you provide a scientific paper that says whaling wasn't the cause of the current low numbers in the North Atlantic? The news article you cited wasn't on the topic at hand and wasn't supported by any evidence. I understood it that the above claim only referred to whaling in the western North Atlantic, not the entire ocean basin. If you can't provide said reference, I will have to revert your edit. Good day. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Thank you for being so diligent at Costa Concordia disaster. Weltoners (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi,
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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, SteveO1951. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, SteveO1951. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)