Jump to content

User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 40

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

Take a look

[edit]

Follow the link to What MedCab is not from Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/request and see my edits. (And we'll see if they stick.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Now it will just be about making these stick, through enforcing them when a new case is filed. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check Medcab IRC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I had to go last night. I see you brought in reinforcements on the lede. Everything looks great. As we said above, let's hope it sticks. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reminder

[edit]

This is your reminder speaking. Please write up a list of tasks to do for the MedCab bot. Have a nice day :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

You've got email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got it. Fwiw, any email you send me I will get quicker than a talk page message (and will generally reply to it sooner than a talk page message) :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor mediation

[edit]

I have limited my activity on the Wikipedia due to the real life reasons. As a result I might not be very active at the mediation. So I would like you to know that unless I say otherwise (i.e, by default) I support Paul Siebert's position with regard to the mediation. I would still follow the case and if time permits I would add my own comments sometime in future. I have high hopes for this case success because some kind of consensus was achieved there in the past (in June). (Igny (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Feel free to comment and participate as time allows. Best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

[edit]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TLAM

[edit]

Hi there, I see that you are a mediator, and are going to try and mediate a dispute on Holodomor. One of the users, The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs), is currently under discussion at Arbitration Clarification. There is good reason, based upon behavioural evidence, that this is a sockpuppet of Marknutley (talk · contribs). I am not the only editor who believes this is a sockpuppet, but it is backed up by numerous admins with long experience in SPI. I don't think it is a good idea to request an amendment to allow a disruptive sockpuppet participate in an area which caused them to be all but expelled from the community, because to do so only rewards them. I don't know if you are aware of the other discussion, but you may like to check it out for your info. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Russavia. I did indeed investigate the prior SPI case and the fallout after that. While they were unblocked by ArbCom without conditions, this led me to believe that they had either given him a pardon of sorts or found him not guilty of wrongdoing. Either way, I have requested further comment at RFAR/Clarification. Also noticed you're from Perth. We need more aussies around here on WP :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about holodomor

[edit]

Hi. I'm new to wikipedia, I don't even know if it's the right way to contact you... I'd like to know if I could participate at the debate about Holodomor and if yes, how would I go about doing it? Thanks. BesterRus (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could participate, you'd need to follow the instructions at the MedCab case (list yourself as a party, agree to the ground rules and write an opening statement). Let me know if you need assistance with this. Best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature help?

[edit]

I've been trying to find out some new styles for signatures, but I can't seem to figure out any. Could you help me? Thanks! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 10:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Note user getting this message: Please respond on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If for some reason you cannot, then please leave them a {{talkback}} and reply on your own talk page. Thanks for your understanding![reply]

MedcabBot

[edit]

This is not good. I've stopped MedcabBot until we get it sorted out which bot is going to be updating the cases page. (Once it's sorted, feel free to blank User:MedcabBot/shutoff/MedcabBot to reactivate MedcabBot) Anomie⚔ 16:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MiszaBot has been blocked, as we can't contact Misza13 to decommission that function. (That bot only did MedCab stuff anyways). Got a few updates, will post on your talk. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 19:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor process

[edit]

I'm going to be off-wiki or mostly off-wiki for at least a week, starting from tomorrow evening. Hope the mediation lasts for a longer time, and the present pace of it suggests so. Before I leave I'd like perhaps to add few comments somewhere there, beyond the 250 words limit. Would that be normal at this stage? Otherwise, I should also tell that my position is close to that of Paul Siebert and I rely on him during my absence. BesterRus also has made some important points recently, but since he is a new editor I'm not aware of his position in detail. GreyHood Talk 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation will definitely last longer than a week :). As for an extended statement, you can use the talk page for extended discussion, just try to not be too TL;DR :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, BesterRus is a new editor who has never participated at the Holodomor article. I am happy to debate all editors on the issues of content, but is it appropriate for them to insert themselves as a party to mediating a conflict to which they have not been party? (I have no issue with them commenting later as an outside observer.) Just looking for clarification. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think in ways, the more the better. Excluding people from a mediation could cause issues down the road. That said, if we get to a stage where there is over 10 parties, I may consider asking for spokespeople. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—and on the day you responded I would have accepted your perspective with no reservations.
Quite separately I had engaged with BesterRus outside Holodomor and our dialogue there has taken a turn for the ugly, please see his "gift" (morally offensive propaganda cartoon presented to myself and my Polish friends, the cartoon being in Polish; you can read the wider discussion on his talk page for yourself). I can only surmise that they have joined WP and immediately inserted themselves at the Holodomor mediation to push their agenda and not to resolve conflict over content touching upon the Soviet legacy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance

[edit]

Hi. I found your name in "Editors willing to provide assistance". I think I'm in need of some.

