User talk:Steveozone

(cur) (prev) 09:59, 6 January 2008 BJBot (talk | contribs) (1,040 bytes) (BJBot, deletion notification.)

That's right; no one else has posted here, at all, ever. Not even a welcome template for me here. No, don't apologize, and please don't give me one; it's become a badge of pride (well, the sandbox bot was at first refreshing, but not at all welcoming, and in fact very unwelcome in the end; I've not any real interest in such a machine anyway, really).

Here it is, my space, completely fresh, swept clean of my sandbox stuff, for your comfort. You are the first to post here, until I delete this introductory congratulation (think carefully, and be gentle, as I will always remember my first; no "welcome" templates please):

(18 months later...)

Words[edit]

I am a little nervous posting here, but wanted to say what beautiful and meaningful words you left on GTBacchus' page."A pure apology is an act of grace..." Lovely. (olive (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, thanks <blush>. It's only words; but words are all we have...

I suspect that the "apologies" envisioned by those expecting them here vary according to the same idiosyncratic viewpoints from which each of us seems to envision "civility." Then again, however unworkable and broken Wikipedia's Civility guidelines may be, at least most folks here try to come up with better words than "your stoopid." Steveozone (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to mention that I wasn't sure how what you were saying applied to GTB, but in my opinion he's one of the "very best" on Wikipedia... and I've never seen incivility to be a problem in his case. (olive (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oops... not a criticism just a comment on the editor :o)(olive (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Now you need some pictures... nothing like a picture or two to liven things up.(olive (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In re: de facto e pluribus unum[edit]

chuckle* Actually, I do use most of those words in everyday conversation - except, ironically enough, the two non-latin terms you mention. ;) At any rate, though, the point is well-made (my wife rolls her eyes at the first hint of latin on the horizon) and appreciated. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know the feeling. When I (rarely) slip up with them, my colleagues do the same. Steveozone (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central Valley[edit]

Hi there, I've just joined the California Wikiproject. I'm dropping you a note because I notice you're interested in the Valley. I am interested in working with a group of editors to improve the Central Valley's Wikipedia presence. For example, the Central Valley (California) article is assessed "top importance" but has the lowest possible quality rating. You seem especially interested in water infrastructure. I'm a student of water law and would like to better highlight the role of water in the Valley, especially the CVP/SWP. If you're willing to help with ideas or writing, then by all means drop by the project talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California. Thanks! ferretstew (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesia[edit]

I don't actually have any problems with you personally; the tone you sense from me on that page is perhaps more reflective of annoyance at the original change (which was clearly ideological rather than based on any knowledge), and on having to repeatedly deal with those who seem to want to distort facts on that ideological basis. Still, that's Wikipedia :). P.S. I, too, value the services of a good cardiologist...as distinct from a compliant one :) - Nunh-huh 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as always, speaking strictly hypothetically, a cardiologist not additionally trained in the administration of anaesthesia, who administered propofol to anyone, anywhere, would be found too compliant - not by me, but by the responsible authorities. Allegedly. :) - Nunh-huh 04:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read In re Rose[edit]

If you actually read In re Rose, you would realize that the Court held that an attorney has NO RIGHT to a de novo review before the Supreme Court of California. The Court held that it can summarily deny the defendant's petition for review. There is no oral argument, no briefing, no decision, and no review. To say that the Court routinely reviews the State Bar's recommendations implies that it reviews them on the merits (in the sense of actually reviewing the record and allowing briefing and hearing argument), which is ridiculous in light of In re Rose. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, friend, I'm quite familiar with Rose, and I've replied on your talk. Steveozone (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modesto[edit]

Just dropping a line to mention I noticed your comment at the Modesto, California listing. Hope we can all keep that listing accurate and not over glorified. Am trying not to be too negative about the town, but know the area quite well WonderWheeler (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration filed[edit]

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list. --Lambiam 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re suppression[edit]

I have responded at User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Still_confused_re:_suppressed_edit.

If my explanation doesn't make sense, please let me know and I will try to explain it better. It is useful to have a new user perspective on how suppression affected them.

