This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm not blocked, I was blocked for a few minutes only. I wouldn't even edit if i was blocked! Would you STOP and see what you are doing? What are you reverting? Hello? -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can have a word with me about the case. Whatever it is you need to say, I am open to.-- Lan Di ( talk) 06:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
>Hi, the recent edit you made to Hookah has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Steve Crossin
So when are you planning on changing the sentence which we had highlighted so that it actually makes sense? There was no point in deleting our notes highlighting that the sentence didn't make sense without actually correcting the sentence at the same time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.108.154 ( talk) 13:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I get beat a lot of time to answering questions or reverting vandals. And, I'm sure you've been the one a couple of times, too. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
I have no intention of any arguments or incidents occuring, between my self and any other user. I am simply here to contribute to Wikipedia, if you have any direct issue with me or my edits please either start a discussion on the appropriate talk page or talk to me directly. I am though not sure I fully understand what you mean by your most recent commnets on my talk page, please feel free to elaborate.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
...as requested... TunaSushi ( talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I did edit the article way back, but I decided to leave the campaigning to more interested parties. I'm still following the page, though, and I thought you did a good job on the mediation. I saw an anonymous IP chiming in, so I thought I'd make my opinion known as well. No harm done. Redrocket ( talk) 04:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can, but it will have to be tomorrow. I'm about to log out and hit the bed. Work comes in less than 7 hours. -- MiB-24 ( talk) 05:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. We can discuss it tonight. I'm about to leave for work and they don't like us on Wikipedia from there. -- MiB-24 ( talk) 12:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, what did you want to talk about? I'll be checking in now and then for the rest of the night as I work on a paper. -- MiB-24 ( talk) 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
On the case? Well, you already know what I think of Lucy and her attitude although I consider that to be the heart of the case. Anyway, since that is not what you want to know about, I won’t say anything else.
So, my opinion. I do not think all of these pages should be merged on a whim and the way it has been done in the past goes against the essence of this site. Tag page, 12-24 hours later, merge page before anyone can respond. There needs to be adequate time to discuss if a character is notable to the show itself and then if it is notable outside the show as well. If a character is not overly notable to the show, then it never will be outside of it. However, if a character is notable to the show, especially over multiple seasons, then it is fairly likely that the character is notable outside of it as well.
So, let’s say a character has been decided by the vast majority to not be overly notable to the show (Ronnie Lobell from Season 4 as an example), then he should not have his own page. Now, let’s take Ryan Chappelle. There is no doubt he was notable to the show and only someone who has never seen it would even attempt an argument otherwise. Now, then it can be discussed if he is notable enough outside of the show itself. If the majority agree he is, users can find the necessary sources to back it up.
On to the issue of sources, certain people will try to torpedo every source they can as a backdoor way of getting an article merged/deleted. My reply to the mediator’s first question explains my opinion on valid sources. Most people have things to do outside of Wikipedia and cannot find sources overnight. Time needs to be given to the editors and patience needs to be exercised by the merger fanatics. Wikipedia will not implode because the merger/deletion demands don’t go through within a day.
As for the characters specifically listed on the mediation page.
I got dragged into this because Lucy wanted to merge nearly every character page. (Fact, not attack.) I never supported the notion of every character (even those on screen for 2 seconds) of having their own page despite what has been suggested. If a user believes a page should be merged and yet others do not, they need to be given a fair amount of time to improve the article and the merger supporter needs to exercise a bit of patience; that is all I have ever said. -- MiB-24 ( talk) 06:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
So, do I just add articles onto your desk for cleanup?-- Lan Di ( talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, since you seem interested and good at moderating disputes, I've notices that over a couple weeks, there has been an edit war building on the small article Shamrock, Texas. I have no idea how to proceed. One person is added referenced comments about the growing drug trade in the town, and another keeps deleting them. Both claim the other is vandalizing :). There are others, as I see another person just made a revert, but mainly it's only two people.
I am not sure what to recommend, and I cannot determine whether or not the criticism is valid or not. It certainly is sourced, with plenty of newspaper data and such. What thinkest thou? Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You are "mediating an Israel-Palestine dispute"?? lol... that shouldn't take you too long ;)
Berg
Drop a Line ޗ pls
01:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not at all that familiar with your "system" of politics here so, please forgive me if I "cross over" some imaginary "line" that is not very clearly drawn for me to see. My question is as follows:
In the "Harassment will not be tolerated" statement that was sent me, I had put forth my OPINION that, just pehaps, the representatives of local media in Shamrock Texas would be forced to resort to hiring individuals to aid us in the correction of the vandalism of our city references as shown on you site.
Could some kind-hearted individual PLEASE take the time to explain to me just exactly how this can be considered any more "harrassing" than the constant deletion of information that is extremely pertinent to our community and that has been verified by many numerous governmental and media sources?
I'm NOT trying to be a "pain" but, the information sincerely is a "part of the community" and, as do many who live here, we feel that it is our only "claim to fame" in the world. (The Rick Roach drug conspiracy was the first and only time Shamrock was ever mentioned in the New York Times.)
