ARCHIVE SECTION

DELETED

NFCC/FUR for seasons articles

ARCHIVE DELETE #47

Friendly advice

ARCHIVE DELETE #48

Repost of 2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season/FA Cup Fourth round replay

ARCHIVE DELETE #49

Ben Mee and Chris Chantler

ARCHIVE DELETE #50

Edin Džeko

ARCHIVE DELETE #51

Razak etc

ARCHIVE DELETE #52

Redirects

ARCHIVE DELETE #53

CURRENTLY ACTIVE SECTION

CoMS article lead-in text

You do know that the lead is a summary of the article and not a place to keep adding new stuff. As a summary it was ok. You should have added the new more detailed stuff in the body of the article if you want to keep that little gold star. Just a thought.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I also agree with the user that stated on the Talk Page that the lead-in text should better address the stadium renaming situation. I'm not sure that the 3 previous - now 4 - leading paragraphs summarized the whole article anyway. They mostly summarized the history of the stadium. Admittedly, I've also moved the architectural summary text to its corresponding section, but it immediately follows anyway. If you look at the intros to most other stadia articles, the intro in the CoMS article is one of the longest (c.f., Upton Park for comparison!). It's easy to criticise others that add to the content of the article, but without the contributors that originally create the text, you would have no words to wordsmith, and you need to remember that. Both contributions are important; one is not more important than the other.

BTW, that paragraph of text I finally added at the third attempt (because I got edit conflicts with you first two times around) was much better (tighter) the first two times I wrote it. It was my fault for creating text like that online in the edit box, rather than offline, when I well knew someone else was concurrently wordsmithing the article ... but it was still very frustrating to have to write the same thing three times over from scratch, which is why it got a bit sloppy third time around. :( Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I only attempted to make it readable, whatever other articles look like the lead should summarise the whole article. The best way to do that is by writing the article then summarising. By the way I have not commented on the contributer just the lead, please dont read something into my edit that isn't there. This is a Featured Article, one other stadium articles should aspire to, not the other way round. --J3Mrs (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was perfectly readable as it was (unlike others I don't write gibberish) ... it was just a little long-winded, and I agree with your edits. I knew it needed more editing when I posted it but I was just fed up with repeatedly working that particular piece of text. When I went to rework it today you had already fixed it. FYI, I agree with almost all your edits. You have a good knack of removing or rearranging words without loss of meaning and with gain of clarity ... that is the mark of a very good editor. You sometimes remove meaning with your edits, but that is an inherent danger in the process of editing and has nothing to do with you personally. One can do the same thing editing one's own words; but in those situations one fully understands all the tradeoffs between verbosity and additional meaning one is making. When someone else edits your words one can more easily see that the tradeoff doesn't work if and when it doesn't work.

... the lead should summarise the whole article. Then fix it. If you don't like the new section remove it. I don't like the current name of it but I can't think of anything better right now. The problem I have is that when I edit that section the Wikipedia "edit preview" feature does not work - it times out on me (presumably because a preview of the whole article takes too long to download). The "view edit changes" feature works fine. Also, if I use the preview feature without first viewing the changes the timeout also causes me to lose all my changes. This is not a problem when editing sections or short full articles. It didn't used to be that way so it is due to something that has changed at Wikipedia. But that is another reason I would like to see the first new section start earlier in the article. And before you say it, I fully understand that my own editing issues should not determine the structure of the article. But I bet I'm not the only person that is having these issues, so it is a problem.

My gut feel tells me that once the lead-in text becomes longer than 3 or 4 paragraphs it is too long. But I cannot quote Wikipedia guidance to substantiate that. IMO the lead-in was too long with all the text that I've now moved to "Synopsis" in it. I don't believe the solution is to simply bury what is in that section back in the main body of the text ... in fact, it already is in the main body in the "History" section, and the "Synopsis" text is really a summary of what appears below in that section. However, it outweighs all the other areas of the text that should go in a lead-in summary. The "Synopsis" text is pretty succinct and it needs to be up-front in the article as per that user's comments on the Talk Page. Hence my compromise. Maybe it's the name "Synopsis" that is the problem here ... perhaps if we called that sectiomn "Background" it would not look as if we have a lead-in plus a synopsis. Your thoughts here would be appreciated. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. WP:LEAD clearly recommends an upper limit of four paragraphs: "The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs". Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go! LOL I guess I should stick with trusting my intuition. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message

Hello, Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry. You have new messages at Mr Stephen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Old citations

