User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 37

Mattissee

Hi, I was thinking to move all the detail regarding User:Vanished 6551232 from the mattissee SPI page and create a separate page for it, would this be more correct as that is the user I am asserting the connection? Off2riorob (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but as the case is still being discussed internally, I don't think any changes should be made for now. Steve Public (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will of course accept any internal decision regarding this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Additions to a SPI that you clerked

I apologise for creating a moving target but since you clerked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vikraantkaka#29_June_2011 I have come across two registered users who may be connected to the original case. I have added those to the SPI since it has not yet been closed. You may want to take a look, but I apologise if I am wasting your time. There is something fishy going on but working out what is problematic. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:NewDRNsubmission

Hi again Steve! This is just to let you know I left a message on WP:DRN talk about the template I made. New features and docs are now finished :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion titles mediation

I'll tell you right now, if we don't see significantly more response, your idea, regardless of its merits, isn't going anywhere. A way must be found to increase participation. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to force someone to participate, mediation in itself is voluntary. It might be a good idea to send another round of notifications, but this time, with wording that encourages them to add their opinion eg "A proposal has been made to rename the two abortion articles to completely new names". The idea, which is located at Link, is currently open for opinions. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated" or something like that anyway. That should hopefully kick the discussion up a gear. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think giving some additional exposure to that discussion is a good idea. But personally I think the matter is likely to have been settled which is why I haven't made any further points. Unless there is a big change in opinion after 30 days you should just move the articles to their new titles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is mentioned on the abortion-rights talk page, but notifying involved parties (as listed on the mediation talk page) might be a wise move to take. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I did that as soon as that list was made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but it might be wise to post them a reminder like the one I recommended. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, between Eraserhead and I, I think it's safe to say that every single editor who touched either of those two pages over the past year has been notified. We'll just have to see what happens. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the input has certainly increased significantly. Good luck to you sorting out all the opinions. No rush, though. I think you should wait at least a month before deciding anything. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, input has increased. I think letting discussion carry on for a little while will be a good idea here, but things are definitely moving along. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I replied just now, in the "new responses" section. Steven, I can't help but wonder what you think is going to be achieved here. From the outside it appears that you're overreaching rather significantly. Mediation isn't actually binding on anyone, even the participants, let alone those who aren't directly involved. I think you (and the rest of the participants) would be wise to consider this point, and think about what it is all of you are trying to achieve.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh...you do realise that I am the mediator you mentioned here. Heh, bot? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I know. Just thought it made sense for you to see what I was posting. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

John's comments

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattisse#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments

Based on John's comments, Mattisse is Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated to BarkingMoon.

Hi Steven. I think you have taken that a bit wrong, as I see it that is noting official just Johns person opinion of the discussion, as I see it, all of his comment there are in that regard, perhaps you could verify that with him? I don't know how this case is going, there was stated that the user was going to make some kind of statement or I was going to be made by an admin but nothing has come of that yet..User_talk:BarkingMoon#talk_soon - I know it was holiday in US so lets see what occurs but imo we do need some kind of resolution/statement on this. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please mark my Permissions Assigment

Hi Steven, Can you please mark my Permissions Assignment. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the assignment from here (I assume you meant Policies). It's not a graded assignment though, but I will look over it now and tell you what I think. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 19:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, I'm trying to submit my first article: Zalman FTP Client. I saw that you erased all my content, for a while now I keep improving it and trying to make it a good value for wikipedia - i'm not sure what I should do to improve it. I use this software and I want to help the company by adding the software to wikipedia so that other will know about it.

Hope you can help me better understand how to improve it and get it approved.