Why can these vital (and documented) facts not be left to stand? Are you so selective that you only want your own version of the "facts" available? If that is the case, I need to approach our town council about having you remove the Shamrock Texas page altogether.
Can someone please explain this to me? It is all I ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.143.152 ( talk) 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve. Many thanks for yur help re South African Patriot. I am very concerned that this page has suddenly been deleted without discussion by administrator JzG on the pretext that "this article is a pile of manure". Please can you look into this? I have already left a message on JzG's user page. Mark Hasker ( talk) 09:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Steve. Thanks for notifying me of the RfM case about the Second Intifada. I'm not really involved in the case, although I have indeed participated in that particular discussion in the Second Intifada article by giving my 2 cents. For the record, I am not involved in any dispute with any of the editors in the case, and hold it as low priority. However, I will, again, give my 2 cents on the issue if necessary. On a side note, you might want to add the admin User:PhilKnight (a.k.a. Addhoc), who is not involved in the article's dispute itself, but caused controversy when he proposed a one-week topic ban for just one side of the dispute (User:Jaakobou) on WP:AE. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 12:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Declined I chose to decline, I'm just not ready for Adminship yet. But thanks anyway.
Steve
Crossin
13:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've made it quite clear that I won't accept any nominations unless it comes from my admin coach. I was a tad irritated to be honest. Also, this is deadlocked. What do you think I should do next? Steve Crossin (talk to me) 05:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the general wording I was telling you about Template:User recovery. It really for things like comparing a new version to an old one, or where there was a bot-tagged deletion (like images), or non-notable CSD deletion. MBisanz talk 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[1] Thanks. κaτaʟaveno T C 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Steve Crossin for racking up far more edits in 24 days (8000+) that I have in well over a year on Wikipedia. And for your thousands of vandal reverts, too! κaτaʟaveno T C 04:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
sorry.
Hi... sorry, didn't know that that was not a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.209.151 ( talk) 04:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Steve,
I recently deleted some portions of the Fruit of Islam article that I thought were inappropriate for wikipedia. I thought the sections were inappropriate because they contained tangential information and were NPOV. My first edit was reverted by a bot, and you reverted the second one and notified me I may have committed vandalism. How should I proceed from here? What is the appropriate procedure to take when I believe that an article contains material not germane, nor appropriate to its title?
Thanks very much,
Dudepal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudepal ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Nogoodblu ( talk) 06:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Crossin, while I respect Wikipedia's criteria for Notability and Deletion, I would like a little more time to construct this page. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogoodblu ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Will do, and thank you again.
I showed up to the article to try to offer an outside opinion. The discussion quickly degenerated. I know the mediation is non-binding, but I have a few important thoughts to contribute, and believe I can be helpful. Is it possible to participate? Randomran ( talk) 14:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The structured finance things, needs to be more strucutred...
You can not list ASB, MBS in the same list..as MBS is part of ASB
Same CDO and CBO.. CBOs are part of CDOs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.147.134 ( talk) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Who told you? I don't see a link from your talk page. Marc KJH ( talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I was asked privately via IRC. Any user who asks me for assistance, in any means, I will help them. However, and I want to make this perfectly clear, I do not and will not take sides. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the page on Reiko Aylesworth. This anonymous user is continually adding inaccurate information and refuses to stop, even after being warned. He even has threatened to call an admin to back up his edits even though they are inaccurate. Thanks -- MiB-24 ( talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My purpose for telling him to call an admin was because I knew he wouldn't and if he did, the admin would stop him. What is going on is he is thinking that because one of Chicago's hospitals also has the name of another town, she must have been born there. He also altered the quote from IMDB to back himself up. It actually says "She and her "24" (2001) co-star and on-screen husband Carlos Bernard, were both born in Chicago's Evanston Hospital, nearly 10 years apart." I can provide as many sources (articles, interviews, etc) as needed to back up that she was born in Chicago, not Evanston. -- MiB-24 ( talk) 00:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I’ve added two sources, USA Today and the Chicago Tribune. I doubt anyone can claim they’re not reputable sources. Always, thanks for your help. :-) -- MiB-24 ( talk) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Now someone else is reverting the page despite the sources I've added. He is once again using IMDB (or articles that cite IMDB) as a source so I assume it is the same person, this time using their account and not anonymously. I do not want to get into an edit war, but this person just won't give up. His only source is IMDB which is not reputable. I'm sure though he'll manage to win again just like last time. It is impossible to ever do anything here because of people like this. -- MiB-24 ( talk) 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank You. If he wants to change it, then he needs to find something that does not cite back to IMDB which is what both of his sources do. Mine both said "Chicago" and are from reputable newspapers. -- MiB-24 ( talk) 01:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I’m probably going to leave Wikipedia for the third time and last time. I am sick and tired of people who can game the system to their own ends. I don’t see the point in wasting my time when every edit I make is torpedoed by users who want to advance their own agenda and ruin page after page that I’ve tried to improve. When IMDB is used as a valid source and USA Today and the Chicago Tribune are not, then there is no hope for this place. MJurrage has run over me every time I try to edit a page, even with I use valid sources. I just don’t get why some people are allowed to run over other users while others get banned the instant they cross these protected people. -- MiB-24 ( talk) 03:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)