Jump to content

User talk:Thesteve/2004-2009

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

An experiment:

SteveNews:News for guys named "Steve"

24 July 2004, 08:10 UTC

Andre Norton

[edit]

Thanks for your input. I'll take a look at the books you recommended.—Rory ☺ 13:15, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

LoPbN

[edit]

Thanks for your support on the the Db-Dd VfD. But yr sig shows up blank on my screen, obviously bcz you're doing something funny with yr nick field at Preferences. You may get counted as an anon vote on VfD as a result, and i for one find it almost as annoying as sigs made up entirely of graphics chars.

I was interested to notice your apparent interest in List of songs by name, whose existence i probably should have deduced! I was curious to see if Lieder and arias showed up, and looking for "(Der) Erlkönig" noticed a broken link List of songs by name: E#Ep-Er. That's just the sort of problem that made me describe what i call "manual distributed indexes" as unmaintainable on LoPbN (and scrap them), tho it may not be quite so overwhelming on this seemingly shorter list. But maybe what we should be doing is finding out how many lists could use a ToC option that would automatically duplicate the index structure that page is aiming at! Keep up the good work, & tnx again.
--Jerzy(t) 15:40, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

[Smile] --Jerzy(t) 07:26, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it there

[edit]

You know I have to, don't you? You actually went with a Petrarchan sonnet. That's impressive. Ok, so the versification is a little...well...let's just say that Donne wouldn't have done it, and Pope would have popped to see it, but you're definitely the first to rise to the challenge. Geogre 03:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Logo blinking

[edit]

Hi Steve. I don't find it presumptious at all that you replied to a question on my page, although I'd already replied at pt:q:Usuário Discussão:Chico. :) You might want to add the comments you left there to Mediazilla:634. Angela. 18:26, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Blue Rodeo

[edit]

Interesting how you assume I was already finished and wasn't intending to continue by readding the track listings to the album pages. Jump to conclusions often? Bearcat 21:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, so that people didn't mistake the article for "done". A stub notice, to me, doesn't mean "I'm never coming back to add anything more to this myself, so it's all in your hands now"; it just means "this article isn't done yet". YMMV, I suppose.Bearcat 21:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clearly our methods are different, but when I'm working on a large group of related articles (such as albums by a single band), I find putting in quick stubs for each one and then going back to work on each stub individually easier than starting each one from scratch. (For example, if I'm doing the whole thing from scratch, I find I'm way more likely to accidentally file Nowhere to Here under Category:1993 albums because I forgot to change the category tag after cutting and pasting stuff from the previous article. For whatever reason, I don't seem to forget these things if I do the stub up front and then go back to fill in the details afterward.) Anyway, if stubs were a bad thing, Wikipedia wouldn't make it possible to do them. So whatevah. Bearcat 21:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


Thanks, Steve, Re: Pisew Falls and Addendum to "Schools"

[edit]

That is the first article I've substantially done anything with, and figgured it was fair game since it has gone un-touched for 11 months, while there wasn't much info in it. Now that I have some positive feedback (thank you), and some constructive criticism (thank you, again), I will be able to find time to grab some of the other absent articles related to Parks I am familiar with in the region and wreak havoc with them as well. I've also got a pal of mine further South in Flin Flon, Manitoba looking at the parks in his neighbourhood.

I like your idea on schools. Are you in the States? Up here, Education is a responsibility of the individual Provincial Governments, and for the most part, you can find every Canadian School Board and District on-line already. There are Divisional as well as School web sites all over the place up here. Organization would have to fall into a set of Country|Province|Division catagorization, I would think, just to simplify navigation. As far as the argument, "Should schools be there?" I think so. I've got a small group of my students working on planing an entry for our school. There's nothing quite like a captive audience, especially if you can get them interested in what lies outside their own little "Shire".

All it will take is to get it started, and then e-mail a brief explanation and link to George Stephanson - Web Site and Publications Editor at The Manitoba Teachers' Society. Before you know it, geeky Manitoba Tech Teachers will start adding their schools to the Wikipedia. The snowball effect of a mention in "The Manitoba Teacher" newsmagazine will eventually hit every Province and Territory up here via mutual information sharing. CBC Radio has already been talking about the Wikipedia... that's how I got here.

I'll get on it over the Christmas Break while my gal is at work.