Thanks

Clix99 (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the content so you can work on it, but the article you're writing still does not focus on the issues at hand, namely, why that software is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. The problem is, we could add the article to Wikipedia, but other users could delete the content as the article still does not assert as to why it is widely known about enough, and mentioned in places like news, books, magazines to have a Wikipedia entry. I hope this helps. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please mark Policies

Steve, please remember to sign my policies assignment today and just to tick it off, it'd be nice to see if it was done by I wake up! - PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 23:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Deadlocked

Template:Deadlocked refers to User:Steve Crossin/Template:Time in its doc, which has been deleted. I was going to edit Deadlocked/doc to match the example usage to that in Stuck. But this isn't straightforward as Deadlocked uses different wording and the username doesn't fit in. There currently aren't that many pages using the template. Do you think you'd please be able to update the template to make it more obvious for editors to use? Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I've had the page restored, and updated the documentation to reflect the new location. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice one - that looks as if it's working OK. --Trevj (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Awarded to you... a barnstar for you

	Thepoliticalmaster's unique and special barnstar
	I awarded this to other people but you share the same political views as I do so you definetly deserve it! :-) - PoliMaster talk/spy 22:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

hi

Dear Sir. Hello to my adopter! My question is:just how does one acquire a Barnstar? Is it awarded randomly by people. If in fact it is, I don't want one, because it doesn't hold water in Jim Steele's book. But if it is for good work and for great editing then I want one!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Most often it's awarded by editors when they spot good work by you, see User:Steven Crossin/Awards for some examples. Sometimes it's awarded randomly, but this is kinda rare. But it's awarded at an editor's discretion, they're not things awarded by asking :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Crossin. Indeed, I was just kidding about wanting one. As you taught me, editing should be done for the better of the project, not for decorations. I would like to present you with one, good sir, but in my faith and tradition it is a Zen Barnstar. You will only see it when clapping that one hand. Oy!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do?

Hi Steve, I've completed the Wikimarkup assignment here. I think it's quite good, but it's up to you ;-). Although please LOL when looking and ticking it off!-- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 17:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Steven, what is the assignment for the templates task?-- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 09:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikimarkup looks good. I hope you've learned something in terms of formatting stuff on pages. :) As for the templates assignment, just play around with the templates mentioned in a sandbox. It's not a graded assessment. It's just there to give you an understanding of templates and how they work. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

SteveBot must be in a very welcoming mood

Hey Steve, this is about SteveBot. I had welcomed a number of people (for example User talk:HighConflictExpert) and now their talk pages list the bot as who to contact if they need help! I'm envisioning some very confused people. And even if nobody is confused it bothers me that the edit is accidentally turning an already slightly impersonal template that is at least from a real person into something even more impersonal.

Is there some way to change the work that you are doing so the welcome message is not changed? I admit I don't understand templates enough yet to really get what "Substituting various User talk: templates. ROBOT EDIT." means and I assume it's something that needs doing, but it's turning a welcome from a fellow editor into a bot welcome. Cloveapple (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also does the bot edit mean that I used the template incorrectly?? Cloveapple (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it does mean that. See, your initial edit didn't actually have your signature at all see link. A lot of templates are designed to be substituted, that means, instead of typing {{welcome}}, you type {{subst:welcome}} and this will provide the proper result. All my bot does is substitute templates that are supposed to be substituted but have not been. You can find more info at WP:SUBST. Hope this helps. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This confused me for a good few days because I'd done lots of welcomes that worked out. Then I realized that this was the first one I'd done from memory instead of copying and pasting. Ahh well, I think a part of Wikipedia is learning to make mistakes in public.<sheepish grin> Cloveapple (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your adoptee/mentee

Please see my comment at User talk:Thepoliticalmaster#Edit restrictions (permalink). I am concerned that your adoptee is violating the terms of his unblock. I have no idea of his history with User:Anna Frodesiak; however, I was prepared earlier to block him if he made one more disruptive edit to her or another user's talk page - he appears to have stopped editing for a while. Thanks for working so hard to try to rehabilitate users, I have done it before myself and its frequently futile and normally unappreciated. I think it's some of the most important work on Wikipedia.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Steven, I did mention this to you earlier, in order not to put you into disrepute and your further request for you know what and when:

