User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 32

Cmts from Tapdancing Tiger

Annoying? But that is unfair. That person removed the article I was writing and won't talk to me. Why should I stop if people won't tell me anything about why the article was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapdancing Tiger (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is talking to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapdancing Tiger (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the pink thing that was db-bio was the deletion tag I got rid of it because it made the page look ugly. Surely if that person is willing to get an article I hadn't finished writing deleted they would be willing to talk to me. People are just doing things I don't know what to do and that person just kept ignoring me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapdancing Tiger (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please talk to me. I am not trying to be annoying.The other user was annoying for putting that pink box on the page when I was trying to write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapdancing Tiger (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still there?--Tapdancing Tiger (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So my comments are unwelcome and yet they won't even talk to me? That's bull****.--Tapdancing Tiger (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were willing to get my article deleted that I hadn't finished so they should be willing to tell me why they did that. Right?--Tapdancing Tiger (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Nobody likes me so I will go away.--Tapdancing Tiger (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't matter. I'm am too dumb to understand Wikipedia and all I do by asking questions is annoy people. I am uselss and I don't deserve to be an editor. You can delete my userpage. I don't deserve one after what I have done.--Tapdancing Tiger (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind...

explaining to me what's going on with Tapdancing Tiger? The messages flip flop back and forth so I'm having trouble understanding. Zoo Fari 04:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to understand anything. I don't understand anything because I am useless and have annoyed everybdoy trying to be good for once in my life and edit Wikipedia.--Tapdancing Tiger (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:98.248.33.198

While the user may have taken things too far, it would help a lot if 98.248.33.198 not so confrontational. Eeekster (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user gets a pile of shit thrown at them almost daily. I can't justify their behaviour, but I can understand the cause. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and he throws a lot around too. I reverted one of his edits where he deleted content without explaining (not edit summary at all) and he got very angry. Deleting the questions on his talk page fanned the flames; that's not a good way to handle the situation. Eeekster (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't overly agree. Making that many edits to a user talk page that frequently could be maddening, even after I explained the situation to the user. In regards to the edit where he deleted content, was the deletion valid? I guess that's somewhat subjective. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Removing cited sources under some pretense that they are garbage without providing any actual evidence to the contrary seems like vandalism to me. I've been watching this user closely, and if you look at his contributions page, you'll find that he engages in unwanted behaviour. Vedant (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll be reasonable and conclude that SOME of his edits were not vandalism and that I was wrong to revert some of them. However, the vast majority of his edits have been less than constructive and I'd argue unnecessary. Some examples include his edits to the 2010 Commonwealth Games, the Foreign Relations of India, the foreign policy of the Obama administration and in general his removal of VALID sources because they don't agree with his POV. Vedant (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum I am not attempting to justify my actions in any way but simply explain the circumstances surrounding the matter. As for the removal of the AIV report, I will let that speak for itself but I will not make any attempts to revert the page. Vedant (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the article doesn't make any claim that India represented the G20 nations. It does say this however: "The deal fell apart in Geneva yesterday after India, one of the new standard bearers of an emboldened developing world, balked at U.S. demands that countries limit emergency tariffs to shield their farmers from sudden import surges."

Perhaps we could reach some kind of consensus though I must add that it would certainly help to discuss these changes on the talk page before removing valid sources or making controversial edits without consensus. Vedant (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you getting at precisely? Perhaps you'll see that I actually kept the report about the Commonwealth games behind schedule, infact I even expanded on it. I also restored the paragraph that was deleted in the Foreign Policy of the Obama administration article and expanded on that on added more cites. Vedant (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at his contributions. I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between vandalism and a mistake but I do not believe it was a mistake especially when you take into account his history. If I assume bad faith, it's because of said user's past "contributions". For the record, I do make use of talk pages especially when discussing controversial topics and it would be great if all parties could seek consensus. Vedant (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the ANI, I was just pissed that someone reported me out of spite and in bad faith despite my useful edits. I am willing to reach a compromise but all grandiose statemtns or even those not that are not backed up in the sources no matter how sneaky present should be there. Sneaky and boastful claims should be avoided becuase it doesn't sound right for an enclocypedia. We cool, Vedant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.12 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AIV report

Hi Steven,

You declined an AIV report filed by JeffG. I understand the rationale you gave but I question your authority to decline AIV reports as you are not an administrator. Are non-admins permitted to decline AIV reports? My understanding is that they are not. Perhaps I'm wrong. Crafty (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends. I'm an expert on vandalism (I actually helped write {{AIV}} and I've been doing this sort of thing for ages. My comments at AIV are generally taken on board by administrators, so, while non-admins across the board generally shouldn't decline reports, there are exceptions. If that makes any sense. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. From what I can tell you have something of a chequered history when it comes to the delineation between the roles of admins and non-admins. I think it would be best to leave administrative actions (even in areas where you are expert) to the administrators. It's important that the can have faith in authority of those who are handling formal reports such as those lodged with AIV. Crafty (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate you bringing that up, it happened a year ago and it's irrelevant to the situation at hand. I've served my time in regards to that. AIV is one area that gets heavily backlogged, and administrators appreciate help, wherever they can get it. I merely observe and comment. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to make you feel uncomfortable, that was not my intention. I think it's important you understand that I have a problem with your "non-admin decline" at AIV and why I have an issue with it. I would submit that if you want your history in this regard to remain just that -- history, you probably should not comport yourself in a psuedo-administrative manner. The point having been made, let us say no more about it. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Devesh_Dabas. Thanks. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already