Also, belatedly welcome to Wikipedia! ;-)

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more explanation on my talk page.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hushpuckena[edit]

Have you actually communicated with this editor? Ever? Because he is being discussed at AN/I right now, and has yet to respond. Any insight would be appreciated. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doc, thanks for the feedback. I've responded on your page to make it easier. Now that people are actually posting here, I should probably decide whether the threads stay here or move back to the talkpage of the OP. I haven't done so. Here's my reply:

Ah, good, here's a place for me to reply without starting one. Hi, Doc, in response to your message on mine, I'm aware of ANI, and I've never said anything to this editor except my post on his talk page. That post was intended to give him a little nudge, in a troutlike manner. I'm not too afraid that I might irritate him, although if he does react that way, perhaps if he is thinking about the feedback generated by his actions (as I'm sure that he is) he'll be able to see the playfulness and see that I didn't/don't think he did anything wrong, and don't intend to irritate him (and if not, oh well, I tried). The Trout kinda does that, no? I've posted to ANI. He might be wrong on the grammar issue, but that issue is a stupid one to argue about, and I think he's right to point it out, since it's the template language that is causing the problem, and that template can be fixed in a way that avoids the grammar debate (my mom would be proud). Steveozone (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related issue, I should probably tell everyone who might post here that my preference is to keep threads here. I'll make a notice at the top of my talk page when I get around to it. Steveozone (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it: thanks! I hope Hushpuckena starts "gabbing", because he needs to. It's part of "being a member of the community". No editor is an island. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and many of we (us?) editors (like me) are also trying to communicate in our own peculiar way, as Kris Kristofferson and perhaps others often try to to remind us. Steveozone (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Paul Simon, Kris, Waters and Gilmour. I wish I could write a "catchy tune" or two like them... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well those guys just show I'm old enough to know better, but still trying to fly solo, and now I'm wondering if I'd go crazy if I paid attention all the time. I want justice, but I'd settle for some mercy. Huh. Is that what civility means? Steveozone (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting a little "cryptic" on me: I see that you're a "deep" editor, and it probably flew right over my head. Anyhoo, do you think that he should be blocked for, oh, say 12 hours for disruptive editing/incivility for refusing to communicate with other editors? I think that it would be "preventative" rather than "punitive": it's a very short block that would hopefully be appealed with an unblock request, and we can finally hear his take on the matter. It's not acceptable to refuse to discuss things (like we are now). I don't mind "irritating" him at all, really. What do you think? :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, I think that people who can only find ways to criticize somebody's grammar are irritating, and they ought to be shown their own hypocrisy. But, nevertheless, grammatical error should be corrected, and those who are passing on the worth of someone ought to recognize the value of grammarians here. He is communicating. Not necessarily in a "good" way, but there you have it (grammar is very "rule bound" after all). I would hope that there would be no need to block until and unless and only after he for some reason persists in misbehavior after the community makes some effort to address the problem that he saw; a problem that he tried to address, in his own peculiar way. A problem that I think is real, and that has not yet been addressed by the community. (I really love/hate ANI; it's where souls are bared, but it's so hard to say what should be said). Steveozone (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated that his edits are good and that he is a valuable editor; and I do believe this. His "misbehavior" is failure to respond to the AN/I (and all the requests from Omnedon) - and he's still editing, so it's not like "he didn't see it". It is disruptive to do this, as I have learned through this unusual case. I'm thinking 12 hours is not unreasonable, unless he can be "coerced" into responding somewhere. Again, it's not just about the grammar: it's about civility when interacting within the community. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are saying, Doc, and I actually agree with you, except for the "disruption" part. I just think this is an opportunity to see something bigger than yet another editor who is scared of engaging in talk pages. Hush has a point that all apparently agree has some merit. Why are we talking about him rather than solving the problem? He's not changing the questioned phrasing to something obscene or profane; he's just turning one arguably ungrammatical phrase into another arguably ungrammatical phrase (which is of no greater or lesser merit); over and over. Wouldn't it be better for that effort to be directed toward a phrasing that avoids this claim of grammatical error? Steveozone (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest[edit]

Hi, could I refer you to Talk:Mount Everest concerning the addition of a summary of a book by its author. I reverted the author's original article addition as it clearly contravened wikiquette, but he does appear to be an authority on the subject. Viewfinder (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa[edit]