I'm currently debating over an issue of Kirov's assassination after I made a "bold" edit and another editor rolled it back. We then engaged in a discussion.

There are certain theories supported by a certain number of authors. These theories are based on no documentary evidence, some loosely base their theories on circumstantial evidence. However, archival evidence strongly opposes those "theories", and a recent archival discovery in 2009 completely dismissed those theories as impossible. I call those theories "conspiracy theories", because they are baseless, involve a "secret plot", and are dismissed by archival evidence. However, the article is full of those theories, and they are presented as facts. This made me cut them out of the article. However, the other editor claims those theories should be given the same weight and shouldn't be labeled as "conspiracy theories", because no author labeled them as such. My explanation is that not all conspiracy theories merit authors' attention and therefore not all of them are labeled as anything at all. Archival evidence reduces those theories to the status of conspiracy theories. And just like with the case of 9/11 event, I proposed for conspiracy theories to be purged from the article into a small section (which I wrote and proposed in the discussion) or in a separate article. My opponent refuses and the discussion has reached an impasse.

I'd appreciate a suggestion, advice or anything that might help this thing to move on BesterRus (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from overwhelming agreement in reputable sources regarding Stalin's role/likely role, we now have a reputable source identified which details, step by step, how Kirov's assassination was planned and executed at Stalin's hand. While I don't agree with BesterRus' editorial presentation, I do thank him for stimulating discussion to provoke additional research which will improve the article—and leading me to expand my personal library :-). (I wasn't the editor rolling back, BTW.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights

[edit]

Hi Steven. Here are the links we discussed on IRC, thanks for all the work and volunteering you do to improve Wikipedia!

  • Men's rights and Talk:Men's rights. You might notice that User:Kratch is now editing the article, he's been a major source of problems regarding the article and is involved in bringing other men's rights activists into the mix.
  • User:Jayhammers - blocked two weeks for personal attacks against User:Kgorman-ucb Be sure to look at Jayhammers talk page. I also think his user page is not cool, and it's been denied deletion, so I'm not sure what the protocol is there. I'd rather see it moved elsewhere if possible.
  • User:Kratch - Fellow men's rights activist. Reprimanded by Cailil. He was also reprimanded on the men's rights talk page by Kaldari, you can find it someplace in this chaos: Talk:Men's_rights#Why_has_this_page_been_changed.3F. Jayhammers also asks Kratch to participate in a mediation that he opened against Fluffernutter (see below).

More things as they appear... SarahStierch (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hermiod who appears to have taken a break from editing until the men's rights article became popularized via reddit, warns User:Kgorman-ucb for "disrespectful behavior" and opens a formal dispute resolution against Kgorman-ucb (Kevin). Dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights SarahStierch --(talk) 13:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and opened an ANI about this series of issues. Kevin (talk)

Question

[edit]

Is this task finished running? --Chris 11:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not as of yet, no. Been a bit tied up as of late. I imagine I will get around to it eventually. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input on suggested changes to Huawei

[edit]

Hello Steven, if you have some time available, I wonder if you would mind taking a look at a couple of requests I have made on the Huawei talk page? There are two sections of the article where I have asked for feedback from other editors for suggested changes: Treatment of workforce and customers, and Security concerns. As you're already familiar with the article, I hope that you might be able to provide your input. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Clearing Backlog? Sure

[edit]

Sure I could do that.

I was also wondering if help is still needed on that MedCab case. When you msged me, and I looked at the page, a mediator had taken the case. I didn't pursue it because I thought that someone had beat me to the case. And I didn't do anything. Am I still needed?Curb Chain (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to hear that you can help out. I'm internally working on ways to get more people keeping an eye on DRN, but so far I'm having to resort to nagging :P. AlphaQuadrant is mediating that one on the article talk page, but keep your eyes peeled. Also, if you're interested, us three co-ordinators are chatting about ways to improve DR, if you want to be added into the email thread just shoot me an email. Cheers again. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd like to be added to the email. TBH, I am more active at WP:30 because the disputes are smaller and easier. But when you told msged me about [1], I went there and a the infobox already had a mediator so I didn't touch it. Which 3 coordinators?Curb Chain (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Us three here. Send me an email and I'll CC you in. Yeah, 3O disputes are smaller but DRN is being utilised more often now and the amount of disputes we're getting is growing and the amount of users helping is not, which is causing issues unfortunately. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'm currently lurking in the Medcab IRC channel if you wanna come in and chat. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need another coordinator?Curb Chain (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help, but I'm rather busy defending myself in a bullshit WP:ANI thread at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

I noticed that you closed the dispute resolution for Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000. For future reference, is the ANI board the proper forum for content disputes and edit-warring by another user? 99.12.181.124 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is the most appropriate forum for conduct issues, with our edit warring noticeboard the best for, well, edit wars. I closed out the discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard because it primarily seems to be an issue over conduct, and ANI is the best place for that in this situation. DRN is still the place to go for content, but conduct issues need to be sorted out first. Best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you for clarifying. So, after the resolution an the ANI board, I can appropriately bring the content dispute back, if necessary? 99.12.181.124 (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:National debt by U.S. presidential terms

[edit]
Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:National debt by U.S. presidential terms. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

[edit]

Hi Steven Crossin. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

you keep spelling my user name wrong. Think tzn, (tsen) kai.--Tznkai (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you think that's bad. If I had a dollar for every time someone said "Hey Stephen Crossin!" Facepalm Facepalm. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Homosexuality

[edit]
Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Homosexuality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Steven Crossin! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A tool for you!