Done. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an administrator does not give special powers of judgement. If a user is showing good judgement, I see no reason why there should be an issue in that user declining AIV reports. (They could approve them, too, but it wouldn't really accomplish anything since they would be unable to block the user.) If there's an issue with Steve's particular declines, then make that an issue, but please don't spend your time attacking the person behind the edits, Crafty. If you are concerned that Steve is declining AIV reports that should have resulted in further action, feel free to leave me a message and I'll be happy to take a look at the situation. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message on your talkpage. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that Steven has been very critical of me, in a manner that looked administrative until I found out that he was not actually an admin. This happened both on my user talk page and in multiple discussions at WP:ANI. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, perhaps a better place to have this conversation would be on Kmccoy's talkpage. Crafty (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were an admin, you probably still wouldn't have rollback. You're not the only one I've been critical of. I've pulled up several users on their use of Huggle, and their definitions of what is and what isn't "vandalism". Adminship is nothimg more than a few extra buttons. If editors demonstrate clue, I don't see why they can't comment. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" vs. "Comments by other users"

I followed your link as I did not recognize the admin posting under "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" and wanted to "meet" the new admin. I confess I was a bit surprised to discover that the individual was not, in fact, an admin. Looking at comments above, it seems that others in the community are experiencing the same surprise.

wp:IAR is important, but there is a great deal of trust in the community for people who aren't "!vote"d down as admin candidates. Whether the tools are all that important or not, the trust is.

No need to reply to me, no one needs my approval, but I did feel it was important to convey that putting remarks under "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" will mislead at least 1 editor, me, to think that the editor putting the comments there is claiming to be an admin.

If you do feel a need to reply, I will see the reply here, or of course, on my talk page. All the best. - - Sinneed 05:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am actually a trainee SPI clerk, albeit a new one, and so I am permitted to make comments under that section. The section header should be interpreted as "Comments by clerks, admins and/or checkusers. One needn't be an admin in order to be a clerk, and all admins aren't automatically clerks. If that makes sense. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes sense. Reaching way back into the past, I knew that once. :) I hope my comment makes sense too: I was commenting on the appearance, not the reality. As soon as I got here, I was 100% certain you were not claiming to be an admin... but it *looked* that way at the AIV. No need to talkback, I'll see your reply, if any. If it is automated, no worries either. I just hate them, but I'll survive. :) - Sinneed 06:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always reply, I don't get as many messages as I used to. Those were the good ol' days. I tend to do some things not all non admins would do, but I do this weighing up pros over cons. I wouldn't take pseudo-administrative action against a user, close afds as delete or implement a topic ban, but I don't really consider pointing out to a user that their vandalism report belongs in another venue overstepping the line that separates admins and non admins. Admins have a large workload and for things as simple as poking a user along, I don't think this violates it. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moar

I did a little more, will revisit tomorrow eve. Article needs a LOT more work prior to an GAN. I'll stick with it here and there. — Ched : ? 06:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, needs heaps of work on it...I can look at it..er..tonight maybe? :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet

Hi

Just to say a quick thank you for your advice with the sock puppets that I reported. Believe it or not I did look up WHOIS before reporting, could see that they came from the same/similar region. However it's only my second time coming across a sock puppet and because the IP addresses seemed to be ever so slightly different, thought I would request check user to be on the safe side. I now know though that I don't need to do that in the future. Thanks again --5 albert square (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a nobody agrees, can we confirm that we are not sockpuppets via checkuser? Ikip (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as checkuser isn't generally used to prove innocence. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 18:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, thats a shame, as now editors will have this sneaking suspicion. thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to clear this sockpuppet mistake up. As you were the only one who's recognized the error (and I am SURE others had a hand in it) it is nice to know there's some people on the monolith of information/time killer website this is who still have some civility. And, even rarer, recognize their mistakes! Jim Steele 00:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsteele9999 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and the Shell to Sea campaign are placed under probation. All fall under 1RR, and a stricter rather than laxer interpretation of addition of and removal unsourced content.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for edit warring and is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined. He is also subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

While GainLine (talk · contribs) is admonished for vandalising BLPs and sockpuppetry, he is also commended for desisting from early problematic behaviours and encouraged to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, and seek administrator intervention when required.

