I'd be more than happy if you took over the mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 Joint (building). I've tried to make some progress so far, but I'm not sure both parties are really interested in what I have to say. I'll let you read over the material so you can decide where to go with it. I guess I'm not experienced at mediation, so it would help to have someone who knows what they're doing. Thanks. --Elkman(Elkspeak)03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. I'll go about notifying both parties that I've "officially" accepted it, and I'll go from there. Still reviewing the content at the moment. I'll keep in touch. Thanks for your efforts so far. For the record, I'm not exactly what you would call an experienced DR person, however, I have a variety of methods for dealing with disputes. Regards, Steve Crossin(talk)(review)03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is something that you need, that only an admin can do, you could try Elkman as well as BorgQueen. They are very helpful. --Achim (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get it, because I have no difficulty following the matter without admin tools. Using the history tabs on the talk page of the subject article, you can tell who did what. Apart from that, just read the afd page and see what people wrote. THEY cited changes made that are relevant. Just go through that and you should get the picture. Also, read the article. Without being an expert in the subject matter, if you actually follow the links provided, you should be able to understand the topic. It's not difficult. Buildings have joints. You seal the joints. That's most of the topic. Apart from that, ask yourself what else you think you would need to understand building joints. I can't think of anything else and neither can anyone else. So what's with the tagging? That's the subject in a nutshell. He refused to tell anyone else what specifically he's tagging it for. Maybe he will tell you? It's worth a try, I hope. --Achim (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me a link before to his contributions list, which was rather large. I'll look through the AFD and the article. However, first off, if an editor tags an article, generally they need to post on the talk page as to why they tagged it, and the concerns they have. Not doing so is, well, you could say uncivil, but that's not the right word for it, perhaps unhelpful. If you don't know what the issue is, how are you to fix it? Thats the issue I see with tagging without discussion. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)02:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've got the picture. After witnessing this, you will see I did two things:
1. I added further citations.
2. I asked what he was on about.
As Elkman put it, Coccyx_Bloccyx stonwalled. And he does not do that just with me. But let's see. Perhaps he can disclose to you what is still so awful about the article that convinces him it requires his tags. --Achim (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Crossin...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endeavors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve...There is no reason for me to be uncivil to you for your reservations about my ability to use the tools for which I was nominated. As Keegan said in the nomination, it is no big deal. Hope your day is going well. - LA @ 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know you weren't being uncivil :) I was just pointing out I felt sorry that I had to oppose, but, anyway. :) My day is going OK, I eventually finished all those nasty redirects. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Steve, nice to be of acquaintance!
I just would like to say that my reason for changing the template image (the orange ! mark) is because of a recently held discussion at Article Message box was to standardize all ambox images. I changed the 24 image out of courtesy since I though that what I did was an improvement. If, however, my 24 image change was not beneficial, please, do not hesitate to revert back. Thanks, and sorry for any inconveniences. -- penubag (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's alright with changing the template. Could you self revert the image for me? Also, if you could join the project in any way, I'd appreciate it, I need some techincal aid. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've reverted the image back to its original state. However, I feel that I'd be of little use to the project. I've watched the 24 series a while ago and know some basic plot details, but that is all; besides, we don't need plot. If you need any template coding, formatting, image creation, or anything of technical aspect, please, don't hesitate to contact me for whatever minor it may be. I'm open to help. Thanks! -- penubag (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need plot at all. Well, if there is plot info, it needs to be minimal and sourced, and in addition to real world info, like on Martha Logan. I decided to re-start the project and co-ordinate it's efforts, well, I have a good head on my shoulders, so to speak, and I feel I can improve this project quite a lot, it just needs support, something I've been lacking a bit, except from a select few people. Could you help me fix this error? I want the article list (the coloured one) aligned left, and the Class box aligned right, but next to each other, and not overlapping the next heading. The origninal colour table is here. That would be really helpful. Thanks. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)01:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just wanted to let you know that you needn't revert Image:24DNTV.svg back to the original version so many times. One revert sets the image back to its original state. The reason why you didn't (or don't) see the changes is because the image is stored in your browser cache (which is a temporary storage place to lower loading time.) All you have to do is bypass your cache to see the changes. You can also purge the image at Commons if that doesn't work (afterwards bypass your cache again). Hope this clarifies. -- penubag (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was aware of that actually. I just reverted it once, as I wanted the alternate image you made, and then restored the current one. Thanks for letting me know anyway. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)15:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great just making sure. By the way, I edited the 24 image again. I hope it's better than before, please revert if you don't like this image either. I checked and the change doesn't interfere with any existing templates. Cheers -- penubag (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the round one is actually the newer one. I bought all the series (except the last one) and the first two (or three) are the yellow one. The later ones are all the round logo. Just a note, I'm going offline so talk to you later. -- penubag (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editing from a hot spot (meaning I won't reply for a while): Do you want me to make the 24 yellow on the star, or do you like how it is? -- penubag (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, if anything, it underlines them. And as with all such process pages, you shouldn't really change the title of anything that's been nominated during the discussion period,a s it simply makes more work for everyone later. Grutness...wha?02:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - you wrote: Mind explaining the issue to me? That would be helpful. Also, I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Category:UNKNOWN. Mind fixing your mess? And, I don't see the issue there? Explain that too.