1. I am primarily prepared to accept a block if need be (only with consensus of the community)
2. Secondarily I have now left this situation alone and have not edited that user's page again. Instead any comments which needed to be made were made to Doug on his user talk page.
3. Also I have made him aware that I am allowed to edit all user talk pages as we discussed on IRC
4. Also I mentioned this to you earlier and you knew my position on it earlier, it seems that Anna has gathered up her experienced user and admin friends to go against me even though she has been left alone
5. If you accept the block, then it shall be
   

-- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 15:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

For what is probably just a tiny part of the back story, see User_talk:Sitush#IRC and Anna. I think that TPM may have misunderstood the situation with regard to who can do what on talk pages. I can't say that I am too thrilled with the comment at 4 above, either: when several people of good standing adopt a position that is contrary to one being taken by a single individual then that is usually a sign that consensus is forming or has formed. Of course, you know all this but it seems that TPM is not getting it. I am loathe to tread on your toes & so will leave explanations etc to you, with my apologies if I have landed you with even more work than you already undertake! - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment made here is seen below as a reply to Sitush.

You also mentioned that here I was refactoring, if one of my comments that was a reply is going to be removed here and the edit summary says "I told you to stay off my talk page" then I find it justifiable to remove all of my comments from that page.-- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 16:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether Steven Crossin would like me gone, I guess I'm too much to have here, I seem to be making a bad name for him and disrupting his time. So if you would like me gone Steven, please tell me. It definetly seems to be the comments from Sitush and Doug. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies to all, as I live in Australia, all this happened while I was asleep. Looking over things now. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No I'm the one that is sorry for getting you in this situation Steven. - PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 22:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't solve the problem with that user, nor did you answer before I accept the agreement. - PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 22:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to clarify what you mean here. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment I made below is what I wanted a response to please. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 08:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Reply to this please

I'm wondering whether Steven Crossin would like me gone, I guess I'm too much to have here, I seem to be making a bad name for him and disrupting his time. So if you would like me gone Steven, please tell me. It definetly seems to be the comments from Sitush and Doug. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I want at all, but it is important that you improve. Personally I have a lot of patience (working in complaints for the biggest telco in the country gives you a lot of patience) so I'm not deterred too much. This is a step in the wrong direction but as long as you realise what you've done wrong and what you will do different in future then we can move forward from here. It's also important you be honest with me, and not say one thing to me on irc and something else to someone else. That really has to stop, from now. As for me and giving me a bad name, my name is already bad :p. That was my own doing three years ago. Whether people's opinion of me has changed I will soon find out. For my sake I hope it has. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Huawei followup

Hello Steven, thank you for your previous encouragement and help with my edits to the Huawei article. As you suggested, I have been proceeding with edits to the article without seeking approval, however to be as careful as possible I have recently placed my proposed changes to the Huawei#Criticisms_and_controversy section on the Talk page for discussion with other editors. The Talk page note is here: Talk:Huawei#Assessing_and_improving_.22Criticisms_and_controversy.22_section I would appreciate any thoughts you might offer. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, I've had a look over the proposed changes, they look really good. I'd say go ahead and make the edits, but it wouldn't hurt to get outside opinions on the talk page. That said, I've never found a problem with the Bold, revert, discuss cycle either. All the best, Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and advice, Steven. I think that I will go ahead with the changes, as there has still not been any comment on the Talk page, but I will continue to watch for other editors offering input. Thank you again. --Bouteloua (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Linda McMahon DRN thread