Non-compilance to any of the above editing restrictions may result in a block, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this is the exact wording the Arbs have voted upon, I don't have the power to change it. But anyway it should already be understood that BLP violations that are potentially libelous are covered by the suppression policy with a method of reporting it. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see now. I've removed them and will notify the arbs accordingly. Thanks for clarifying. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done and done. =P - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi, I guess you posted on my userpage in regards to adoption. I'd be happy to take you up on the offer. Please tell me where to start. I see many experienced users post links to answer questions, and if at all possible you could write (as you did) your intent I'd appreciate it. Just a warning before you choose to adopt me, I'm by no account a problem child, yet Adler would have a field day with me.

Jim Steele (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we will get started. If you could please start with this lesson and follow the instructions, that'd be great. Don't hesitate to ask questions. :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was an interesting introduction to the myriad of policis that make up this web site. From what I gathered, this "wikimedia" project is essentially a free-for-all encyclopedia. That is, anyone can post just about anything. However, if a person wants his posts (essentially edits or new pages) to last he/she needs to follow a protocol. Important is to practice common sense, all too uncommon these days. Then of course there's the emphasis on being bold. What does that mean? Again, so much of this site is rooted in subjectivity it is frightening. I feel that more often then not it is boldness that brings a moth to a flame. Still, I got the impression this encylopedia hopes people understand that one can fix any mistake made (from my experience this is the only place on Earth, besides government work, this message it not only allowed--it's encouraged). There was some technical speak I found tedious, and found that it's scary some people invest so much of there lives in what amounts to quiet desperation in edit wars. I have questions. Such as just how many people have Check user status? How do they earn it? How are we sure it is not abused? Moreover, there are two definitions I feel have plenty of words but little substance. I refer you to (without being a hopeless namedropper) Pope: "Words are like leaves and where they most abound, much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found". One is verfiability. Just what does this site consider a good enough source? A newspaper? Which one(s)? Also, before I forget, there's the big issue of notability. The definition of this is nebulous at best and at worst quite slanted to those with the technical proficiency to make an entry of their grandmother's brisket recipe. Some good information nonetheless.

Jim Steele (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. What is that "clock is ticking" mean? Is it some esoteric computer lingo for time lapsed in cyberspace or is it referring to wasted time in things like edit wars? Or perhaps time spent trying to convince people of your identity when in fact all you've done in your life is craved privacy and the writer's life? Just curious.

Jim Steele (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to address your questions, being bold essentially means, don't let your lack of knowledge of policies, or of editing styles, stop you editing. We learn by experience. You will pick up on things as time goes on, but use common sense

Checkusers are bound by a strict code of conduct, which detalis when and how checkuser should be used. There are also a few bodies who audit the use of checkuser, and severe sanctions apply for misuse.

Verifiability is complicated. Generally (this is a very brief overview, books published by reputable publishers, that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, are considered reliable sources, and can be used, as opposed to books you, the author, or the subject of an article, published themselves, are usable in limited situations. Blogs and personal websites generally can't be used. Most reputable papers, across the globe, are OK.

The clock is ticking is a 24 quote. :)

Hopefully this answers some questions. Don't forget to add this page to your watchlist :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no idea how to mark an article for deletion--the article for this is huge and hard to follow. But if you read it the wording suggests it was written by him. Not exactly verfiable. Jim Steele (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

advice

hey steve can you recomend me someone that can clean up articals i am not that good at that, and did the adoption things are finally ready.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and this is maybe out of subject but do you think you could make 24 a ga cause, i would be glad to help out , wachta say.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Off the top of my head, not sure of any articles that need cleanup. You're free to start the adoption program when you're ready. Start with the Policies lesson. :) As for 24 (TV series), I want to get it to GA one day, but I'm focusing on Bill Buchanan and Allison Taylor at the moment. :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right when your ready for 24 GA let me know, i'll help you out.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

remember i was going to get family tguy to a ga, will i did and now it is in a peer review, can you leave comments or suggestions.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spotlight spam

Hiya,

First, the spotlight newsletter wasn't delivered because of your name change, and then when I changed it, it failed 'coz you have {{tn|bots|allow=SineBot}} - which means that no bots other that signbot are supposed to deliver to this page. If you want to permit ChzzBot, you could add it; up to you. The October newsletter is at Wikipedia:Spotlight/Newsletter/2009/October. Chzz ► 23:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice: Galveston Bay Area

Steven,

Thanks again for offering to mediate the issues on the GBA article. If I'm not being presumptous I was hoping for some quick one-on-one advice. RJN has made another series of edits in the article. In my opinion almost all of the edits are simply an attempt to de-emphasize the topic and promote the city of Houston a little bit. More to the point, it is my opinion that he is lowering the quality of the prose just to make his point (i.e. taking meaningful statements and making them fairly meaningless just because he doesn't like the content in general). But I am on shaky ethical grounds to keep reverting his edits (i.e. though I think I am correct what right do I have to say my opinion is more correct than his?).

Is the appropriate thing for me to simply sit back and wait for more feedback from you?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: RJN left a note on the talk page saying he is done with his edits. He also removed the banners at the top, though he added banners in a subsection. I still disagree with many of the recent edits although they were not quite as destructive as previous rounds.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review archived

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]