Just out of curiosity, Steve, are you in any way related to "The Hutch"? :) Be good. Weaponofmassinstruction

Steve, saying who Shanks has worked with before does qualify as information, and you removed it. Moreover, you shouldn't say the breakup was shown in the first episode, because it wasn't. It featured in the episode, but nothing is shown of the actual breakup, in terms of an event between Ashlee and Josh. When reworking English, you should remember that the person who did the original writing may have had it that way for a reason. It's important not to alter the meaning. Everyking 10:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a purpose behind every word, Steve, behind why everything is phrased as it is. I have endlessly thought and thought about each sentence. I don't have any intention of writing an article on Shanks; I linked it because I thought he was notable enough for an article, not because I personally intended to write it. When people talk about the album, Shanks' experience as a producer is frequently cited. People also frequently compare Jessica's more pop-oriented music with Ashlee's rock-oriented sound—"The Rock Sister", "The Sister Who Rocks", etc, etc. It would be absurd to have an article about Autobiography that didn't mention this; it's a very important point. Everyking 19:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All right, Steve, I don't feel like hearing any more insults, life is short enough as it is. Everyking 22:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image Licensing

[edit]

Hi. I have been currently reviewing licensing information of art images. I came across your favorite image (which I find rather impressive, too, by the way). The image description page says it is in the public domain, but the article Jules Adolphe Aime Louis Breton says he died in 1906. Although many jurisdictions protect works only up to authors life and 50 or 70 years, the Template:PD-art indicates that the tag is for works whose authors passed away more than 100 years ago. So I was thinking Template:PD-art-US is a better choice. Would you mind if I replace it? But I have to admit that I know very little about the artist and the work, and some works are released into the public domain by authors. If that is what happened, of course the current tag is appropriate. Thank you for your attention in advance, Tomos 13:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Steve! You vote to keep Autobiography album design, which even I thought was borderline and kinda questionable, but to delete Autobiography promotion and publicity? Where's the consistency? Everyking 13:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, all right, Steve, I see your reasoning, even if I partially disagree with it. I would happily agree to a "criticism/reviews" subarticle, but your statement that all criticism and review info should then be removed from the parent article confuses me; I don't think anybody would support that, not even the most radical of the deletionists involved in the dispute. I'd be willing to see it trimmed back to one relatively succinct paragraph, but a summary of the information would have to remain. Everyking 16:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When did you become such a deletionist, Steve? Everyking 00:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lists in geostub category?

[edit]

Hi Steve, I'm busy trying to tidy up the geography stubs, and was surprised to see one of your user pages (User:Thesteve/Lists) is now officially a geography stub. Any particular reason? This isn't a complaint, but it looks a bit odd in amongst the Bhutanese villages and airports in Greenland. Grutness|hello? 10:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

[edit]

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

issues regarding school articles

[edit]

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schools

[edit]

Well, sir, looks like you've got me beat. What you've got there is some arguable, valid points. I still consider myself a deletionist, but I think schools are here to stay. Looks like you've got yourself a convert. :-) Linuxbeak 22:57, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

[edit]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada for instructions.--Rmky87 03:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-any

[edit]

It seems you have used Template:Cc-by-sa-any on some pictures. You might want to see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Cc-by-sa-any --Henrygb 00:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you may want to consider a different license apart from this apparent non-free multli-license -- I just implemented the post-May 19 stop-hand warning. Wcquidditch | Talk 22:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image galleries

[edit]

You have in the past commented on Image Galleries nominated for deletion. Most galleries are nominated because the nominators feels that galleries violate WP:NOT. The William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion (here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh Field

[edit]

Thanks for creating the article on Flesh Field ^_^. I love 'em. - Impulse 360 02:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Arioncover1.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arioncover1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 15:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Format

[edit]

You need to stop correcting algorythm in this article. This is the name of a song on their Cipher Method album. The title is actually algorythm, NOT algorithm  The Steve  07:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, duly noted. I've added an exception for this article to my exceptions lists. Apologies for the disruption. CmdrObot 02:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:4wizards.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:4wizards.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Dolmen.jpg

[edit]

I have transfered Dolmen.jpg (in en.wikipedia) to Commons as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Dolmen_near_Blarney_Castle.jpg , keeping your licensing and authoring information. I changed the name because there is already another image called Dolmen.jpg there. I hope that is allright with youTó campos 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Illuminate (band)

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Illuminate (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Largo Plazo (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed your comments, 5 years later

[edit]

I am studying the history of the television episode wars, and I really enjoyed your comments from 2004:

The war continues, even today Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline Ikip (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikip, I appreciate that :)
Unfortunately, I haven't really done much on Wikipedia in the last few years. I still support the idea, and use it for information, of course, but I'm no longer interested in the endless debates over what should be written here. I am still very much an "inclusionist" though ;)  The Steve  10:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a real shame that you have moved on. The Economist calls what is happening here, "The battle for Wikipedia's soul" against "self-appointed deletionist guardians".[1] I hope you get a change of heart, and we see you soon. So much is at stake. Ikip (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's quite an in-depth article. Thanks for the link. Its quite amazing to me that those little debates I used to have over what was then this small but unique web thing that I helped out at could garner that sort of attention.  The Steve  10:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of articles like this, and they are all universally negative towards our deletion policy. I think journalist realize what we always have, our exclusion policies are not only excluding articles, they are excluding editors too. I would love to see you help complete what you started a half decade ago. See: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Here are sections from some more articles, there are many, many more. Ikip (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cipher method cover.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cipher method cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Static cover.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Static cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia

[edit]

As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. I believe there have been MANY productive responses to concerns on past AfD's, but some still don't seem to agree. If there is any way you can think of improving the article, or contributing to the current AfD, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesteve/2004-2009&oldid=1140240325"