[edit]

Hi Steven Crossin! I've just come across one of your edits, and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

You might want to consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script: 

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

on Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. So long! Sp33dyphil © • © 06:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query on removal of candidate for speedy deletion tag

[edit]

Hi Steven - I probably need to understand the protocal better but I'm confused why you removed the candidate for speedy deletion tag from the Kanatas Vasilis‎‎ page, saying "subject probably important/significant. Check also Google news". I have, with the name both ways around. There is absolutely nothing, and absolutely nothing on Google books either. Did you think there was? -- Zac Δ talk! 10:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything big doing a quick search, but based on reading the article it asserted importance enough to not be an A7 candidate. Might still be a PROD though. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 10:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Rascal Deletion

[edit]

The article Tiny Rascal Gang has been deleted many times. Does that qualify TRGangsters for deletion? πr2 (t • c) 23:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, however the article that I declined I saw nothing in the deletion log. I've tagged Tiny Rascal Gangsters as a recreation of deleted content. Thanks, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dana Tyler

[edit]
Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dana Tyler. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: DRN

[edit]
Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Steven Crossin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DRN needs attention

[edit]

Wikipedia:DRN#Ra_One_-_Response_section. Started to spill onto WP:WQA, asked editors to keep at DRN. Best. Gerardw (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll get onto it. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
You really earned a brewery but all I got you was a pint, thank you for all you have done, I will not let you down. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I personally prefer bourbon :-) It wasn't easy or a popular decision, so behave yourself. The three of us are watching the case so we will deal with any incivility, so no need to be uncivil back. :) Best, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

[edit]

Actually, you should be ashamed of yourself for putting up an inaccurate statement like "all of you should be ashamed of yourselves". Have you even looked into that carefully? I was acting as a mediator and pacifier, and that as an uninvolved user... You should think twice before writing anything. Scieberking (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, I indeed could have worded what I said a little better, and do offer my apologies. I did read over the discussion rather carefully and did see a lot of people at each others throats. When I said "you all", my statement was directed at the users misbehaving, not all of the people in the discussion, so I have clarified my meaning at DRN. Apologies, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 19:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Good Heart Barnstar The Good Heart Barnstar
Sorry for the misunderstanding. 对不起误解 Regards, Scieberking (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's my fault. Wouldn't have happened if I was clear in the first place. Thanks for helping out at DRN. :) Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Firefox

[edit]
Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Firefox. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for contributions to Dispute Resolution

[edit]
File:Yes
The Dispute Resolution Barnstar

The Dispute Resolution Barnstar is awarded "to an editor who makes a contribution to one of the dispute resolution forums that exceptionally furthers the aims of the project." For the incisive conceptualisation of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, I award Steven Crossin the Dispute Resolution Barnstar. Thank you for your ideas and contributions! AGK [•] 21:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...Anthony...I had a rename remember? :P Also, have you been stalking my contribs? :P But thanks :). I think we are getting closer to a new idea for a dispute resolution central board, possibly styled like the reference desk. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry - fixed. Um no, an Oversight-en-l ticket came in relating to that article; cf history on 28 October 11 of User:Sparthorse/CSD log :P. I've got a lot of e-mail to catch up on, but I'll take a look at the DR thread. AGK [•] 21:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a coincidence....hehe :P. Great, look forward to your input. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit

[edit]

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Steve Crossin.[reply]

Bruno Wu

[edit]

Hi. I've rollbacked your changes to Bruno Wu. This is a case of mistaken identity (see this recent exchange for instance). Best, Pichpich (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, it seems to be a mistake at the Chinese Wikipedia. I'll make the changes over there. Thanks, Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Oduya

[edit]

I checked the link in the Swedish article about Fredrik, and under the picture it is written (in the article about Johnny Oduya): "Brodern Fredrik (också hockeyspelare) gick bort i en trafikolycka i somras" translate "The brother Fredrik (also hockeyplayer) died in a car accident this summer" (2011) here is the link. Hope this helps you. Best regards Adville (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for that. Steven Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :-) Don't hesitate to ask if it is anything. Best regards, Adville (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven_Crossin/Archive_40&oldid=1210480734"