There's no mess. The "unknown" indicates that there needs to be debate on exactly what the new title should be, since the current title is clearly not in keeping with normal Wikipedia category names - as such, that template indicates that there is a debate taking place and where the debate is taking place (it also clearly says not to remove it while the debate is taking place - I've put it back).
General explanations... I see you've read what I wrote about the stub category at SFD. Basically stub categories and Stub-Class categories deal with similar things, but whereas Stub-Class and other assessment categories are used by individual WikiProjects, general stub categories are used across the whole of Wikipedia. To stop there being tens of thousands of them and to try to keep them uniform and useful, several strong guidelines have been set up, such as only creating categories once the number of articles on a subject reaches a certain number, and making the stub template names conform to a set pattern. Which is pretty much what the main problems were with 24Stub, and it really did look like a WikiProject talk page banner would be doing almost identical work in this case.
I can change that, if you check the history log [2], you will see that I didn't add that category. How about, I change the sub category, and we decide on a name? Let's not have this debated over, let's just decide and fix it up. And sorry if my message to you was a bit uncivil, im under a bit of stress right now. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)07:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, and none intended on my part either, though with my comments on both the stub template and this I could understand if you were concerned (no, I'm not on a vendetta against your WikiProject!). The best thing to do is probably let the process continue - if the category name is changed it'd need some sort of comment at CFD anyway. Simplest thing to do is to add to the debate at CFD yourself and hopefully we can come to a quick decision as to a new name. The main problem is the lack of the "TV series)" qualifier in the name, which isn't a particularly controversial change. BTW, I did explain the reasons for the proposed change - over at WP:CFD, which is linked from the template. That's standard practice. Follow that link and you'll find those comments. Grutness...wha?07:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sort of felt like you were against the project a bit, I've been jumpy ever since the MedCab case was announced to be closed, which means a lot of our articles could be merged. I'm doing my best to rewrite the articles, but there is only so much one editor can do. :) Anyway, I assume you mean this discussion? I can head over there, however I'm unsure what alternate name we could make it. You are right, it is a Wikiproject 24 category, feel free to add this one too, we should probably rename that too. Cheers, Steve Crossin(talk)(review)07:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the discussion I mean. I've added the other category you mention to it and suggested that the best thing might be to merge them into one category called Category:24 (TV series) articles requiring expert attention (like the astronomy one I pointed out above). If that sounds reasonable, or if you can think of a better idea, it'd be good if you could comment at the WP:CFD discussion - input from people involved in the WikiProject is very useful in cases with project-specific categories like this. Grutness...wha?01:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have some awards
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
All of the hard work you have put in and all the work you have put into improving Wikipedia, through your endless contributions. 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar
The endless reverts, minor POV changes and general grammar fixes that make wikipedia the high quality encyclopedia it is today 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
Mediating and calming down hot headed users and keeping your-self cool during mediation and while in a potential conflict situation. 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar
For just wanting to get things down and not really minding weather there is anybody noticing, as long as you know you what you have done has made an improvement. 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bright Idea Award
An awesome Idea that is just simply brilliant {{AIV}}, may you carry on with your gems of wisdom and great ideas. 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bronze Wiki Award
Keep up all of the good and tireless work that you have done to Improve the quality of Wikipedia content. 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Award
You are truly the greatest of all of the mediators on Wikipedia, if there is any conflict you should allways be top of the list to mediate. 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have decided not to use my actual account to give awards due to the mad people who hound my actual acount, consider this an award account.--12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnstar-Giver (talk • contribs)
(blushes) Thanks a lot. There's no way I deserve all of those. I had to revert the edit to the icons however, it broke my browser. :( I'll try redevloping it so it can have more icons without affecting my browser. Thanks a lot lucy. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)12:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Phillip Bauer.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Phillip Bauer.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) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Steve,
I am trying to remove the following template from my article on the My Hero Project:
This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of a copyright.