Hello. I ran across your work-in-progress User:Steveozone/Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa sometime ago and just wondering what further plans you have for it. It is a great idea for an article, I like what you have done so far and although I admittedly have not sifted through it in detail, I see no reason (other than maybe some last minute touch-ups) for you to not move the page into Wikipedia proper. Any thoughts?--Racerx11 (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC) --Racerx11 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind. I tend to go "AWOL" quite a bit, and will go for weeks sometimes without visiting here. I just haven't made the push to get Lopsang finished up and good to go. I think the references should be fixed; I'm not so good at the necessary formatting and markup. Perhaps I should just move it first, and then maybe others can have a whack at it? Steveozone (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's what I've done; thanks for the prodding. It's in article space, hopefully with reference citations in the proper form. Also, it needs to have a redirect(?) from "Lopsang Sherpa" since his middle name is not always used. Have at it. Steveozone (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out of town a few days, I will certainly see what I can do after I get settled back in. Thanks.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anj Dorje[edit]

I just took a look at the article again and have a couple things that initially jump out. Is his name spelled Dorje or Dorjee? I have always thought it was just one "e". Also the section 'Sirdar and guiding career' reads a little awkward. I changed some wording in the Hall rescue attempt part that you may want to double-check. Were he and Lhakpa Tshering together on this attempt? the whole time or no? Cant remember that detail. Still to do is the first two sentences in that section where Adventure Consultants is mentioned twice very closely and the overall flow sort of stutters getting to the point. Also the last sentence, "In addition to his work as climbing sirdar on Everest, Ang Dorjee has also guided climbs on Everest, as well as...", I know what you mean but it reads a little clumsy. He was a climbing sirdar on Everest and also guided climbs on Everest, see what I mean? Still sounds funny. We need to find a better way of saying that or not bother distinguishing the two roles.--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the last part not trying to distinguish the two roles on Everest in the same sentence. Maybe it would be better to say "In addition to his work as sirdar, Ang Dorje has also guided climbs on Everest...", linking the word guide here to call attention to the different role. Would that be ok? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I had another long look at the name spelling, and while both turn up, it seems pretty clear that the majority of references use one "e". Complicating matters, there are a number of different people with the same name, not our climbing sirdar, who are mentioned in various sources--and both spelling versions are used.

I guess it's close enough, so I'm going to give it a quick polish and move it into article space in the next day or so. Thanks for your help, again. Steveozone (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, you're certainly close enough to go live, whenever you feel comfortable with it. Take care. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Ang Dorje Sherpa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sherpa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Warburton[edit]

When this person has their own article that supports his inclusion to List of climbers and mountaineers you are welcome to add it again. Please see WP:WTAF. We don't like redlinks and while you did not actually add a redlink the link what you did was link him to the wrong person of the same name so, please don't take offense but right now, there is nothing to support adding him at this time. If he is not notable enough for an article of his own he is not notable enough to include. ww2censor (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's not what happened. You do see why the name of "this person" in a list of climbers and mountaineers is not "vandalism," don't you? Steveozone (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Warburton[edit]

I'm very happy to have my guess proven wrong on this point! I removed the link to the wrong Keith Warburton rather than making a new redlink with made-up disambiguation. Since your article on the mountaineer is in the works, I'm happy to have a new disambiguated link put in now (as a redlink) or when your article hits mainspace. --Amble (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have started the article South Georgia Survey. Please make sure the link to your Keith Warburton article, along with relevant information about him, get added there when ready. --Amble (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical details are scanty, but he seems to have been born in 1927. [3] --Amble (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the help. I'm obviously coming up with a lot of South Georgia Survey stuff in this effort, so I'll look to see if I can fill in some stuff in that article. I do agree that the disambiguation should await completion of Warburton (mountaineer)'s article; a redlink is one thing, but a redlink disambiguation is quite another. I'll put it together at my usual pace -- which means it will be up sometime before the end of the year. Steveozone (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon talk page notice[edit]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Darius Dhlomo Drive[edit]

Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Steveozone. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Steveozone. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Steveozone. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Words[edit]

In re: de facto e pluribus unum[edit]

Central Valley[edit]

Amnesia[edit]

Please read In re Rose[edit]

Modesto[edit]

Request for arbitration filed[edit]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

re suppression[edit]

Further reading re; Lopsang[edit]

Hushpuckena[edit]

Mount Everest[edit]

Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa[edit]

Anj Dorje[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Keith Warburton[edit]

Keith Warburton[edit]

Richard Nixon talk page notice[edit]

Invitation to join the Darius Dhlomo Drive[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]