User talk:Stephen/Archive March 2008

You have... seven days[edit]

Why 7 days? Usually we don't block IPs for that long. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the 20 or so edits this year has been vandalism, IP was recently blocked for 56 hours, just trying to stop this round of vandalism and also catch the next round too. --Step hen 03:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But IPs are often shared between users or physically switch computer connections. I just don't feel that a 7 day block is appropriate given that fact. Would you mind if I lowered that to 48 hours? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no constructive efforts from the IP this year, and the block does not affect logged in users and was previously blocked for 2+ days, but I have no objection if you wish to reduce. --Step hen 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just hate for it to effect well-intentioned users. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mkernatmkerndotcom[edit]

It's a promotional user name. Here's his website, which can be easily derived from the username. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out how domain names work and also the policy. I'm aware of both. Since you still think I'm wrong and apparently stupid, we'll just have to agree to disagree. He can appeal it if he wants. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my user page[edit]

I'll thank you not to edit my userpage; there are no personal attacks on that page and to suggest otherwise is misleading. --AlisonW (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that either of the pages you reference (a guideline and a policy) apply you are fere to email me, but I can find no part of my userpage which does not comply with thoe requirements of those pages. --AlisonW (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw, fyi, "sockpuppets" was added this afternoon in response to your editing that userpage without my agreement. --AlisonW (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single serving sites[edit]

Hi, could you restore this to my userspace? Thanks. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN[edit]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for coming to our rescue on ITN. We've been really frustrated at being ignored over at ITN/C and I just wanted to thank you for helping us out. -- Grant .Alpaugh 09:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SU WikiProject[edit]

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Rhea[edit]

Hi Stephen. Please note the following, which I just posted to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors regarding an item you placed on ITN:

The item on the Rings of Rhea needs more ambiguity. Clearly something unusual has been seen, but scientists are divided as to whether it is really a system of rings. This is clear enough on the Rings of Rhea page. I would suggest wording like this (changes indicated by italics and strikethrough): "NASA announces ~~the discovery~~evidence of rings around the Saturnian moon Rhea, which would be the first known rings around a moon."

Cheers, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.108.60.203[edit]

Can you review this edit? I reverted it but IP claims it's not vandalism or removing content from a page. Momusufan (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

req. undelete[edit]

Dear Steven,

I think I had not noticed before that you deleted User:Xiutwel/Copy_of:_Zeitgeist_the_Movie. Would you please undelete it? I want to have access to it, in order to improve the new article. I can blank the page, if I had not already done that.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Consigahria[edit]

You had NO right to delete my page. Sure, it hade "web content," but at least it was quoted! And, yes, it did have imporance! Do not do it again. Thank you.
-Ktdavis122789 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My request for bureaucratship[edit]

Dear Stephen, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Arthur C. Clarke[edit]

Please fix the misspelling in {{In the news}} ASAP. DHN (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bindees/Beados name of article[edit]

I noticed you reverted my article name change back to Bindeez from Beados. I thought it was Wikipedia policy to have the current known name of a product as the title, regardless of what has happened in the past with the product. Your thoughts? Thanks. --Lakeyboy (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that policy please? Beados is a recent name change, but the product is notable as Bindeez. It may be valid to change it later, but at the moment it's just a press release. --Step hen 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]