Hi Steven, I'd really appreciate your advice on what to do with WP:DRN#Linda McMahon. It's turned into a bit of a free-for-all, and I'm not sure what the next step should be. Do you have any ideas of how we can get the discussion back on track? I had considered it as a candidate for Medcab just for the extra structure that would provide, but I'm not certain if all the parties involved will listen to each other enough to go through with it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching and reading over the discussion closely, as well as into looking at the links provided, I just haven't commented much at this time. The discussion has been quite long, MedCab wouldn't provide much more structure than DRN has at present. If the discussion gets excessively long it can always be moved to a subpage, but MedCab won't add much in terms of structure. The issue I see here is that in the lead the sentence under discussion is not backed up by the source provided. I still think that it'd be best to use a generic term in the lead and something else perhaps later on in the page. I'm going to watch the case a bit closer now, but it's late here and I'm off to bed soon. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about the subpaging option. I agree with you about the issue here as well. I think I'll also leave it alone for today, and we can see if there are any new developments tomorrow. Thanks, as always. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Winterbottom close

I just wanted to say that I thought that was a good close - to be honest, the consensus was clearly to keep, although I agree with you "paragraph in another article" suggestion - but I don't feel strongly enough to start a discussion about it! I am considering starting a RfC about which awards should be considered to automatically make the recipient notable as in the case of the MoH and the VC, when I get time! Again, good closure! Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I have to admit when I saw this as a new section...I thought crap...a complaint. But I did think over the close carefully, so I'm glad you think it was a decent close. All the best, Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC advice

Hi Steven,
Sorry for bothering, but I just wanted to quickly ask you if this report needs a second signer if others commented on the DRN and RSN? Are they considered a second attempt to resolve the dispute, or do I need to look for individuals? Probably you remember the Zakat section on the DRN... Thanks ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no problem. While DRN and RSN have been used, another user will still need to endorse the RFC as well. It's a safety valve that's inbuilt into the system to ensure that RFC's aren't just created for no reason. I'll have a look over it and I might endorse it, but it might be best to seek someone who's actually involved in the issues. Best of luck, Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hi Steven, I was wondering when you were going to review some of my GANs. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Been pretty busy recently, but I'll work on it when I get some free time. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Steven Crossin

A tag has been placed on User:Steven Crossin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Testing something

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If you get deleted are we allowed to re-create you? ;-) Cloveapple (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yes, you could. I was testing a new script in my .js file. This presents a possible lesson. The speedy deletion criteria, G4, which covers recreation of deleted content, only applies if it was deleted at a deletion discussion, or deletion review with the recreated content being very similar to the deleted content. It doesn't apply to speedy deletions or to deletions that were done via a proposed deletion, however other speedy deletion criteria may apply (if a promotional article is deleted as an advertisement by speedy deletion, it could be re-tagged as an ad if its recreated.) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Been thinking this one over. As far as I can see I'll never be able to use G4 (unless I become an admin) because I have no way of knowing if a new article is the same content as a previous article with the same name. At least I went to check an article that I know had a previous version and I sure couldn't see any indication of what that previous version had in it. Cloveapple (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, somewhat true yes. Though of course it will be possible to see if the page is one that has been recreated (by looking at the the logs of the page to see if it's been deleted/protected/moved in the past). Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never looked at that log. Not even sure where to look. Going to look at an article now to see where it is. It also occurs to me that the "What links here" bit would show me if an article of the same name was ever Afd. Cloveapple (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Found the log's link near the top of the history page. Interesting. I see a different incarnation of an article I've been working on was originally speedied for G11 & A7. That reminds me, I should tell you I've still been working away at the speedies. It's just slow going. Sometimes I just get edit conflicts. Sometimes I look up after two hours and realize I've just spent the whole time salvaging new articles. And then of course I'm doing other editing too. Got to say I recently came to appreciate the Afd practice. A new pages article I was trying to fix got Afd and I was very glad it wasn't my first time there though it was still a bit of an adenaline ride. Cloveapple (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Saving new articles as opposed to deletion is a very good thing, so kudos to you for doing that. As for AFD, I don't participate in it much. Too much other stuff to work on. :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Closure recommendation