Please edit this article to remove any copyrighted text and to be an original source, following the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style. Remove this template after editing.
I assure you there is no copyright issue. I am currently trying to figure out the best way to add the internal links and references and I hope to have them up by the end of the day. Thanks, in advance, for your help. Roughcopy (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... that's a good start. To answer your question about the original source, this is an original article, researched and written by me. Roughcopy (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original thought at all. It is a well researched article that contains facts that are easy to verify. Please take another look at it and let me know how to proceed. Thanks! Roughcopy (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Do you think this article is ready for DYK nom? I have just been told "yes" but would like your opinion too. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will try improve those points you added to the article suvh as the verification template and the one you just said. Do you think it is ready (soon) for DYK?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I converted the references into a better format, did a basic copy edit. A few of the references are a bit vague, and an infobox of some form could help, or an image. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)04:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add a few images tommorrow. But I think that infoboxes and images are not in the DYK criteria. Also, is there a chance that if there is a "verification template" on an article, can it be still become a DYK?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and I'll try not to rush. Refs are important to articles. Well, I'll be offline soon. Any comments before I go?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve Crossin. I'm sorry that I have to trouble you one again. You know, the debate of tibet during the Ming Dynasty has changed to the article Tibetan history in the Ming Dynasty. Everything goes well until a moment ago. I spent hours' work adding the scholars' aguments, but User:Bertport has undone all. I don't know how English Wikipedia deal with this totally vandalist act. I'm really dead since I've suffered this kind of persons for weeks. I beg you to intervene this time for tackle the endless random undo. Thanks. --LaGrandefr (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and warned the user. I'm afraid I can't do much more here. I'd suggest if the issue persists, to take the issue to the administrator incidents noticeboard. I'm afraid I can't personally intervene in this case, there is insufficent dispute depth for me to step in. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am flabbergasted. If you look at the quality of the article, and you look at the quality of User:LaGrandefr's edits in both the main article and the talk page, you'll see that User:LaGrandefr's edits are tantamount to vandalism. Several users have tried repeatedly to reason with him and advise him, but he generally seems not even to understand what is going on. It looks to me like some mixture of ill will and incompetence on User:LaGrandefr's part. As such, I reverted his edits today without comment, as is commonly done to unconstructive edits.
Bertport (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can people confound right and wrong? Steve, please have a look at the page, each argument has been well sourced by me, but deleted by Bertport without explaining the valid reason. What does Vandalism mean in English? I'm confused. I beg User talk:Bertport once again not to undo the edit randomly. Regards--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, normally I would, but I cannot at the present time. I have several mediation cases that require my constant attention. One in particular needs my immediate attention. I've requested on IRC that someone looks at it. In the meantime, look over the dispute resolution process, try an RFC maybe. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Project
Please go right ahead. Add any details you want. My objective is to find the editors that want their details on the list and remove the others. Useight (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's UDT (also known as GMT). So I guess you're about in the middle of your editing, while I'm getting near the end of mine. It's 12:43AM here. Useight (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history, you should see I reverted an IP's edit twice. If I revert the article again today, will I violate the 3RR rule?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 16:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're fine. Reverting vandalism is an exemption to the three revert rule. You reverted vandalism. 3RR doesn't apply there. As long as it's clear vandalism, then the 3RR rule does not apply. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, well, that lesson isnt a pass/fail one. Its more a Done one. And, erm, people have raised concerns with me about your permissions assignment, and after reviewing, there are quite a few errors in it. So, just have a look over it again and fix any mistakes you made. The mark you got will stand however, I marked it poorly so it's my fault there. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)04:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is an auto confirmed account? An auto confirmed account is a new user account that is les than four days old (UTC). During thiose four days, those users are unable to recieve rollback permission, move pages, edit semi and protected pages, and be granted any other kind of permission. Basically, you have the rules as an IP address or un-registered user.