Steve, please stop it. I did the "cn" thing so that I (or someone else} can easily identify which links are in need of some more work. It is only a TEMPORARY measure; so that I can find them easily. If new links can be found I will substitute; otherwise I will revert back to the original ones rather than have none. This article has way too many refs that cannot be accessed in a useful manner. I've fixed over a dozen of them on the fly ... there's still about another dozen to go. Please put your energies into trying to fix these areas of weakness with the article, not into performing FU edits. Thanks. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just so you know, when I first wrote the above message to you I was concerned you were in a process of systematically reverting all of the dozen or so "cn" tags I had added, hence I wanted to catch you before you did so. It was only much later, after we had finished our interchanges yesterday, that I got to see that you were only reverting the citations that linked to the "Wayback Machine", which I admit are a very different situation than just the straight dead links that accounted for many of the other tagged citations. Anyway, all of this is moot now because all the tags are now fixed. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New references are not needed, and the links are not "in need of some more work" There are perfectly good copies at the wayback machine, which can be accessed at the click of a mouse. If you want to make notes, copy the article into your user space and leave the encyclopedia article in a usable state. What do you mean by "way too many refs that cannot be accessed in a useful manner"? What are "FU edits"? And while I have your attention (I hope) please take note that articles hosted at the Guardian web site, www.guardian.co.uk, are not necessarily copes of articles in The Guardian. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT making notes - by adding the "cn" it requests other editors (such as yourself) to pitch in and help. Also, I have not removed the extant refs.; they are only hidden and can be easily retrieved if, between us, we cannot come up with anything better. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FU edits are edits that revert something that someone has obviously taken quite some effort to add and the immediate reversion of which is clearly going to be a source of contention. They are usually the start of an edit war. Yes, yes, an edit war is not usually declared until 3 reversion cycles have occurred, but why even go there? I don't make trivial and silly edits to the article, and neither do you, so if we disagree on something let's immediately go to discussion and work something out so that going forward we are pulling in the same direction to the benefit of the article.

IMO links in the "way back engine" should be replaced if there is a more recent alternative. Yes, the current ones meet a minimal standard and I'm not going to quote Wikipedia guidance at you because, even if there is some, I'm not aware of it. It's simply a question of quality. Either you want the quality in the article or you don't. Hopefully we both agree on wanting the article to have as much quality as possible.

I agree with you re your Guardian comments - viz. that something on the Guardian web site has not necessarily appeared in the paper version. But that applies to ALL newspaper references, NOT just the Guardian ones. So let's discuss and work out how things should be, and then both sing from the same sheet going forward. Just changing isolated instances of things creates inconsistencies which reduces the quality of the article. And tracking my edits and reverting them simply comes across to me as a case of your taking a "Fuck you, buddy" attitude. Please show more maturity. See WP:GOODFAITH. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 22:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Let's start at the end. You have made a lot of edits to the CoMS article; I certainly am not tracking them and (correct me if I'm wrong) I have never reverted or undone one of your edits.

The whole point of my starting this discussion thread with you is that you had just directly reverted some of my edits - but not by using the "revert" option. So to now say you hadn't is a bit disingenuous of you, isn't it? Please treat me with more respect than that. I just saw your latest update as "Stevo1000" re CoMS being the largest concert venue. That is exactly the improvement I wished to trigger. Also, when I tagged that Barnsley ground reference for an update I already knew there was a better one, and it was the first thing I was going to add when I came back to Wikipedia today ... but you beat me to it. See, now we are working in concert.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve sources, either do it or take it to talk with a statement of the problem and a request. Don't hide the existing sources from the reader.

If we get all those tagged citations resolved one way or another within the next 24-48 hours then all this discussion is moot, isn't it. Let's just agree to try and find better sources for the ones I tagged and revert back to the old ones if we can't. OK? I'll respond to your other comments shortly. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, they were all resolved in less than 24 hours. So super-moot! :) Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot is a known problem at Wikipedia, with two solutions. The first and best is to cite books or scholarly journals wherever possible. The second is to use the wayback machine (or other archives, but I think that WB is the best general-purpose one). Deleting the reference is not a solution. Link rot is not related to the reliability of the source. For instance HP's or Arup's web pages may change (for whatever reason) but the quality of the source remains. MCFC's web pages probably do not contain lists of past sponsors, but if the archive has that information we can use it.