Hi, Steven, I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Let me recommend that Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dartmouth_College be closed. One of the editors in that dispute requested a Third Opinion (though it was from an IP, it was almost certainly NBruschi based on the edit pattern at the article talk page) while the other, a few minutes later, listed it at DRN. While I don't see the DRN listing as being an attempt at canvassing, in the current DR hierarchy 3O is a higher form of DR than DRN and DRN says that it shouldn't be used if any other form of discussion is pending. Though no 3O has yet been given, the DRN listing ought to be closed. (I'm not certain that 3O should be higher, BTW; indeed, I feel pretty strongly that DRN, or CNB if it survives, ought to come after 3O in the hierarchy, but that's not the way it is right now.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm going to remove it from 3O instead. Thanks, though. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. For what it's worth, the reason that DRN is where it is on the hierarchy of the {{Dispute-resolution}} template is because I added it that way when I updated the template. I do agree that DRN should be kicked up to something higher on the scale, but honestly, I added it there on the template as I saw it as a starting point for DR, when people aren't sure where to go with an issue. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Steven, let me start by applauding you for trying to improve DR. Whether in the long run your idea works or does not work, you deserve the sincere gratitude of the community for making and pursuing the effort to improve the system. Now down to suggestions: As I implied in my comment here, I don't think there's currently enough to distinguish DRN from RFC. I'm an old hand at 3O and if I correctly surmise what's implied in your comments just above, I'd guess that the difference that you see is that DRN is intended to be much earlier and much less formal than RFC, perhaps something akin to WP:EA with a dispute on the table or 3O with answers from multiple editors rather than just one. Could I suggest that DRN might distinguish itself from the other DR processes by expressly providing that the opinions and resolutions given are non-binding? 3O has that provision and what it means, at least in my opinion, is that Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus on the matter in dispute. That turns a 3O into something approaching advice, not consensus-building. By doing so, DRN would come to be something like a 4th Opinion source. Whether or not you think that is a good idea, let me also recommend that you take a look at the neutrality requirements at 30, add something like them to DRN, and require people entering the discussion to identify themselves as either "involved" or "neutral" with neutrality based on those standards. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiment. Having worked with dispute resolution processes from not long after I joined Wikipedia, I've always felt there's a missing piece in the DR puzzle, especially since I've seen lots of disputes filed at the wrong place (ANI for content disputes, MedCab foe conduct issues) so I hope DRN is the missing piece in the puzzle. As for opinions and resolutions being non-binding, in content disputes, no resolutions are binding, that's how content disputes work. Only conduct disputes, which are not handled much by DRN, can be given binding resolution, and this is generally through Arbcom or discretionary sanctions, which are laid out by Arbcom anyways. As for the second option, dunno if it's really important if people list their comments as involved or uninvolved. It seems a bit like Arbcom to me there. I don't feel that opinions should be looked upon differently if someone's involved in the dispute, it should be weighed depending on the strength of the arguments they make. DRN has flaws, all DR processes do, so of course it's free to be tweaked and played with. It's still in it's infancy, so I'm sure over time it will improve and get better. Cheers. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No a content dispute

Please, check contributions this IP. No a content dispute, is vandalism. 187.91.17.44 (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked over their edits, and I can't see the vandalism. They seem to be adding information to the article as I am unfamiliar with the subject I cannot be sure if it is correct or not, but adding accidental misinformation is not vandalism. Could you be more specific about which edits are vandalism please? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• The articles refer to events in the TNA and not WWE, noted the issues, correct version and false. Check history of Sacrifice and history of Slammiversary IX. 187.91.17.44 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • They've been blocked now, so it's kinda a moot point. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just saw your adoption page

I just saw your adoption page (you had it linked on the admin noticeboards). You did a great job with it! In fact, there's a lot there that I didn't know about. I can tell you've put a lot of effort into it , and time as well ! Nice work ! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was originally created (some of the lessons) by Hersfold (see User:Hersfold/Adopt) back in the day, but I updated a lot of the lessons and assignments to reflect current times, as well as wrote a few new ones. it's not perfect but it's not bad I guess. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

GW

I've placed a comment re your close of the SPI. Orderinchaos 01:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, spotted and replying. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)