You misread the question entirely, it asked what an autoconfirmed account is.
What does checkuser enable a user to check? Check if an account is a sockpuppet of another account, IP, and bot. It should only be used if necessary.
Bot is irrelevant. All checkuser does is compare an IP and find the users who have used that IP, or compare 2 users, or find the IP an editor is editing from.
I've been extremely busy too. Mediating 4 cases [5][6][7][8] as well as co-ordinating a WikiProject, a huge task. There's more obviously, but that's the bulk of it. Dont forget that reporting to AIV is only when they vandalise past a final warning, I saw this. I think you should listen to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 09, specifically part 3 and 4. I discussed vandalism there, and rollback, I think it would teach you something. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to an immediate personal emergency, I will not be able to make the lecture. I am so sorry for the short notice. Circumstances are completely unexpected. Vassyana (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have now added the link to the much-discussed website by former SGM members. I believe this is what was agreed - is that OK? Look2008 (talk)
Oh, erm, here is my advice. Leave it added for now. If it's removed/re-added again, file a request at the Mediation Cabal, and it will be looked at eventually. I'm not sure if by me, although it has been some time since I looked at that case, a fresh set of eyes may be wanted, additionally, I'm rather backlogged at the moment. I can keep an eye on the article, but, long term mediation, is something I'm not sure I can do. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yes, editor JAF1970 has been using that site, as a self published source. After discussion with an administrator, the site was blacklisted, in addition to any other content he himself wrote, as it's a clear violation of our self published sources policy. I'm removing them per discussion with that admin. Thanks. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)01:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied you replies from my talk page to the AWC talk page, as I wish to keep all the stuff together. While I do host the Award Center, I have been trying (as of late) to be more hands off, letting the regular users decide. I will post my comments regarding your opinions (and a few I do agree with) after other members have weighed in. Enjoy. --SharkfaceT/C01:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spore mediation
Thanks for trying. I definitely appreciate all your help with the mediation. I know it didn't work out in an ideal way, but I wanted to say that I have a great deal of respect for your level of patience and dedication. I've noticed that you're not an admin, and you're only aspiring to be an admin. If you should ever find yourself nominated, don't be too proud to let me know on my talk page. I have lots of great things to say. Thanks again, Randomran (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm more than happy to still help out, even though consensus will be easier to get now. Additionally, all the discussion in my userspace has been archived into my mediation archives, it's located at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Archives/Spore. Everything is still there, feel free to use that how you will. Additionally, an administrator blacklisted the site JAF1970 was using for refereces, as they violated our self published sources policy.