Yes, online news sites are often different to paper versions. The Guardian is good to Wikipedia - it tells us the article's history and we should respect that. The reference is improved by telling the reader (that word again) exactly where it came from. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we're agreed on the fact that they are different. Let's move on. If an editor adds a source citation to support something he adds to the article and he used the web version of a newspaper rather than the printed edition as his source (which happens in the vast majority of cases) then his "Cite news" citation should reflect that fact. Which it does by his including an URL to the web source (which he cannot include if he simply read the item in a printed newspaper and copied it in by hand). My understanding of the "Cite news" template is that the "newspaper" parameter is meant to reflect the name of the source by its masthead / nameplate, if present - which it is for ALL newspapers (both web-based and printed).

In the case of web sources that are not standard sources of general news (even if it's specialised news such as sports news only - e.g., BBC Sport and Sporting Life), such as football club official web sites, then "Cite web" is used instead of "Cite news". Once again, if the web site clearly identifies itself with a masthead then the "work" parameter should use that, otherwise you can only use the URL in those cases. Thus, for instance, since the MCFC web site does not use an identifying masthead at the top of all its web pages, we use "mcfc.co.uk" for the "work" parameter in all "Cite web" references to it. It also distinguishes the UK web site (as the true source) from the Asian and U.S. MCFC web sites.

It could be argued that news sites such as BBC Sport, skySPORT and Sporting Life, which don't have a printed version of the news they report, should really be cited using "Cite web" instead of "Cite news". Personally, I don't care much which method is used, as long as we use the same method consistently throughout the article. In fact, that should really be "throughout Wikipedia" but neither you nor I have the time and patience to fix the whole encyclopedia! And that's the real issue here. Consistency. Don't keep changing isolated instances in the article (of something more embracing such as style) that you disagree with. If you change something like we are discussing here it needs to be done throughout the article ... which is what my edits have been designed to achieve. Convince me to do things differently and I will, and I'll make the changes once globally ... or if you make them globally, I won't revert. If you think this should be a discussion on the article's Talk Page then we can move this portion of it over there. However, I really don't think this sort of issue pertains only to CoMS, and it appears that only you or I really care about it. Cheers. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not laugh out loud for fear my head would drop off. Explain how the new reference for the capacity is an improvement? Mr Stephen (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which new capacity reference? I've added a few, as have you (I'm assuming) before me. If I've changed something you've previously entered that you disagree with then just contact me. Maybe I can explain it better in a discussion like this rather than in an edit summary. Or maybe you can convince me it is not a useful edit and I'll remove it. Or just revert the edit with with an explanation. If I disagree with the reversion it will be me that will contact you ... just like I have done in this instance. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, in terms. You wrote above, in this edit that "I just saw your latest update as "Stevo1000" re CoMS being the largest concert venue. That is exactly the improvement I wished to trigger." However, the change you refer to simply renames and returns a previously existing reference that you had commented out. It does not introduce anything new, so cannot be an improvement on what you previously objected to. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true. I had hidden and tagged the reference labeled "legacy" because the RS to which it linked ('gameslegacy.com'?) resided in the Wayback Machine. What your edit did was use the next defined reference below it - which I believe was a MEN article about CoMS becoming a top rock venue - as a supporting RS for the 60,000 concert capacity figure instead of the previous "legacy" RS. So what my "cn" tagging action caused to happen was it made you choose (whether you intended to or not) a currently active and readily accessible RS from MEN about CoMS being a top rock venue to support the article claim that CoMS has a 60,000 capacity for concerts, instead of a one-off and WM archived source on a completely different topic. The 'gameslegacy.com' RS was linked with a "ref name" citation and I believe I subsequently restored that link to replace a "cn" tag in one of the other places it was used. And it does indeed support that 60,000 concert capacity figure .. in fact, it is almost certainly the source of it. OTOH so does the MEN article which has the advantages of being both a reliable source and not archived. I agree this one is a bit of a nit, but when I wrote that comment all I knew at that time was that my tagging had caused you to use a more recent alternative RS.

You have to understand that one of the reasons I tagged all the WM archived RS links for potential replacement was because up until recently (when I switched back from using IE to Firefox as my browser) many of the RS links I clicked on that took me to the WM site timed out on me. Once I got that initial WM window showing "Welcome to Wayback ... loading" I could go off and brew a pot of tea, and once I returned back to my PC that same window would still be showing without the archived source article being loaded. It's clearly not just me that has experienced these timeout issues as there is an "Impatient" URL displayed predominantly on that WM screen. You also have to understand that I was tagging WM links without looking at them based on my previous poor experience with them. My intent was always to make a second pass through the tags and weigh up the merits of keeping or replacing the tagged WM archived links as and when I processed them.