Secondly, I'd like to commend you all for keeping your cool in this case. Admittedly, he was a difficult user to deal with, and I thank you all for being so patient in this long mediation. I also thank you for your comments, you're too kind. If my aid could still be of use, please let me know. Kindest regards, Steve Crossin(talk)(review)04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24
Thanks for the invite, but not my thing. If you look at my history, I've just wandering through random projects, tidying them up, formatting templates, and getting accurate counts set up. A little bored with article writing and other projects to deal with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Crossin...Several people have expressed an interest in my next probable nomination for adminship. Messaging people when it happens would look a lot like canvassing, so I would prefer not doing that. If you are interested in it, you could add this to your watchlist. If it is created, you will know, maybe even before I do depending on how often you check your watchlist. If you wish to gush prior to it being officially up, have fun, but only when it happens please. I am in no particular rush. Have a very nice day! :) - LA @ 09:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve - yes, if that quote was in the article rather than in a footnote, then a case could be made that it passes NFCC#8. But it must be in the text; after all, we are trying to make things easy for the reader! Black Kite14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you want the episode lists collapsed by default, or just the ability to collapse them? Either way, I have not seen that done on any other episode lists. SeanMooney (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tibet during the Ming Dynasty
Hi, Steve. I still have to trouble you once again since I only know you on English wiki. Sorry! You mush be quite aware of what's going on in the page Tibet during the Ming Dynasty or any article concerning the issue of Tibet. To be honest, I'm really dead. I just want to present another viewpoint about the history of Tibet, since chez us, we all consider Tibet was always an independent country before the arrival of Chinese Communists. However, these days' edit depressed me deeply. Every argument that I added shall be heavily questioned and can be randomly deleted, even many sources provided. You may know, I'm the single person who present of pro-Chinese-sovereignty scholars' viewpoint. (Although it doesn't represent my position.) Contrarily, there're a big gang of users who oppose this viewpoint, User:PericlesofAthens to be an excellent example. In fact I appreciate much this guy since he is also the only person who provides the arguments of another viewpoint till now. But this guy, as well as other persons, is so self-righteous and unscrupulous that he can modify/delete any argument of mine if he likes. I'm not a native English-speaker, which means I cannot make an eloquent speech with him, or them. I found I can no longer edit the article since my sources are constantly deleted and it's very very exhausting to monitor each sentence in a huge page like this.
Moreover, I came to feel that the English wiki seems to be controlled by an indescribable power. The map of last negotiation of Ming Dynasty, File:MingEmpire.png was even strangely deleted, (it's an entirely self-made work at the base of Sinomap Press and Harvard Press) and replaced by a totally inaccurate map which completely ignores one side of scholars' viewpoint. At the same time, there's a happening that a map (British Empire Anachronous 8.png, self-made and without any source) that tells Tibet was part of British Empire shows itself unshamelessly in the head of its article, and it's ridiculous that Tibet is absent in the historical true map just above. Meanwhile, no one object in this case.
Maybe you are very busy, or not able to intervene into the conflict. So I want to ask you if it exists a possibility that only the administers can modify the article, while other users provide the arguments to administers. I think the article can stay stable only in this way and the vandalism can be finally stopped. Thanks.--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a joke? I did what you told me and requested for mediation in order to look for a solution of the page. And you gave a N in saying NO. Why not tell me here? You didn't propose a solution, either. So we let the conflict in deadlock like this?--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I received your reply on my talk page. I don't know what Wikipedia allows and I'm sure you know much better than me. So could you please find a solution to resolve the vandalism on the article?--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me where the dispute is? It doesn't exist. The only problem is that some users constantly delete the scholarly sourced arguments added by me. I also wish good luck for myself, but how?--LaGrandefr (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is constantly modified and User:PericlesofAthens is used to editing the article little by little, it's difficult to find in which hour or in which day they deleted the arguments added by me. But I still try finding some. It's more evident that the 2 tables, Ming's administrative division in Tibet and the Tibetan lamas appointed by Ming were ceaselessly deleted by someone. Even sourced, some user can still ask the source in deleting the source cited. And if you look here, you'll see Ming court put to use the policy «managing Tibet according to conventions and customs, granting more titles and setting up more organs» (因俗以治，多封眾建) over Tibet.[1] modified (deleted already many times). The paragraph Meanwhile, Chen states that HOU Xian (候顯) was sent by Ming court in 1413 to Tibet, ordering the Phagmodru to give back the Sakya Monastery to Sakya, which shows Ming court has the power to resolve the arguments among the religious sects in Tibet.[2] and bestowed a seal to lead all the Buddhists of During his stay in Nanjing, Deshin Shekpa was bestowed with the title Great Treasure Prince of Dharma (大寶法王) by Yongle.[3] were also deleted, etc. And this is just a large revision of one time. There're much more if we make the small revision. I had to monitor each sourced argument added by me these days to know if they were deleted or not. It's very exhausting!--LaGrandefr (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your Wikipedia Skills
You've got to be a Top 10 all-time Wikipedian. Every error I make, you're right there to correct it. You may be a robot of some sort. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have every 24 article (redirects, merged articles, and current articles) watchlisted, therefore, when an edit is made to a 24 related article, I know. I also have a watchlist script, so when my watchlist changes, I get a small notification. So, yes, I pick up after "errors". And for the record, I'm not a robot, however, I do have one, SteveCrossinBot. I'll mainly use it for the 24 Project. Which reminds me.... Steve Crossin(talk)(review)16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have me confused with someone else. I've made just a few edits on 24wikia over the years - have not even registered an account there (yet). I do not have any issues of the Official 24 Magazine either. SeanMooney (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bot Adding Banner to Image Talk?
Umm its a little peculiar that your bot is adding the 24 Wikiproject banner to image talk. It is inappropriate for WikiProject banners to be added to Image talk :/...so I'm going to go ahead and delete those. You may want to take a look at your bot's coding before running it again.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No that's ok. I took a look at some other WikiProjects and I didn't realize how its becoming more typical to add them to image talk now. Sorry if I seemed brash and deleted them so quickly...there was a situation recently with a bot that went out of control and created thousands of unnecessary under a 100k subpages. No worries though, feel free to get the bot to add them back if you like.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have promoted yet another DYK. Also, if a user adds a comment like "fuck" or anything similar to an article when not necessary, what warning should be used?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 23:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I'm guessing that Ausralia has a different time than here in America. Anyway, I think I will sitck with DYK creating/nominating/expanding for a while as I am quite experienced with that. Congrats, and thank you. ;) -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it yesterday. If I remember, it delivers newsletters or something similar such as notices. I'll look at it again.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I see no assignment so this is just like the Copyright assignment I guess. I learned a few extra things but I pretty much know templates due to my userpage made up of pretty much templates. Also, are you going to mark on my adoption page "done" for the Templates and Copyright assignment?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Sure, as you know, I like helping others. I just wanted to help a user but I don't intend to actually adopt the user. I just wanted to give him/her a few tips until an adopter shows up. Is that okay? Also, when you have the chance, please reply to the sectiion above.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its OK, just don't get ahead of yourself. If you are unsure on something, ask me, or point them to me. Regrading the above section, yes, technically, there is no assignment to do, however, if you could create a few example templates, that would help demonstrate what you learned.
Additionally, if you have a wikiproject that needs notices/newsletters delivered, I can do it. My bot is flagged, so has no edit delays, as in, it can run unattended. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)05:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but can I create any template such as userboxes? Also, I currently have nothing to deliver, but if I find the need to, I'll ask.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure we'll use You in the future, as You are willing to deliver the newsletter. And it went well today... I'll give You a notice in the beginning of the month (1-10 day). Naturally please remember to check if new members are on the list before delivery. Thanks again. feydey (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in that case, i will move the pages i made into my bot`s userspace, as i change my sandboxes quite often. If you could keep a list of people who join each month, it would help a lot. Regards, Steve Crossin(talk)(review)10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that asking someone to review you is different than asking someone to !vote on something. I'm sorry, I didn't know. I'll stop. But what if you ask an adopter or admin coach? Is that canvassing?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user removed the content of the section, but after my revert, I think the IP rephrased the one I reverted. After the IP rephrased it, it was still vandalism as another user revertit it, so another user agreed with me.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just to be sure, I'll just add the link for now. I'll be offline soon. Cheers. BTW, I removed the template just in case also off your talk page--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 07:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
are 11 May 2008 at 15:00 UTC, or something like that. Click the link in the header to be taken to the (link that holds) the mystery realms of IRC and Skype. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because he would like to thank you for deliving "spam" about a meetup, Basketball110My story/Tell me yours has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Would you be willing to withdraw the MfD nomination for Award Center if we could come to an agreement on the sections to be axed (the ones you particularly disagree with)? WBOSITG's approach, while bold and unusually effective, isn't my preferred method of cleanup: I'd rather discuss and come to a general consensus before the axing is done. Anyway, as for the sections you mentioned.... I'm willing to ax the Recent Changes Patrol. When you mentioned the this whole section, I agree with you to a point: I believe that welcoming 1000 new users is beneficial, as it is an important outreach effort that introduces new Wikipedians to the complicated bureaucracy we have nowadays. My first in-depth Wikipedia efforts were due to somebody welcoming me (albeit, with a warning). This is already closed to new participants and will be deleted once I have heard back from those who signed up originally. This section is, for all intensive purposes, dead. As for the AFD challenge, while I don't agree to it personally, I'd rather not cut it because I did not sponsor it. I am simply the host of the Award Center; I do not wish to be its dictator (even a benevolent one). If you disagree with it, I suggest you talk to its sponsor (MFC). I look forward to your reply. --SharkfaceT/C21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's look. The sections I mentioned in the MFD, I have genuine issues with. All the sections I mentioned in the MFD have reasons I added them to the MFD, the sections such as improving articles, I'm fine with. I'll list the concerns.