Now, I fully agree with you that for quality RS (such as the HP and CAE docs which contain lots of other useful background info. pertinent to CoMS in addition to the few tidbits used directly in the article that they actually support) putting up with such a wait and kerfuffle might still be worth it. However, experiencing such a rigmarole simply to, say, reach a link to a WM archived 'liverpoolfc.tv.com' web page that happens to mention in passing that CoMS has 8,000 parking spaces, when there are tons of other current web pages that could just have easily been used to support that very basic piece of information, is not worth the hassle IMO. If you bother to take a look at the current version of the article, those sort of archived WM links have been replaced (in the same manner that straight dead links have also been replaced) while the quality RS in WM have all been preserved.

But as stated above, this is now all a moot issue. Those "cn" tags were all replaced within 24 hours, so you really got yourself all bent out of shape over nothing.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?

Please go read this section of my Talk Page. In the discussion there, I am clearly under the impression that I am talking to "Steve" - the person I genuinely believed is behind both of those accounts. Note, and note well, that he does not correct me, nor is he at all offended or confused by my reference to him by what I was assuming was his other id. It is quite possible that this confusion amused him so he didn't let on; but IMO it is much more likely that I am right. I hadn't read the User and Talk pages of "Mr Stephen" until your recent CoMS Talk Page comment caused me to, and I admit they are very different from the comparable pages of the other user. But then again, none of the User and Talk pages on any of my Wikipedia accounts look much the same either, so that doesn't prove anything. If I have indeed confused two separate people, clearly "Mr Stephen" cannot take any offence here because he is partially to blame for actively - one might possibly say, mischievously - contributing to that confusion. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you believe they are most certainly not the same person and for you to even think they were shows no judgement whatsoever. I will inform Mr Stephen that he is being discussed. And Mr Stephen is to blame for your idiocy, are you joking?--J3Mrs (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was an indirect personal attack on Stevo1000 - who BTW should also be informed that he is being discussed on this page if you were at all fair-minded - and was quite uncalled for. The rest of what you wrote is a personal attack on me. Please stop it right now. I don't have the time nor energy to go and read and compare old posts and edits by these two users; I would rather use my time at Wikipedia more productively than that. But I do know from past experience that these two users frequently edit one after the other on the CoMS article - so without investigating the history of each user any further it was an easy mistake to make. And I had no reason to investigate any further because the dual-identity posting (as I assumed it to be) appeared to be done in a very open and non-disruptive way. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go awayJ3Mrs (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so childish. You are the one who made an issue of this. I am also going to notify the other Steve that he is being discussed here.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you didn't bother to do the simplest check, such as looking at user or talk pages, is no one's fault but your own. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you to go away, you can discuss whatever you want, but not here. You are not blaming me for your own name calling now go and do it somewhere else.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just insult someone and then tell them to go away. You raised an issue, I admitted possible culpability and corrected it. I came here to show you why I made that mistake. How am I blaming you for anything? My initial post was quite polite and I simply asked you if you knew for sure based on the interchange I had had. The nature of your response to it was inappropriate. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, J3Mrs is free to do just that. You should heed her instructions, and not post here again - even to reply to this post. Parrot of Doom 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your advice not to post again ... exactly how is that conducive to good communication? It's one thing to make that request of someone that is being disruptive and unproductive, but hardly appropriate for someone that has politely asked you a question ... nor AFTER you've invited someone else to possibly participate here. I am quite happy to move this entire topic to my Talk Page where no censorship exists and leave a redirect to it here. Which will take yet another edit.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, and I'm sorry you've had to deal with this. Astonishing. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just several of many insults that he has sprayed around, I'm afraid. I can't see him being here long. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to accuse me of socking, (as you did rather obliqely here but more obviously here and in followups) you should do it directly to me, and having done so you shouldn't alter your comments in a way that makes it hard to follow what went on. You should not throw accusations around without a shred of evidence. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I'm not accusing you of anything and it is clearly stated on the article Talk Page. I had just assumed that you and Stevo were one and the same person with two accounts - possibly more. That's allowed. It's how someone uses multiple accounts that makes something sock-puppetry. I just thought it was an open secret (for lack of a better term) that you had two accounts and that you made edits from whichever one you were in at the time. As long as there is no "good-hand, bad-hand" behaviour going on I have no reason to suspect anything untoward. My initiation of our above dialogue came after you had made some edits on the CoMS article straight after Stevo1000 had and I just assumed it was one Steve that had simply switched accounts. To be honest, it was a toss-up which account Talk Page I posted my initial message to you on (since I thought they were both you) but I decided on Mr Stephen more because I thought I was more likely to get a quicker response from you there (since that was the account you were currently working in).