Welcome 1000 users: Very poor idea. In theory, could be good, but in practice, not good at all. Think of the amount of time it takes to welcome one user. Multiply that by 1000. A while to complete, no? Then, think how long it takes to look at a new users contributions, check the diffs, then give them the proper welcome, eg, if their first edit was vandalism, eg "penis", we don't want to be saying, Thank you for your contributions, when they vandalised an article, do we? While not explicitly encouraged in the "challenge", I have no doubt that this has occurred.
Edit Count.: I think this one is rather obvious. Encourages quantity of edits, while the quality is something that is of more significance. I'll elaborate if necessary, but I think the reasons are quite clear.
Help Related. More about the "amount" of things. Adopt 5 users- absolutely terrible idea, that's my main issue in this MFD, but all others I have serious issues with. As seen in the MFD of RyRy's adoption program, there was a severe issue with people who were inexperienced, providing new users with poor info. I feel the Adopt section has serious flaws and issues, and has to go. 200 questions, same issue, there's no real need for this award at all. Altruism (ethics) is a very good thing.
Regarding your concerns... you make a highly compelling argument for the closing of Welcoming 1000 Users. I must say, I am impressed; I thought that my natural-born stubbornness (an innate trait, I'm afraid) would keep me from being swayed. Alas, I was wrong. That being said, I am willing to compromise. I would graciously close all of the sections you mentioned in exchange for a withdrawal of the MfD. Closure of the sections would entail me ensuring that there would be no new signups, and the sponsors and those participants would each be given notice (which would have me notifying over 50 Wikipedians). Only after everything is sorted out (awards for those close to completing, consolation prizes, thanks, etc.) will the sections be removed from the page. While I could just remove the sections now, diving into various pages of edit history to track down users (notifying of close, examining the work they have done, etc.) is a major pain that can result in silly mistakes. If those sections are to be closed, I wish to do it correctly; if analogy were to be used, I hope my methods are closer to the cleanup Western Europe after WWII under the Marshall Plan than the current day occupation of Iraq. I hope you find these conditions to be most accommodating. Many thanks --SharkfaceT/C22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certtainly didn't seem as it failed miserably; rather, I think that re-moving it to project space and trimming a lot would remove some of the Sharkface-ish elemants. From that point on, we could establish a concensus upon which should and shouldn't be there. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed]23:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) On my own talk page
True, and this?, well, it's not about one user being in "control" of the page, really. The Wikipedia community generally have a good clue about things, and I think the removal of certain things that has been suggested on the MFD, are something the community would have removed too. But some of these ideas are perfectly fine, but others, well...Steve Crossin(talk)(review)23:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It most likely result in the entire page being deleted. As for the "Sharkface-ish" elements... I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you accusing me for having all those so-called undesirable sections (Recent Changes patrol nonwithstanding). The vast majority of my edits to the page have been for article improvement. --SharkfaceT/C23:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(double ec, Steve said it better) And if we establish a concensus to delete it later on, fine, if no, not. I'm simply referring to the fact that you have the ultimate say in some of the callenges. I'm not even accusing you of the undesirable sections, rather more or less allowing them to stay. If we move it to projectspace it no longer becomes "your" page and, while you can add most of the content, if the concensus is to reject something an editor would do so. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed]23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most true, entire deletion would be an issue of sorts, but having it in userspace, as aformentioned, means the Wikipedia community has more of a say in the Award Center, and which challenges should be "weeded out", ie, the ones that focus on the quantity of edits, not the quality of them. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^"Did Tibet Become an Independent Country after the Revolution of 1911?" Liu Muyan, Liu Limei, 1994 [9]
![[1]](http://members.tripod.com/makeitsomarketing/PIC24JACKBAUERFORBLOG.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