You can see my genuine confusion / assumption in our recent exchanges (all still preserved in the section above) when I said "I just saw your latest update as "Stevo1000" re CoMS" ..." (which is your first diff). There was no "oblique accusation" of anything. Because you didn't come back and say, "what are you talking about, that is someone else" or any other such reaction - in fact, you actually quoted that statement back at me later on in our discourse without making any remark at all about it - so that simply confirmed my assumption in my own mind. And it would have been no big deal whether I still thought you were one person instead of two different people because I would still have handled my side of our conversation the same way I did since we were only talking about the edits done by Mr Stephen (except for the one I mentioned in passing). So you are kinda part of the problem here. If someone had sent me a message that had said something along the lines of, "Hey Lasagne, I just saw that edit you did as Pasta ..." I would most certainly not have let it pass without comment / correction ... unless of course I had made one as Pasta.

This only became an issue because I mentioned the two ids. in passing in that post on the CoMS Talk Page (your second diff) and because J3Mrs has taken it upon herself to make it an issue. In hindsight it probably wasn't the smartest thing that I've done but there is no accusation of anything in either of those posts. I just assumed everybody knew or didn't care ... because using multiple ids. on Wikipedia is not prohibited. It is HOW you use them that matters. Believe me, if I was going to accuse anyone of sock-puppetry I wouldn't have gone about it in that fashion. I would have first done some due diligent investigation of my own to convince myself of my case and then reported it through the Wikipedia page provided. And I would have only reached that place because I had detected some "good-hand, bad-hand" type behaviour or had suspected a case of vote stacking.

Re your "You should not throw accusations around without a shred of evidence" comment, I quite agree. I agree that I have no evidence and that I shouldn't do that - which is why I didn't throw any accusations around. I mention "one person, two accounts (possibly more)" very casually as if it was the world's worst kept secret. Hardly the way to make an exposure. Also, if I was convinced that there was some mischief going on and had decided to expose you, or whoever, in such an offhand manner, I would not have changed my post as quickly as I did once I saw J3Mrs' reaction. I would have tried to keep my exposure public in some manner as long as possible, otherwise it would have been a feeble attempt at exposure. So there you have it. You can see I'm confused by the time that I complete my article post rewrite because I finish it wondering about what I had said to whom in our above conversation. That's because I did my re-post AQAP, even before I had re-looked at our conversation above.

Re your "... and having done so you shouldn't alter your comments in a way that makes it hard to follow what went on" remark, I'm not sure exactly which comments that remark applies to, but it is a somewhat ludicrous thing to say. If I made things such that they were hard to follow what went on then I obviously wasn't trying to expose anyone, and if you really feel that I was trying to expose someone then please explain to me why I then made things hard to follow afterwards ... because, as pointed out above, that would be a really feeble attempt at exposure.

So that's where we are. Now it's your turn. If there's anything more I can do that I haven't but should have, just let me know. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in continuing this exchange, except for one thing which I offer as advice that may help you in the future. Read WP:REDACT. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Steve, which piece of text exactly would you like me to redact? Don't hint at it; just tell me. Don't you also think you owe me an explanation for what you posted over at the Talk Page of J3Mrs? Which I've now included above so that we are both perfectly clear to what text is being referred. Perhaps some redaction is required on your part too? I made a genuine mistake and fixed it immediately but the confusion that initially caused that mistake was cemented in my mind by your own bizarre response to my message where you analyzed a post done by Stevo1000, that I had referred to multiple times as being your own, without once thinking of mentioning, "Hey, BTW, just so you know, Stevo and I are two different Mancunian Stevens/Stephens." On the surface it might seem a stupid assumption on my part, but if you saw a new U.S. user with a handle name of Roberto's Lasagne Invitation editing an hour apart from myself, and we were both reverting some "cn" tagging you had added to the CoMS article, I bet you would simply assume it was a second account of mine you were witnessing, rather than that there really was another similarly named and geographically located account performing very similar edits to the same article at the same time of day. I think you owe me the courtesy of a little bit more than, "I see no point in continuing this exchange". Cheers. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mr Stephen is my twin brother. I'm lost for words. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop altering talk page comments at CoMS

You should not alter talk pages. It is not helpful and looks as though you are doing it to support your own pov. Please stop doing it.J3Mrs (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]